The Ugly Side Of Politics: Negative Ad Campaigns Origins

Negative political advertising has been a feature of elections for centuries, with the US in particular seeing a long history of mud-slinging in its campaigns. The earliest example of this dates back to 1800, when Thomas Jefferson's supporters falsely accused John Adams of being a monarchist, while Adams's supporters falsely labelled Jefferson an atheist. The advent of television in the 20th century brought with it the first attack ad, aired in 1952, in which Democrats accused Republicans of being two-faced. Since then, negative campaigning has become a fixture of elections, with parties employing a variety of strategies to discredit their opponents, from spreading misinformation to outsourcing attacks to outside organisations. While the effectiveness of such tactics is debated, with some studies suggesting they demobilise voters, the prevalence of negative advertising in politics remains undeniable.

Explore related products

A People's History of the United States

$18.69 $23.99

History of Political Philosophy

$33.59 $38

The Political and Strategic History of the World, Vol. 1: From Antiquity to the Caesars, 14 A.D.

$9.99 $54.99

A People's History of the United States: Abridged Teaching Edition (New Press People's History)

$19.87 $30

The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of the World: 10th Anniversary Edition

$6.96 $21

The Political and Strategic History of the World, Vol II: From the Caesars to the Peace of Westphalia and Louis XIV, A.D. 14-1661

$9.99 $69.99

The first negative political ad campaigns

Negative political campaigning has been a feature of American politics since the country's first presidential election in 1789. However, the first negative political ad campaign is generally thought to be the "'Daisy ad'", which was used by Lyndon Johnson's campaign against his opponent, Barry Goldwater, in the 1964 United States presidential election.

The "Daisy ad" was a one-minute television commercial, widely considered to be the first political attack ad. It suggested that Goldwater was a reckless warmonger who could not be trusted with nuclear weapons. The ad played on fears of nuclear war, which were heightened at the time due to the Cuban Missile Crisis and the release of Kubrick's film, Dr. Strangelove. The commercial showed a little girl picking petals from a daisy, followed by a voiceover counting down from ten to one, and then cutting to footage of a nuclear explosion. The ad implicitly framed Goldwater as a hot-tempered politician who would bring about nuclear holocaust if elected.

The Daisy ad set a precedent for negative political ad campaigns, and it was highly effective in influencing public opinion. Johnson won the election by a large margin of 22% and the ad's impact was such that it was said to have gone "viral before there was a viral".

While the Daisy ad is often cited as the first negative political ad, there is a longer history of negative campaigning in the US. As early as the 1800 election, Thomas Jefferson's supporters called John Adams a "monarchist", and Adams's supporters labelled Jefferson an "atheist". These mud-slinging tactics continued and, in 1920, a Democratic whisper campaign spread rumours that Warren G. Harding had Black ancestors. In 1936, the first radio advertising using negative campaigning was employed by the Republican Party.

The effectiveness of negative ad campaigns

Proponents of negative ad campaigns argue that they can be highly effective in influencing voters and shaping their opinions. Insults and attacks tend to capture people's attention, and negative information is often more memorable than positive information. This idea is supported by UC Davis psychology professor Alison Ledgerwood's research, which suggests that people are more likely to respond favorably to information framed in terms of success rather than failure. Additionally, Ledgerwood and her team found that negative attacks influence everyone, including the attacker's supporters, and that once a negative idea is planted, it can be challenging to shake it off.

The history of political campaigns in the United States provides several examples of negative ad campaigns that have been deemed effective. For instance, in 1952, Democrats ran the first attack ad on television, accusing Republicans of saying one thing and doing another. In the same year, the GOP spread rumors about Democrat Adlai Stevenson's sexual orientation. In 1980, the National Conservative Political Action Committee (NCPAC) ran effective third-party attack ads against liberal senators, sparing the conservative challenger accountability.

However, several studies and scholars have challenged the notion that negative ad campaigns are generally effective. Research by political scientists Shanto Iyengar and Stephen Ansolabehere suggests that negative ads may work to both shrink and polarize the electorate. A meta-analysis by Frimer and Skitka (2018) and subsequent studies concluded that negative campaigning is an ineffective path to victory. These studies found that while negative ads may lead to a small reduction in positive feelings toward the target of the ad, this effect is constrained to specific time periods and small subsets of the population. Additionally, the studies showed that negative campaigns can backfire, resulting in greater reductions in positive feelings toward the attacker.

Furthermore, negative campaigning has been criticized for its potential societal costs, including hampering trust in government, inflaming intergroup rivalries, and increasing online toxicity. The return on investment for negative ad campaigns may also not be worth the high price tag, as the cost of political advertising can be significant.

In conclusion, while negative ad campaigns can capture attention and influence voters, their effectiveness is not guaranteed and may come at a cost. Candidates should carefully consider the potential benefits and drawbacks before employing negative campaigning strategies.

The impact of negative ads on voter turnout

Some research suggests that negative ads can have a demobilizing effect on voter turnout, particularly when they are perceived as highly negative or "dirty". Yanna Krupnikov's 2011 study in the American Journal of Political Science found that the tendency to use negative ads increases with voters' knowledge and the candidate's budget. This suggests that negative ads are more prevalent in close races, and that they may be targeted towards specific groups of voters. However, the same study also found that negativity can demobilize voters and reduce turnout, especially when it exceeds a certain threshold.

The effectiveness of negative ads also depends on how they are delivered. Studies have shown that personally delivered messages can influence voting preferences, but there is no significant difference between the effects of negative and positive messages on voter turnout. This indicates that while negative ads may shape voters' impressions of candidates, they are less likely to affect whether or not a person chooses to vote.

The timing of negative ads also plays a role in their impact. Research suggests that back-loading, or airing ads closer to the election, is more effective than front-loading. This strategy may be employed to influence voters right before Election Day, potentially catching voters who are undecided or less engaged early on in the campaign.

Negative ads have also become more common due to the influence of Super PAC money and the maturation of the campaign consultant industry. Super PACs have effectively become shadow political parties, able to spend large sums of money from rich donors to target specific groups of voters. This has contributed to the increasing negativity and polarization in political campaigns.

In conclusion, while negative ads can influence voters' perceptions of candidates, their impact on voter turnout is complex and multifaceted. Factors such as the delivery, timing, and tone of the ad, as well as individual characteristics of voters, all play a role in determining the effectiveness of negative ads on voter mobilization.

Explore related products

From the Gracchi to Nero: A History of Rome 133 BC to AD 68 (Routledge Classics)

$22.99 $31.99

Political, Religious, and Cultural Background History of the New Testament Bible (539 BC to AD 135)

$11.95

A Glorious Disaster: Barry Goldwater's Presidential Campaign and the Origins of the Conservative Movement

$13.99

The Origins of the Grand Alliance: Anglo-American Military Collaboration from the Panay Incident to Pearl Harbor (Battles and Campaigns Series)

$25.99 $39.99

The European campaign : its origins and conduct / Samuel J. Newland, Clayton K. S. Chun. 2011 [Leather Bound]

$3.99 $19.95

Chronicle of the Origin Tree Campaign Notebook: RPG Journal Mixed Paper Ruled, Graph, Hex (RPG Notebooks)

$8.76

The use of 'dirty tricks' in negative campaigns

Negative campaigning has been a feature of American politics since the election of 1800, when supporters of Thomas Jefferson called John Adams a "monarchist", and Adams's supporters labelled Jefferson an "atheist".

However, negative campaigning is distinct from "dirty tricks", which are defined by political journalist David Mark as "complete lies". Dirty tricks are political manoeuvres that go beyond negative campaigning and involve the secret subversion of an opponent’s campaign via outright lies, spying, or any other tactic intended to divert attention from policies in an underhanded or unethical way.

One of the most famous examples of a dirty trick in American politics was the "whisper campaign" used by George W. Bush's campaign strategist, Karl Rove, against Senator John McCain during the 2000 Republican primary in South Carolina. McCain had beaten Bush by 19 points in the first primary contest in New Hampshire, and Bush knew that he had to stop McCain in South Carolina or risk losing the nomination. Bush supporters spread rumours about McCain's mental instability due to his time as a POW in Vietnam. By Election Day, McCain had lost his lead, and Bush won by 11 points. McCain dropped out of the race and never forgave Bush for the attacks.

Another example of a dirty trick was the "push polling" used by anonymous pollsters in the same 2000 Republican primary. Under the guise of conducting a legitimate poll, they asked local Republicans if they would be more or less likely to vote for McCain if he were mentally unstable due to his time as a POW in Vietnam. McCain was so enraged by the attacks that he confronted Bush in person, demanding that he stop.

Dirty tricks are not always successful. In 1952, the GOP started a rumour that Democrat Adlai Stevenson was a homosexual. This would be considered relatively tame today, and comparable to a Democratic whisper campaign in 1920 that accused Warren G. Harding of having black ancestors.

Dirty tricks can also be used by third parties. In 1980, the National Conservative Political Action Committee (NCPAC) ran effective attack ads against liberal senators because they were third-party attacks, sparing the conservative challenger accountability.

The role of outside groups in negative ad campaigns

Negative campaigning has a long history in the United States, with the country's politics often described as a "blood sport". The first attack ad on television appeared in 1952, when Democrats charged that Republicans would "say one thing and do another". Since then, negative ad campaigns have become a common feature of political campaigns, with outside groups playing an increasingly significant role.

Outside groups, such as lobby groups, are often used by campaigns to launch attacks. These groups can claim to be neutral sources, and if the allegations are proven false, the attacking candidate may not be damaged if the links cannot be proven. This strategy allows candidates to benefit from "having a party or group do their dirty work". In some cases, a group-sponsored attack ad may produce less polarization than one sponsored by a party, as voters may not connect candidates to ads sponsored by outside groups.

The use of outside groups in negative ad campaigns has also been influenced by the increased focus of news media on negative advertising, creating a cycle of attack politics driven by political consultants and journalists. Additionally, the maturation of the campaign consultant industry has played a role, as pollsters and media consultants have refined their research techniques to determine the most effective strategies for attacking opponents on television.

The effectiveness of negative ad campaigns has been studied by political scientists, with some scholars arguing that negative ads can work to ""shrink and polarize the electorate". However, the impact of negative ads may depend on the specific circumstances and the design of the ads. Some studies have found that negative advertising can suppress voter turnout, particularly for independent voters. Additionally, negative ads have been found to have a greater impact on Democrats than on Republicans.

Frequently asked questions