DATE: Tuesday, November 11, 1997            TAG: 9711110006

SECTION: LOCAL                   PAGE: B12  EDITION: FINAL 

TYPE: Opinion

SOURCE: BY GUY RODGERS 

                                            LENGTH:   81 lines

WHY NEGATIVE ADS WORK

Shortly before the just-completed Virginia election, a Mark Earley supporter, referring to ads he had seen done by some other campaigns, asked me a question that I have seen frequently posed by voters: ``Why are there so many attack ads during the last few weeks of a campaign?'' It is a good question that I rarely see satisfactorily answered.

Is it because candidates and consultants enjoy delivering vicious attacks on their opponents? I suppose that may be the case for some, but I have never worked with a candidate who felt that way, and I have consulted on more than 20 campaigns in the past four years.

In fact, it is largely a function of the changing nature of voter dynamics. Here's how it works.

In any given campaign between a Democrat and Republican, both sides can count on a base of support, a core of voters who are motivated by their agreement with their political party and their candidate's overall philosophy and a disagreement with their opponent's political party and philosophy. The first objective of a candidate and campaign is thus to ``nail down the base,'' to make sure it has the support of its core base.

Rarely, however, is the base of support sufficient to win - and this base is shrinking.

Each campaign, therefore, is faced with the prospect of needing to win over a majority of a growing segment of the electorate, the ``unaffiliated'' voters, who often comprise 30 percent of the vote or more. Here is what political analysts know about the ``typical'' unaffiliated voter. This voter:

Does not identify with either major political party;

Is a self-described ``moderate'' who does not have a unified conservative or liberal philosophy;

Is a ticket-splitter, meaning, for instance, that he or she will vote for a Republican for president and a Democrat for Congress;

Does not make decisions about whom to vote for until very close to Election Day;

Gets the majority of information about candidates from television.

There is one more thing we know about unaffiliated voters. In spite of polls that show most voters, including unaffiliated voters, have a distaste for attack ads, the fact is that such ads frequently work, especially among unaffiliated voters.

I believe there are at least two reasons for this. The first is that television is a particularly powerful medium. No other advertising medium has the capacity for moving people emotionally as does television. No wonder a powerful, emotional attack ad, replete with sinister music and compelling visual images, can work so effectively in spite of a person's rational distaste for such an ad.

Second, I believe that unaffiliated voters, because they do not have a compelling philosophical reason or a political-party loyalty to vote for either candidate, are more susceptible to attack ads that lead them to vote against one of the candidates.

In short, so long as it appears that the best way to win a majority of unaffiliated voters is to convince them to vote against one's opponent, we will continue to see a flood of attack ads prior to every election. In consulting parlance it is called ``driving up your opponent's negatives.'' When unaffiliated voters speak with their votes that they are fed up with such tactics, then the tactics will change. Simply telling pollsters they don't like such ads is not enough.

I believe there is a place for ``contrast'' advertising, advertising that points out the differences between candidate A and candidate B. Voters have a right to know what differences exist between candidates, and candidates and campaigns should do what they can to make sure that voters become aware of those differences, doing it in a way that is documented and can be substantiated. That is representative democracy in action.

But the line between contrast and outright dishonesty is being crossed too often. Three years ago one of my clients, a candidate for Congress in Oregon, was attacked by his opponent with an allegation that there was a warrant for unpaid taxes outstanding against his business. We had no idea what this was about until we got a copy of the document our opponent was using to supposedly substantiate this attack.

It turned out the warrant was against another company; the only connection to my client was that his business had a service contract with this company.

That is not contrast; it is character assassination. And that kind of campaign advertising needs to stop. But it won't until a sufficient number of voters say with their votes: Enough is enough!

MEMO: Guy Rodgers, of Chesapeake, served as a strategic consultant and

finance director for Mark Earley's campaign for attorney general.

Send Suggestions or Comments to webmaster@scholar.lib.vt.edu