Candidates turn to negative campaigning, we’re told, for one reason: It works.
In several statewide primary races, this year, Kansas candidates are putting that conventional wisdom to an acid test. Just how far can candidates carry their opponent-bashing strategy before it backfires with voters?
Kansas voters have a right to be disappointed in a number of candidates this year. In these last few weeks before Tuesday’s primary election, voters have received precious little useful information about candidates in several races or their positions on important issues.
What we’re getting is charges from one candidate and denials from the other. It reminds us of a playground shouting match: “Did not!” “Did so!”
Direct-mail pieces are mostly something you would expect in a nasty campaign for a high school student body president. A flyer intended to support one candidate in the race will include barely a mention of that candidate or his or her positions. The majority of the space is given to unflattering photos of the opponent and distorted portrayals of that person’s background or voting record.
This kind of campaign behavior used to be confined to fringe candidates trying to make a name for themselves, but, this year, leading candidates in a number of races are down there, wallowing in the mud, apparently not realizing that while they may get a few good shots off at their opponents, they also are getting pretty dirty themselves.
It’s almost to the point that many voters may be inclined to vote for the candidate they have heard the least about in some races — or just skip the primary election altogether because the campaigns have left them with few positive feelings about any of the candidates.
The contentiousness of the primary races probably is being heightened by the absence of incumbent candidates in the U.S. Senate race and three of the state’s four U.S. House races. In the hot race for Kansas secretary of state, the “incumbent” was appointed only a few months ago. In all of those races, candidates see an opportunity they don’t want to let slip away. If negative campaigning works, they’re willing to give it a try.
We hope they are misjudging Kansas voters. Most of the voters we’ve talked to are disappointed in the low level of discourse during the current campaign. They may still get out and vote, but they have lost most of their enthusiasm for the candidates and certainly the campaign process.
The candidates who win next Tuesday will have the opportunity to turn over a new leaf as they head toward the general election in November. We hope they’ll take advantage of that opportunity to conduct campaigns that are civil and informative and steer clear of the mudslinging that has marred too many primary contests.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
Hydra (Roger Ford) says…
How can you expect anything other than negative, hate filled campaigns? They are republicans you know!
Made_in_China (Paul R. Getto) says…
Well, Hyrda, it's not just the R's. Campaign managers use negative campaigns because they work. The editor is right; this is like junior high school, but that's where we are. Because most folks don't follow politics and about 1/2 choose not to vote, the race is on to shock the 'truly loyal' into voting. If would help if more folks were interested in complex issues without simple solutions, but we are the sheeple, no?
nobody1793 (anonymous) says…
Vote for Nobody.
Made_in_China (Paul R. Getto) says…
nobody1793: That's one strategy. Voter suppression is an art and the trick is to get the 'right' people to vote. In one sense, the fewer people who vote the better for those entrenched in power. If we truly want a 'change' it will take participation by large numbers of citizens. I hope your philosophy isn't catching on, but given data from the past few decades it appears it might be.
sourpuss (anonymous) says…
This is a ridiculous editorial. Does the author really think that anything other than a dirty, vitriolic campaign is in the future? Every election is based on mudslinging, dirty pool, and underhanded stunts. People don't want a reasonable debate about issues that effect them. They want to worry about who people are having sex with, what people are shooting into their veins, whether their precious tax dollars might be going to an unworthy, out-of-work person, and religion. That is what people want and that is what they will get, and because of this, the winner of the election will probably be the richest, dumbest candidate.
independant1 (anonymous) replies…
is pulling numbers and factoids outta ones a$$ part of underhanded stunts or is that dirty pool?
nraged (anonymous) says…
People in Kansas...Please take the time to review what your candidates stand for. I personally talked to Andrew Grey about his views on how to move Kansas forward, and he is absolutely a stand up, no backing down, 'Americans first' candidate. His views on health care, illegal immigration, budgeting , State and National Debt are spot on. It's time to put America and her citizens first, and voting people into office who represent Kansas and The United States of America are how to achieve this...Andrew Grey for Governor, and Stacey Davis for Lieutenant Governor...We can actually make a difference...no more same old same old, voting for a candidate because they have the most money for political advertisements....We can do this!!!
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
Are there any postcards coming from Wyandotte County?
wastewatcher (anonymous) says…
The LJ World has its nerve to complain about negative advertising when they and their TV station are the beneficiaries of all the campaign spending. All they have to do is not carry the negative ads or post a notice before and after each ad stating their position on each ad. It is hipocracy to editorialize about the negative ads while pocketing the cash.