Do negative political ads really influence people?

Started thinking about this in light of the anti-Dean ad.

Don't people of average intelligence see these things as nothing but pure spin designed to falsely portray one's opponent? Perhaps when first used (i.e. the anti-Goldwater ad)they held some sway and maybe even in recent times (Bush-Dukakis). But recently, I think they are pretty much parodies of their own device and many people see this and don't pay much attention to them. In retrospect, I think they realize that they were duped and played by those who created the ad.

Even the formula is pretty cliche:
1) Ominous music shown with less than flattering image of target
2) Irrational appeal to emotions of fear and insecurity
3) Use of quotes and/or position statements used out of context
4) Optional: Blatant lies and false allegations towards the candidate

My thesis is that from so much experience with them, people have gotten used to these ridiculous negative attacks and realize that 99% of the information contained within them are false.

Regarding myself, I discount them completely, even if they are created by Democrats and liberals. They are shameless and lower the level of political discourse. Hopefully the rest of the country is starting to wise up to this disgraceful part of the political process.

"Willie Horton"

Hell yes, they influence people. And the BCE/PNAC/Skull&Bones crowd - of which the late, burning in Hell Lee Atwater was a member - know this better than anyone.

Max Cleland

Fuckin a right they work. Except this one will backfire on Gephardt and Kerry because as of now, I'm NBD, Nobody But Dean.

...of the Willie Horton ad?

"Mayor Quimby supports revolving door prisons, and even let Sideshow Bob, a convicted felon, out on parole...Vote Sideshow Bob for mayor!"

It does say a lot as to how stupid these ads are.

I think the idea is that negative ads don't change people's minds as much as rile up your supporters.

That's what we're after but to have a smear lie campaign ..well.. that's another story.

Bill Clinton. Didn't seem to work against him too well.

I think the wingnuts are influenced by them, but not the thinking people unless it was a genuine issue.

AM radio and RW T.V. is one giant attack ad, and it works.

holds all three branches of Gov't. They are always on the attack. So it looks like they work unfortuneately.

It seems like it just reenforces the views already held by the audience.

It seemed like Bill Clinton was really good at responding to attacks on him.

Dukakis, on the other hand, waited way too long after the weekend furlough ads were aired to say anything about them.

I think if we have someone who can make them look clownish for trying to drag out the hookum-spookum, you could actually turn them into a plus.

I imagine if an organization or a campaign is going to drop $200,000-$1,000,000 on an ad campaign, they would do so with the data showing that negative attacks do indeed work.

As for myself, I have a healthy habbit of changing the channel everytime I see a political ad...bad or good. I like to think I'm less insane because of it.

You make a good point about the possibility of the average American becoming desensitized to the fear tactic type political ads though. It's an interesting thought since they are all pretty much the same. I've often wondered if there's just one rinky dink advertising agency that ALL politicians are forced to go to.

It just seems all fake to me.

...that most folks don't pay nearly as much attention to politics as we do, so if an ad says that Dean likes to twist puppies heads off they don't necessarily have any other info to judge that against.

Also negative ads can help to depress turn out. If you think it is going to be a close race, but you have your base wired in and you are confident you can turn them out, then it is in your interest to keep the overall turnout low.

If out of a potential 1,000 voters 200 are solidly behind you and you can make it less likely that your opponents supporters are going to vote then it is very much in your interest to depress turnout. That turns your 200 into a larger percentage of the potential voters, thus increasing your chances of victory.

...they're the most highly effective form of advertising. Go figger!

I think they are effective at raising doubts about one's opponent and discourage turn out for both candidates. The undecideds and people who are not up on all the issues (the vast vast majority) become deflated and dislike both candidates. They become cynical and say "all politicians are garbage." Instead of making the effort to discover the truth they stay home and don't vote.

Low overall turnout always favors the Republicans.

Repeat:
Low overall turnout always favors the Republicans.

Unfortunately, a candidate must respond to the negative ads. The response is always perceived as negative. As you said, they are "shameful and lower the level of public discourse." This makes voters cynical and apathetic.

Repeat:
Low overall turnout always favors the Republicans.

I live in Vermont along the border of NH and the local television station is the network affiliate for both states. Everyone knows that NH is ground zero at election time. We are inundated with nonstop political ads. What I wouldn't give to see the good old Immodium, Preparation H, tampon and douche commercials at election time! I absolutely DESPISE negative attack ads. I don't know anyone in these parts who don't hate them. They might work in other areas where the media isn't flooded with them, but they have the opposite of the desired effect here. I'm guessing the same is probably true in Iowa. Even though it rains political ads on us we don't mind and even sometimes listen to the positive ones about candidates or ads that point out differences and make honest and fair criticism. But the attack ads are a HUGE turnoff. The way I look at it is this...if a candidate focuses on attacking someone else it's usually because they have nothing worth a damn to say good about themselves. I'm less likely to vote for the attacker and more likely to vote for the one getting attacked.

true and signifigant. The "Willie Horton" issue (First used by Al Gore in the primaries.) hit Duke so hard because he did have a furlough program that included lifers. The regular furlough system was a great idea for convicts that were approaching release date, so they could reenter outside life. But a lifer is supposed to be in for life and not reenter society, so why were they included in the release program. Even after Hortons new murders, Duke stood by the furlough program including lifers, thereby making it an issue that illustrated a "soft on crime" attitude.

So the attack was on a signifigant issue, and was true. That's why it worked.

An attack on a minor issue that nobody really cares about backfires. Who really cares now that Dean slicked his way out of the draft over 30 years ago? So an attack on something like that won't get much traction. That is also why many of the attack that we have made on Bush don't work. Who really cares that the turkey he picked up was a prop, or about what time and exactly what happened when the Brit pilot saw AF1.

Attacks on trivial items backfire badly because it looks like the attacker is grasping at straws.