This campaign is the nastiest, voters say

When it comes to political ads this year, the sinister voices and
ominous music of attack spots are dominating even more than in the past,
voters in 10 battleground congressional districts said.
 
Nearly half of all respondents, 49 percent, said political advertising is more negative than in past elections, while 45 percent said the tone of this fall’s bombardment of TV and radio spots is about the same, The Hill 2010 Midterm Election Poll found. Just 3 percent of likely voters viewed the advertising as less negative.
 
The results are no surprise in an election season that has seen plenty of memorable mudslinging. Among the most unforgettable examples: an ad by California GOP Senate candidate Carly Fiorina featuring red-eyed “demon sheep” to denigrate her primary opponent, and a spot by Kentucky Democrat Jack Conway accusing Republican Rand Paul of having tied up a young woman and forced her to worship “Aqua Buddha” in what Conway portrayed as a cultish college stunt.

{mosads}And while public perceptions often differ from realities, the voters may be on to something, said Karl Struble, a Democratic ad maker who has worked for statewide candidates in West Virginia, Washington state, Iowa and Arkansas this year.
 
“It’s a higher percentage of negative ads than I’ve ever done,” Struble said. He estimated that while in previous elections he has produced an equal number of positive and negative spots, this year the ratio has been closer to 2-to-1 negative.
 
“When the mood of the country is bad, the public is much more likely to believe negative ads,” he said.
 
Struble’s 2010 spots include attacks on GOP Senate candidates Dino Rossi in Washington state and John Raese in West Virginia. A narrator in one ad in the Mountain State says Raese thinks West Virginians are “hicks,” while other spots go after the Republican’s getaway mansion in Florida and its “pink marble driveway.”
 
In The Hill poll, Democrats were more likely than Republicans to think this year’s advertising is more negative, 55 percent to 44. The respondents all hailed from districts with Democratic incumbents being targeted by the GOP.
 
“When your side is the one under attack, you tend to think they’re more negative,” said Matt Bennett, vice president at Third Way, a centrist Democratic think tank.
 
Voters saw a bevy of attack ads in the long 2008 presidential campaign, but then-Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) by and large eschewed the deeply personal broadsides that have marked the 2010 congressional races. McCain held back from attacking Obama over his association with his controversial former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, while Obama steered clear of direct personal hits on a man known to many as a war hero. “That race had something hanging over it, which was race,” Struble said. “That caused people to be careful on both sides.”

Bennett said the voter perception this year might also be fueled by the increased overall spending on ads, which means more of them are on the air. “I don’t think it’s the content that has gone lower, it’s the volume that has gone up,” he said.
 
In addition to the standard candidate and party advertising, this year has seen a barrage of third-party political ads following the Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case lifting some restrictions on campaign spending. “Third-party groups are almost 100 percent negative,” Bennett said.
 
And of course, the adage about negative advertising — despised but effective — still holds. “They’re like spam. They’re incredibly unpopular, but they work,” Bennett said.