When and how to counter a Negative Campaign

I will summarize even before I say anything interesting: negative campaigns must always be addressed. There you have it, end of blog post…

…aw heck, I guess I will go on.

Negative campaign tactics must always be countered because, whether the accusations are true or not, silence speaks louder than words. A candidate who ignores an attack does so at their own risk; what matters is not so much if you counter, but how.

A candidate can counter an attack in one of three ways: 1) deny all allegations and provide proof to the contrary, 2) admit to the allegations but show why they are not as severe as the opponent says they are, and 3) go on the attack themselves and start ripping into their opponent’s record. Obviously there is the fourth option of having a combination of the first two with the third.

Now it goes with out saying that each race has its own unique characteristics that dictate what type of message you come out with and when, however the issue of when to respond is the same no matter if it is dogcatcher or President. You respond when you feel that the attack is causing you to lose votes; I know this seems somewhat obvious, however we must not forget that negative campaigns can and do backfire. It does not behoove a candidate to immediately respond to a negative campaign if all it is doing is causing your opponent to lose votes (I look at the John Swallows election back in 2004 as an example of this – the negative campaign he ran did little to gain new voters and disenfranchised potential voters. LaVar Christensen’s bid was similar and had even worse results).

Assuming a negative campaign is gaining traction, a candidate must respond in one of the three ways listed above. Responding to a negative campaign in and of itself is not a negative move, it is only when a candidate stops being defensive and starts on the offensive that the offended becomes the offender (for a recap on what I consider a negative campaign, click on Part I of this little series).

This is where things can get a little slippery. Denial or admission in and of itself is not negative; however it is quite easy to slip into attacking while doing this. In my mind it is not how a candidate attacks back, rather it is the ferocity and duration in which they do so that matters. If a candidate simply throws in a few phrases such as “these allegations are absurd,” or “My opponent clearly does not know what they are talking about,” a negative campaign has not necessary started. If a candidate makes negative comments in direct response to a statement, they themselves have not engaged in a negative campaign.

Schoolyard scenario: Kid A calls kid B a doodie head; kid B says “nuh-huh, you are.” Kid A is clearly the offender and Kid B is responding. If, however, kid B starts telling people that kid A wets the bed (true or not), kid B has engaged in a negative campaign. Furthermore if kid B continues to tell people kid A wets the bed long after the initial incident, his actions compound and he is just as negative as his opponent.

In short, a response to a negative is always required, however it is the way the candidate goes about it that matters. It is one thing to be dragged into the mud; it is another thing to throw mud while you are in the sty.

Next post: A summary of the Salt Lake Mayors Race.

To read parts one and two, follow the appropriate links.