The Most Negative Presidential Election Ever? 1988

The Most Negative presidential election ever? 1988

• “One of the most accepted reasons for the loss was the withering personal and political attacks that Bush launched against Dukakis, causing some political analysts to call the 1988 campaign the most negative, issueless presidential campaign in US history.” — Boston Globe “Bush offered no clues about Cabinet contenders in his victory declaration Tuesday night, but he sought to soothe the national political wounds caused by one of the most negative presidential campaigns in recent history.” — Associated Press “By all indications, the nastiest Presidential race in memory will leave in its wake a problematic residue for whoever wins.” — New York Times 1996

• "The eruption of personal attacks offered a clear signal to voters that the coming presidential campaign may turn out to be one of the nastiest and most negative in history.” — Miami Herald. "'It's going to be the nastiest presidential campaign ever,' predicts Larry Sabato." — Newsweek “The incident is further proof that the forthcoming presidential campaign could be the dirtiest yet.” — The Independent (U.K.) • "I've maintained that this campaign is going to be one of the nastiest, bare knuckled, direct, to the gut campaigns in America's political history." — CNN's Bernard Shaw 2000

• “The Bush campaign responded by saying that Gore is running the most negative presidential campaign in history, even as Bush aides took potshots of their own.” — Baltimore Sun

• “George W. Bush has issued one of the most negative presidential campaigns really in the history of American politics.” — DNC chair Joe Andrew, on CNN • "People know this is going to be the most negative campaign in Americanhistory." — Haley Barbour, on CNN

• "The political campaign that climaxed Nov. 7 was one of the scruffiest, nastiest, silliest and most devoid of responsible content in recent memory." —Seattle Post-Intelligencer 2004

• "It's been among the most negative presidential campaigns in history." — St. Petersburg Times • "'This has been about the nastiest (presidential) campaign I've ever seen,' says CBS News veteran Don Hewitt." — Backstage

• “This presidential campaign is close to being the most negative on record." —Christian Science Monitor 2008

• "Cindy McCain lashed out at Barack Obama Tuesday, telling a Tennessee newspaper the Illinois senator has waged the 'dirtiest campaign in American history.'" — CNN.com

• "Continued thrust and parry between Barack Obama and John McCain has led many to label the 2008 presidential campaign the most negative campaign in the modern era." — Politico

• "Those who study political ads say this year's presidential campaign could rank with the most negative ever." — Washington Times The Most Negative Campaign Ever? • 2012 presidential election: The most negative in campaign history? OutFront Political Strike Team weighs in at 7p ET CNN

• There's lots of negativity in this presidential election - in campaign ads, on the stage and on the airwaves from both sides.

• Campaign attack ads getting nastier: 'Out of bounds' and 'off-target‘ • TV Ads in 2012 Presidential Race the Most Negative in Years Bloomberg

• Every Presidential Campaign Is the Meanest, Nastiest, Dirtiest Ever, NY Magazine http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/08/most-negative-campaign-ever.html • Washington Post 2016 • Are political campaigns more negative? • How does negative affect participation • Do negative campaigns hurt or help participation?

• How do Political Scientists marshal data or evidence to support arguments? • How do Political Scientists make normative claims about how a democracy functions? • “real-time information on the extent of corporate and union spending in federal election campaigns”

• “definitive database that tracks all advertising by source (corporation, union, interest group, party, or candidate), and to enhance the ability of scholars, citizens, and journalists to hold government accountable by providing public information on how special interests are attempting to influence American democracy in general and political campaigns in particular.” RAW Data Raw Data ii

• negative ads—their focus was attacking an opponent • positive ads – focus solely on the favored candidate. • contrast ads- mention both the favored candidate and the opponent

1. More or Less Negative 2. Who goes negative? Source: Wesleyan Media Project, 2012 Shatters 2004 and 2008 Records for Total Ads Aired http://mediaproject.wesleyan.edu/2012/10/24/2012-shatters-2004-and-2008-records-for-total-ads-aired/ So What?

• Does Attack Advertising Demobilize the Electorate? • Stephen Ansolabehere, Shanto Iyengar, Adam Simon and Nicholas Valentino, The American Political Science Review, Vol. 88, No. 4 (Dec., 1994), pp. 829- 838 • -cited 440 times • -quasi experimental design • -corroborating data • -ooh, political science • Quasi-Experimental Design- Crime • http://pcl.stanford.edu/common/media/exp/polads/tone/fein- crimepos.mpg • http://pcl.stanford.edu/common/media/exp/polads/tone/fein- crimeneg.mpg

• Demobilization Hypothesis • Turnout drops among independents, but not loyalists/partisans

• Stanford Political Communication Lab • http://pcl.stanford.edu/common/docs/research/iyengar/1996/g oingneg.html Findings of Experimental Design

Intention of Voting

Positive ad 64%

Product ad 61%

Negative ad 59% 1992 “Hope and Change” Senate races • “The coder followed a strict scheme in order to place each race into one of the three campaign-tone categories. If a majority of the tone-related references to a campaign were negative (e.g., it was characterized as being nasty, dirty, or vicious and provided specific examples of negative attacks from each of the race's candidates), the race was coded as negative. If at least three articles specifically mentioned that one of the Senate candidate's was deliberately refraining from making a negative response to the opponent's attacks and no later article contradicted this information, then the race was coded as mixed. Finally, when the news coverage yielded no discernible information about negative campaign tone, the race was coded as positive.” p. 836 Ballot Roll off

• Positive Senate Races • 3.3% of those who voted for president did not vote for senator. • Negative Senate races • Most likely in close Senate races • 6% ballot rolloff • 53 % voter turnout in presidential race • 47% voter turnout in senate race • “diminish the power of civic duty and may undermine the legitimacy of the entire electoral process”

• Clinton Ads • 26.3 were issue based; 73.7% character based • 72% used fear or anger • Role Models (fear/anger/character), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrX3Ql31URA • Trump Ads • 35% used character based • 59% used fear or anger • Trump, • Two Americas: Economy, $10m, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4obk0P2YCFg • Two Americas: Immigration, $5 m, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odYHGAicJ7k • Motherhood, $7.5m, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9f7QbBIUwY • Super PAC ads • 14 of 15 tv ads Priorities USA Action were negative attack ads/attack on the character of Donald Trump. • 11 of 13 tv ads by Rebuilding America Now, were negative attacks on Hillary Clinton

UMD, Political Advertising Resource Center A REPORT ON PRESIDENTIAL ADVERTISING AND THE 2016 GENERAL ELECTION: A Referendum on Character https://parcumd.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/parc-report-2016-v-21.pdf • Does Attack Advertising Demobilize the Electorate? Stephen Ansolabehere, Shanto Iyengar, Adam Simon and Nicholas Valentino

• Prediction for 2016 https://www.vox.com/policy-and- politics/2017/9/18/16305486/what-really-happened-in-2016 • Widespread negative voting

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact- tank/2016/09/02/for-many-voters-its-not- which-presidential-candidate-theyre-for-but- / • “[m]ore than half of Democrats (55 percent) say the Republican Party makes them ‘afraid,’ while 49 percent of Republicans say the same about the Democratic Party.” Pew

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/11/10/why-did-trump-win-in-part-because-voter-turnout- Geer, America’s First Negative Ad? 70% Negative

• He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. • He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. • He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; • He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers. • He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries. Geer, "In Defense of Negativity"

• Negativity “advances and improves the prospects for democracy.” • “Any democracy demands negativity. ” • Negativity – any criticism of one candidate by another candidate • Citizens and elite need to criticize government and debate best forms of action. • Negativity fosters comparison, makes accountability possible. • Positive Ads- integrity, competence, leadership, compassion • “Candidates are great at telling us all about their strengths, but they just won't tell us about their weaknesses. So that task falls to their opponents. We need this negative information to make an informed choice.” • Negative ads • More substantive and factual- "We have a joke in this business: The only difference between negative and positive ads is that negative ads have facts in them." John Geer, In Defense of Negativity

John Geer’s Hall of Fame Negative Commercials • Windsurfing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbdzMLk9wHQ • Tank Ad http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRPZQ3UEN_Q

• Important issue of the day? • Foster comparison; difference between candidates? • Hold candidates accountable? • Contact more facts? • Tone problematic? Why the increase in negativity?

• Explanation 1 • Political consultants say they work (sometimes) Why the Increase in negativity? Explanation #2 Why Increase in Negative?

• “One reason the campaign has been so negative is the skyrocketing involvement of interest groups, who have increased their activity by 1100 percent over four years ago”

• “Such levels of outside group involvement in a presidential primary campaign are unprecedented. This is truly historic. To see 60 percent of all ads in the race to-date sponsored by non-candidates is eye- popping,”

• “The biggest difference between general and primary election ads so far is that the majority of general election airings and spending has come from groups that do not need to disclose their donors,” Why negativity? Explanation #3

McKinnon Hypothesis "Ads are about news coverage these days.”

• Reporting for Duty • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vYU-tW37Dc&feature=related • Any Questions • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4Zk9YmED48

• Limited buys in Iowa, Wisconsin, and Ohio (1%), 80% know Media’s Fault

# stories NYT/WP Daisy Ad 16 Willie Horton 62 Swift Boat \ 344 Celebrity 61

• Cool- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhXGkeMdOJs • Big Bird http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZxs09eV-Vc • Mitt Romney, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio agree https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XOocb-DId4 Tell it Like It Is https://www.facebook.com/178024352559210/videos/324320937929 550 Mirrors • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHGPbl-werw Conclusion

• Empirical Why the increase? • Consultants v. CF Laws v. Media • Normative- Good/Bad for Democracy • -depressing turnout, polarizing electorate • -inherent to critical debate • Policy Implications • Ad Watch • Campaign finance reform • Political science implications • rethinking negativity Negative or not

• Montana Democratic Party "Beauty Corner" • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAnzfcWC6Tk

• Obama for America TV Ad:"Firms“ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ud3mMj0AZZk

• Mitt Romney: "I stand by what I said, whatever it was.“ • http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=B Z6wF7PTyEY&NR=1 Table 2: Tone of Advertising over Time by Race Type

Negative Contrast Positive 2010

Governor 33.7% 13.7% 52.7%

US House 27.6% 20.4% 52%

US Senate 43.7% 13.2% 43.1%

2012

Governor 23.3% 14.9% 61.8%

US House 32.3% 17.2% 50.5%

US Senate 44.1% 22.4% 33.5%

2014

Governor 43.8% 15.1% 41.1%

US House 41.4% 11% 47.6%

US Senate 55% 17.5% 27.5%

Percentages are from August 29 to September 11 from all three cycles. Totals in 2014 are based on ongoing Wesleyan Media Project coding and 2010 and 2012 totals are from prior Wesleyan Media Project http://mediaproject.wesleyan.edu/releasescoding of Kantar Media/CMAG ad airings. /2014-general-election-advertising-opens- even-more-negative-than-2010-or-2012/

Table 3: Tone of Advertising by Party and Race Type Pro-Democrat Pro-Republican

Nega Cont Posi Nega Cont Posi tive rast tive tive rast tive House Candid 11.6 71.4 14.2 77.6 ate % 17% % % 8.3% % 100 Coord. 0% 0% % 17.4 75.7 21.7 2.5 Group 82% 0.6% % % % % 90.1 6.5 Party 96% 0% 4% % 3.4% % 35.9 11.9 52.2 51.9 Total % % % % 9.1% 39% Senate Candid 41.9 46.1 12.3 41.3 46.5 ate % 12% % % % % 64.1 Coord. 100% 0% 0% 5.9% % 30% 91.4 77.9 16.8 Group % 4.6% 4% % 5.3% %

Party 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 70.5 22.6 39.3 30.7 Total % 6.9% % % % 30%

Percentages are from August 29, 2014, to September 11, 2014. Numbers include broadcast television. Totals in 2014 are based on ongoing Wesleyan Media Project coding of Kantar Media/CMAG ad airings. CITE SOURCE OF DATA AS: Kantar Media/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Projec

Source: Wesleyan Media Project, 2012 Shatters 2004 and 2008 Records for Total Ads Aired http://mediaproject.wesleyan.edu/2012/10/24/2012-shatters-2004-and-2008-records- So What?

• Quasi-Experimental Design- Crime • http://pcl.stanford.edu/common/media/exp/polads/tone/f ein-crimepos.mpg • http://pcl.stanford.edu/common/media/exp/polads/tone/f ein-crimeneg.mpg

• Demobilization Hypothesis?

• Stanford Political Communication Lab • http://pcl.stanford.edu/common/docs/research/iyengar/1 996/goingneg.html Findings of Experimental Design

Intention of Voting

Positive ad 64%

Product ad 61%

Negative ad 59% 1992 “Hope and Change” senate races • “The coder followed a strict scheme in order to place each race into one of the three campaign-tone categories. If a majority of the tone-related references to a campaign were negative (e.g., it was characterized as being nasty, dirty, or vicious and provided specific examples of negative attacks from each of the race's candidates), the race was coded as negative. If at least three articles specifically mentioned that one of the Senate candidate's was deliberately refraining from making a negative response to the opponent's attacks and no later article contradicted this information, then the race was coded as mixed. Finally, when the news coverage yielded no discernible information about negative campaign tone, the race was coded as positive.” p. 836 Ballot Roll off

• Positive Senate Races • 3.3% of those who voted for president did not vote for senator. • Negative Senate races • 6% ballot rolloff • 53 % voter turnout in presidential race • 47% voter turnout in senate race A&I Implications for 2012? A&I Implications for 2012?