3 Ways to Drive Contrasts Without Driving Away Voters

Jeff Coleman | Churchill Strategies

What makes fully grown men (and women) walk away from every conviction about to engage in negative or perhaps better described, misleading attacks on political opponents? It’s the ultimate unsolved political mystery, how church-going, scout troop leading candidates allow their names to get tagged on to the kind of direct mail, TV and radio spots that would never be ‘kid-tested’ or ‘mother-approved.’

While every political consultant has his own recipe for the mudsling, ranging from the :30 second animated comedy sketch to less artful, alarming male voiceovers and the opponent’s fuzzy black and white mug, negative campaigning makes its way into nearly every major political race.

Let me take a crack at explaining the mudslide with variations of some of the more frequently used consultant-to-candidate liners.

“Voters deserve to know the truth about…”

“If you want to win, you’ll have to draw some pretty sharp contrasts with your opponent.”

“You need to hit harder…”

“Our poll shows that the only way to win is to expose your opponent’s hypocrisy on…”

“The divorce records are relevant because…”

“The affair is important because…”

“The tax liens are significant because…”

“If you don’t attack first, they’ll…”

“The only way to drive up his negatives is to…”

“You need to inoculate yourself…”

“The arrest record is important because it shows a lack of judgment and experience…”

Throw in the immediate pressures of a bad poll and a Blackberry full of angry “stakeholder” emails, and the little red devil on your shoulder starts talking real sense. It’s the moment when the jiggling bobble head of your opponent and sliding whistle sound effect become serious tools for “voter education.” And hey, your consultant’s video reel boasted three presidentials, 8 gubernatorials and 77 legislative contests - they must know what they’re doing.

But do they?

Does that media consultant or pollster explain the impact of your hardball attack ad on the candidate’s kids or spouse, weeks and months after they’ve left town, and moved on to the next client? Are the big guys laying out the personal and professional blow black from ads that always raise the temperature in a competitive contest, something like mutually assured destruction? Most importantly, are your campaign ads enhancing your reputation and improving your standing in the community or will a loss or win mean you’ll never be able to face half the people in your community ever again?

The questions are rhetorical, but they come from the journals of dozens of campaigns I’ve watched over the years. Here’s the truth, while consultants stake their reputations on the fuzzy fact that “negative campaign’s work,” 50% of candidates lose. Campaigns that are equally negative with adequate resources often end in a draw with wins of 1, 2, 3 or 4%. Negative campaigning results in a growing number of split decisions, marginal victories that leave the winner stained, sullied and vulnerable.

For most candidates, the end of the story never looks as sunny or optimistic as announcement day. Even the winners - from president to township supervisor - have to re-enter real life, if they’re not among the few die-hards that want to be “carried out” of the office they hold.

Candidates gamble their personal reputations for a few point increases in the opponent’s negatives and most of them lose. The consultants who egg on the campaigns and cash-in on the media buys risk virtually nothing.

So, how can candidates draw distinctions, and point out legitimate policy differences without diving in the mud pit? Here are 3 suggestions:

1. Make direct charges. Here’s what I mean. If the opponent has an abysmal voting record on taxes, the candidate should explain the impact of high taxes, and how the opponent’s approach is fatally flawed. Instead of drive-by attacks from third-party “issue advocacy” groups or PAC’s, candidates should flesh out the differences without the deniability or shield of an independent group. Respect the voters by owning your message. This general rule allows difficult messages to be delivered without feeding voter suspicion about the origins of the ads, or allowing your opponent to cast doubt on the facts themselves. Technology allows for instant fact checking for the veracity of a campaign charge. Never risk your reputation on a string of facts that you cannot defend in a public debate or before an editorial review board. If it is an issue voters need to factor in before they head to the polls, spend your resources and personal credibility to explain your rationale. After all, debate is a skill you’ll need to hone to succeed in elective office.
2. Lead, don’t drag, voter to facts. The goal of every campaign should be to convince, not just scare or confuse voters. For decades, Republicans have been critical of the Democrat fear mongering on issues like Medicare and Social Security reform. Today, most GOP campaign shops use garden variety fear as a tactic to drive up opponent negatives and suppress the other side’s enthusiasm by creating a cloud. If your facts are solid and the charges fair, don’t dilute them with carnival tactics that weaken the overall effectiveness of your contrast. Yes, be tough. Demand attention to legitimate differences between you and your opponent. But be careful that you’re not sounding like an FM radio jock when presenting your courtroom arguments. Voters and newspaper editors are more likely to support your claims if they’re presented as an honest disagreement, not a gotcha moment.
3. Don’t delegate your personal judgment. You may have never run for political office before, but you have always had a gut reaction to unfair, negative campaigns haven’t you? Bring your instincts and critical thinking skills to every campaign decision, don’t hand over your brain to the media team. If your immediate family and non-political support is troubled by the tone or substance of your campaign, weight their opinion more heavily than the professionals. If you think a proposed approach is wrong, exercise your veto power decisively. Above all, never let a campaign decision be made for the possibility of short-term, immediate gain, because you’re probably going live a few days longer than election day.

Winning should never come at the expense of conviction, conscience or even good manners. This is far from the majority view among my friends and colleagues in politics, but it’s the fire tested way to deserve victory!