Sunday, November 12, 2006

Utah And Negative Campaigns

I disagree with Paul Rolly this week. Many make the claim "negative campaigning does not generally work in Utah", but I don't believe that is true. Not all negative campaigns are enough to win an election, but that's a fact of life across the democratic world, and not evidence of some sort of special attitude in Utah. After all Jim Winder is the new SLCo Sherriff thanks to a negative campaign. Voters responded to his attacks against Sherrif Kennard. They were simple, compelling, and absolutely devastating. Well timed negative campaigns work, even in Utah.

2 Comments:

Blogger painter said...

When candidates get desperate because of polling, they and their supporters are likely to resort to negativity in a big way. Well maybe not the bush admin, because they had "the" math, and the negative ads they put out were maybe 50% successful.

That is not a bad result compared with the outcome before the negs.

But in Utah, although the negs are apparent, it seems to be brother against brother, and breeds real contempt within the dominant religion, assuming that they all belong to the majority religion, and after the election the effects could linger and inflict enduring pain.

Well timed negs must be at or near the eve of the election, otherwise they would be held accountable by the opponent. So it is a sleazy way for anyone to campaign.

I think you are right that in the Sheriff race that the negative ad provided steam to the winner, he would have won without the neg, but by a lesser margin, but negs produce a stronger product if the smeared is elected and the loser surely is a bigger loser.

I will see an attitude change in Utah I believe, and that is the result of Stay the Course and Full Steam Ahead, and that certainly is unique to Utah!

There is something about having a Senator with all that senority, all the campaign money in the bank and having that influence mean absolutely nothing.

Maybe when Hatch runs his next campaign he may even have to run negs to win.

11/12/2006 04:43:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

My concern is that too many campaigns where called negative. When did showing an incumbent’s voting record become negative? Even in the Sherriff’s race the incumbent’s time management was a valid campaign issue. (And I am very red!)

Often the incumbent has vastly more money, more support and more resources. The challenger usually only has the incumbent’s record to draw differences.

I was very disappointed in the personal attacks a couple of the incumbents made in the name of fighting what they called “negative campaigning”. If you have been in your positions for years, or even decades, stop whining and campaign on what you have done.

The “negative campaigning” cry is a cop out.

11/13/2006 10:34:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home