How the ROI on negative attacks is better than the ROI of positive ads

Right wingers (and most other people) like to get the best return on their investment. This is an idea about why negative campaigns are a better return on your investment.

Very simple:

Positive Campaign: If your guy wins, you made a good investment. If the other guy wins, it was all for nothing.

Negative Campaign: If your guy wins, you made a good investment. If the other guy wins, he is damaged goods and you have laid the foundation for taking him down once he is in office - a good investment.

Every time the Republicans run a Swift Liars ad, or flip flopper ad, or anything else, they are investing in damaging John Kerry's image for the long term. If Kerry wins, they will be able to build on all of their previous attacks and use them to undermine his power within the government, maybe even bring him down. If Bush wins, their money was well spent. If Kerry wins, their money was well spent as well.

Every time the Democrats run a "positive" ad, it does nothing to damage Bush. If Kerry wins, our money was well spent. If Bush wins, our money was wasted.

Does this theory make sense?

When Kerry runs a positive ad, it helps to define him to the country on who he is and what he stands for. When Kerry gets into office, it will help the transition and fewer people will be able to say that they know nothing about him.

I do think that for Kerry to run some (many?) negative ads will help insure that he defeats Bush.