In my ideal gubernatorial race, we’d have three candidates — each with an equal shot at winning the popular vote. They’d each present their positions on important topics, have deep intellectual debates, and the candidate with the most people supporting his or her positions would win. However, there is no such thing as an ideal election and seemingly no such thing as a “fair race” either.
Instead, at least from my perspective as an outsider looking in, this Virginia gubernatorial race has involved some of the most negative campaigning that I have observed. As is the case for most political elections, it appears that most people in this election disagree with the views of McAuliffe, Cuccinelli and Sarvis, and the result is a race in which each candidate seeks to prove why voters shouldn’t pick the others. McAuliffe is winning because he has produced the most negative ads.
According to the Washington Post, McAuliffe is outspending Cuccinelli on TV ads by almost double. Given that the majority of McAuliffe’s ads seek to expose Cuccinelli’s faults and given that McAuliffe is currently leading in the most recent polls, I’d say there’s a relatively strong correlation between hurtful ads and candidate success.
Overall, I’ve been baffled by the sheer number of negative ads displayed on the Washington Post website. Along with outspending his opponents, McAuliffe got the head start by unveiling negative ads all the way back in July. Since then, McAuliffe has set off a chain reaction of negativity that has swallowed up the election campaigns of both parties with almost every ad released aiming to shed light on the faults of opposing runners.
Cuccinelli’s response to this ad deficit was the 30-minute anti-McAuliffe movie “Fast Terry,” created by the conservative Citizens United organization to question the credibility of McAuliffe and expose him as a terrible businessman.
The need for short films or four months of harmful ads seems unnecessary, but there’s no doubt that these tactics are part of contemporary politics. I understand that political campaigns often get nasty and I understand that politicians get scrutinized for every little piece of their record, but at what point is the negativity too much? Despite the correlation between ads and success, I think it isn’t too much to ask, of future campaigns, for the majority of ads to focus on the candidates’ own goals and perspectives rather than their opponents’.
Of course the correlation between negative ads and election poll success does not mean causation. There are many other factors that come into play when considering the success of a candidate in preview polls, such as party alignment and personal opinions. Yet, the $22 million to $14 million total spending difference, as well as the $14 million to $8 million TV spending difference, both in favor of McAuliffe, cannot be ignored.
Another Washington Post poll supports the effectiveness of these negative ads by asking supporters if their votes are more for their candidate or more against the opposing candidate. The results are self-explanatory: 64 percent of McAuliffe supporters are more against Cuccinelli than for McAuliffe whereas 44 percent of Cuccinelli supporters are more against McAuliffe than for Cuccinelli.
There is clearly something to be said for this difference in voter sentiments. Although McAuliffe is leading, the majority of his supporters are merely voting against Cuccinelli. Negative ads no doubt exploit this dissatisfaction.
The high percentages themselves prove that voters aren’t very satisfied with this year’s candidate selection to begin with. If only 36 percent of the leading candidate’s supporters are truly for his positions and not just against the other candidates’, voters deserve better. I’d say at least the majority of people need to be truly backing their candidate.
Of course it’s easier said than done to put out two (or more) deserving candidates that people will rally behind. Part of democracy is that we may not always agree with our representatives. For now, unfortunately, negative campaigns will continue to remain an important part of victory. I’d still like to see a candidate go against the norm and tone down the negativity.
Jared Fogel is a Viewpoint columnist for The Cavalier Daily.
Read More
PARTING SHOT: No man is an island
By Ava MacBlane | YesterdayRetirement, as you can tell, has been treating me well. When people ask me now if I miss it, I laugh and tell them some things I definitely don't miss. But I don't always get to tell them about the things I really do miss.
PARTING SHOT: You never know unless you try
By Lexi Baker | 2 days agoMy time at the University was shaped by the people who showed me grace and kindness and by those who had confidence in me, even when I struggled to have it in myself.
PARTING SHOT: A love letter to Cav Daily and Connection
By Ava Proehl | 2 days agoMy time here taught me to look for the genuine, human connection in every moment.
