Poll after poll has shown that voters in congressional, statewide and presidential elections severely dislike negative campaigning. Ask almost anyone and they’ll agree: one of the most distasteful things about political campaigns is when a candidate decides to “go negative” on an opponent.

There’s just one little problem: in spite of the public’s nearly unanimous disapproval of negative campaigning, it’s a very effective tactic if done correctly.  That’s why you see a lot of struggling congressional and gubernatorial candidates going negative in the final weeks of a campaign.

If people dislike negative political campaigning so much, why do they allow themselves to be influenced by it?  Many consultants and campaign managers like to call negative campaigning “comparing” or “contrasting” candidates instead; showing the voters the clear differences between their choices.

It seems that in most cases, the definition of “negative campaigning” really depends on which candidate you’re supporting.  If your candidate starts “comparing” himself with his opponent, then you’re more likely to look at it as completely acceptable.  If, on the other hand, the opponent does the same with your candidate, then it becomes “negative campaigning.”

Make no mistake about it: negative campaigning can be exactly what a lagging senate or governor’s campaign needs to turn things around in the final stretch.  But if you’re a local political candidate running for office in a much smaller district, negative campaigning can backfire on you badly.

When you’re running as a candidate in an election where many of the voters know each other personally–and perhaps know you and your opponent personally, as well–going strongly negative at any point in your campaign can end up exploding in your face and losing the race for you.

Why?  Because many of the voters probably already had pre-conceived opinions and personal interactions with you or your opponent long before you decided to run for office.  And when you challenge those long-held opinions of you and your opponent–opinions that were formed from firsthand interaction–voters can get confused, annoyed and downright offended.

Sending out a negative mailer about a candidate who everyone in town knows and thinks is a fairly nice guy probably isn’t going to make them change their opinion of him.  It’s much more likely to get them angry at you, instead.

Look at it this way: if a candidate in a small local election is severely flawed, then odds are that everyone in town knows plenty about his shortcomings without getting a negative mailer.

If, on the other hand, your opponent is a generally well-liked person with a clean record, then trying to convince is neighbors otherwise is a losing battle.  You can win a race against this kind of opponent, but you do so by showing the voters how hard you are willing to work and making them familiar with your strong points. . . not by going negative.

If you’re a candidate in a local election who is thinking about “going negative” on your opponent at some point during the campaign, you might want to reconsider.  The stuff that really wins elections is called Hard Work . . . and if you’re really putting the necessary effort into running a great campaign, you won’t have time to waste on spreading rumors about your opponent, anyway.

Related posts:

  1. Local Political Campaign Ideas: The Monthly Press Release Here’s a quick and effective political campaign idea that I’ve...
  2. Local Political Campaigns: How to Win an Election What if I told you that there was a surefire...
  3. Local Elections List: Political Campaign Candidate Offices If you want to know how to be a political...
  4. Local Elections & Political Campaign Newspaper Ads There are many different options when it comes to political...
  5. Online Political Campaigns: The Internet & Local Elections We got a question this week from Darren in Arkansas,...