Welcome back, Saturday Campaign D-I-Yers! For those who tune in, welcome to the Nuts & Bolts of a Democratic campaign. Each week, we discuss issues that help drive successful campaigns. If you’ve missed prior diaries, please visit our group or follow Nuts & Bolts Guide.
Every time there is an election, there are accusations about “dirty campaigns.” When it comes to campaigns, you’ll find that some people, with almost no scruples, are willing to do or say anything in order to confuse voters, muddy the water, and bash your candidate. How in the world do you run a clean campaign in a dirty world?
While this series focuses on downballot (small) races, this is a challenge faced by campaigns at every level. No matter what kind of campaign you want to run, someone—whether it is your opponent or an outside advocacy group—will definitely sling some mud. How does your campaign stay at least mostly clean while working for a win in your district?
What is dirty, what isn’t dirty?
The biggest question around campaigns is this: what is dirty campaigning? What is information that is fair game? Negative campaign ads can be effective. And, some of it is relevant. Depending on who you ask, the definition of what creates a dirty campaign is a debatable position.
There are a few things that are broadly accepted though:
- Information about a candidate’s voting history if elected
- Information about stated positions of a candidate
- Information about criminal liabilities
- Public statements by a candidate
If these are up for debate, they generally do not constitute negative campaigning. If someone brings up your candidate or another candidate has a criminal conviction, took a policy position they wildly disagree with or has made a public statement that harms them ... well, that is just campaigning. The public has a right to know information about the people they are electing.
On the other hand, dirty campaigning while difficult to define has a few items that most consultants have always viewed out of bounds:
- Status or information about family (spouses and children) that doesn’t impact issues
- Unsubstantiated gossip regarding candidates
- Derogatory personal statements regarding a person unrelated to performance if elected
So, if a campaign starts spreading gossip, attacks a spouse or children, or stoops to attacks that are unrelated to job performance in any way ... well, that’s clearly negative campaigning. It’s surprising how often in small races these happen. People get attacked for their weight, for their looks, for the behavior of a child, and so on. Often, small campaigns try to make it about something else: “Oh, I’m bringing up their kid being in trouble because it is a sign they are not ...” NOPE. Most voters also view those attacks as over the top and out of bounds, and yet, every year, we’ll have several incidents of exactly these negatives being used.
Can a positive campaign win?
One of the reasons you see so many negative and at times dirty campaigns is because people are convinced it is the only way to win. Negative campaigns aren’t necessarily dirty—Republican attacks on (your representative) (Nancy Pelosi) aren’t really dirty, they are just silly negatives, designed to motivate their own base.
Can a positive campaign really get above the fold? The other reason why negative and dirty campaigns are employed is that they often get the benefit of earned media. People talk about them. They share the ads and content they view as a “dirty” attack in order to attack it back, and like it or not, that continues to spread the negative into new groups, and accomplishes the goal of those who designed the negatives.
Positive campaigns can certainly win. Positive campaigns can engage in open compare/contrast between themselves and another candidate—an effective way to show the impact of replacing an incumbent or sustaining a good elected. “Here’s the difference” is a tool that should be in the bag of every positive campaign.
Next week on Nuts & Bolts: Summer DNC Meeting—what changes are in store