Proponents Of Negative Character Attacks Ignore That It Depresses Voter Turnout

[Median Democrat]

Here is short study discussing the impact of negative attack ads on voter turnout. In particular, voter turnout is most depressed when the public perceives that both candidates are engaging in unfair character assassination. Conversely, voter turnout is not too depressed if voters only perceive that one candidate is engaging in such tactics.

This may explain why the McCain campaign itself seems to bring up the negative character attacks on Palin that come from the press even though the Obama campaign never mentions them, because McCain is trying to increase the perception that the Obama campaign is playing dirty pool. This also explains why the McCain campaign continuously charges sexism while also accusing Obama of throwing the race card. Sadly, many DUers fail to see that going scorched earth could very well undermine Obama's efforts to dramatically increase voter turnout through grassroots efforts.

The study is here, and I think it casts light on why Obama is taking the high road, its because he has decided to focus on increasing voter turnout in areas whose demographics favor the Democrats, and running a scorched earth attack campaign not only requires substantial support by a compliant media (which the Democrats do not have), but it also undermines efforts to increase voter turnout.

http://www.coopercenter.org/publications/sitefiles/vanl/vanl0500.pdf

[dkf]

1. How does it work with the attackee's supporters if its only one side?

Has that even been studied?

[Hawkowl]

2. Bingo!

That is the point! McCain/Palin has gone way negative and by lying. Obama must go "negative" by telling the truth just so he doesn't appear weak. People in the south and a lot of swing state will never vote for a weak candidate no more than they'd root for a weak sports team. The south cheers the Dallas Cowboys and the Illinois cheers the Chicago Cubs. He already has Illinois wrapped up so he has to take the low road to win the low info voters.

Obama's surrogates can run targetted negative ads to turn off only REPUKE voters leaning towards McCain. For example attack him for his infidelity and abandoning his first family and target that towards the religous fundamentalists. That is a demographic in which we want a depressed turnout.

The people who are energized about Obama are going to turnout and nothing is going to stop them. What we need to do is knock the crap out of those who are just going to vote for McCain as the anti-Obama. And there will be a lot of those voters, especially in historically rascist areas of the country. I want those voters not voting if they can't set aside their rascist feelings. They'll feel different after eight years of an Obama administration, but for now the message should be McCain is not a conservative, he is a weak weasel with one foot in the grave who doesn't give a shit about value voters.

[dkf]

3. Yeah, I'm thinking whoever gets attacked is the one whose supporters don't turn out.

Therefore if both are attacking then yes, turnout is less overall.

[monomach]

4. Like hell I cheer for the Cubs.

[Hawkowl]

5. I only cheer for the Cubs

It is the only sports team I do cheer for. But it is a regional, cultural thing. And....Wait? WTF? You've got a Sox avatar? Dude.
Your cheering doesn't count. You can't cheer for the Sox and the Cubs. Not if you're from Chgo.

[Median Democrat]

7. That Is Discussed - Also The Nature Of The Negative Attacks Matters

Some folks on DU propose a scorched earth approach that even targets the personal lives of McCain and Palin. However, the study suggests that such an approach would reduce voter turnout. However, negative attacks that are perceived as FAIR and ISSUE BASED do not depress voter turnout according to the study.

I was listening to Obama's interview on Keith Olbermann, and it is obvious that the Obama campaign is familiar with this or similar research, because he did aggressively criticize McCain, but also avoided attacking them on a personal level.

[barack the house]

6. A very good article. Post again at a later date for anyone that misses it.

[Vinca]

8. How'd this theory work out in 2000 and 2004? nt

[Median Democrat]

9. Very Well - Voter Turnout In 2000 Was Barely 50% - Very Low

[Vinca]

10. Apparently they turned out in a larger number for the party

running the negative ads since they won. Both times.