Polls have consistently shown that voters are not interested in negative attacks and would prefer to hear the candidates discuss the issues. The recent economic difficulties in the country have made the backlash against negative campaigning and attacks on the opponent less palatable than in the past.
This is particularly true with independent voters. While the base of either party may respond favorably to attacks on the opponent, independent voters do not. Since most pundits are saying this race will be decided by independents, the candidates need to tread carefully with the negative attacks.
But is there a line? At what point should a candidate respond to continual negative attacks and statements which are not true? This becomes an even larger question when the negative ads are repeating outright lies that have been fact checked over and over. At some point, not responding can lend credence to the untruths. Often, when people hear something repeated enough times, they begin to believe it, even when it is a lie.
This is one area where the Democrats have not done so well in the past. There are many who think Al Gore and John Kerry didn’t hit back enough against negative attacks and the lack of response allowed the tactic to be so effective. Earlier in this campaign, many were saying Obama was making the same mistake. And then he started hitting back.
When candidates respond to a negative attack, how they do it is very important. Responding to insults with insults or lies with lies isn’t enough. The response needs to address the negative attack and spell out why it is not true. Obama has used this effectively. When McCain and Palin continue to tell people Obama will raise their taxes, he came out with an ad spelling out the plan and reminding voters that he isn’t raising taxes on the middle class.
Another example is the continued ads saying that Obama voted not to fund the troops. This continues to be repeated, although many fact check organizations have spelled out the truth. Both candidates voted against an amendment funding the troops. McCain voted against an amendment that included time tables for withdrawing the troops. Obama voted against a similar measure without any time tables. Pointing out this truth is the type of response that plays well with voters because it offers specific information to dispel the attack ads, rather than just hitting back with another insult.
I heard one female pundit make an interesting observation the other day. She basically said that it’s ok to alienate voters from the opponent, but you also have to give them somewhere to go. This will only be accomplished by having plans and making them known to voters. Otherwise, it just becomes bantering and that annoys voters.