In recent weeks I’ve written about the appropriateness, about the essential nature of negative advertising.* The simple reality is that incumbents aren’t going to tell you why they don’t deserve to be re-elected. Unfortunately, the media in our day and age is more likely to react to what candidates say than to take a pro-active, watchdog roll to educate the voting public.
Hi. Next Contestant has been paying a lot of attention to two Congressional races in Maryland. One is for the U.S. Senate, between incumbent Democrat Ben Cardin and Republican challenger Dan Bongino. The other is for the House, between Democrat Dutch Ruppersberger, the incumbent Congressman from the Second Congressional District, and his Republican challenger State Senator Nancy Jacobs. Maryland is a state where registered Democrats outnumber their Republican counterparts 2:1, more than 2.6:1 in the Second Congressional District. It’s a state where the people tend to vote their party affiliation.
Yesterday, I wrote an article entitled, “Negative Advertising: An essential means of voter education.” This piece looks at the flip side of negative advertising. From the campaign’s point of view, it’s as essential to winning as money. In fact, funding negative advertising may just be the primary reason the candidate needs money.
Hi. This is the first of two articles that I’m writing about “negative advertising,” a concept that I believe has been given a bad rap by the media and, most importantly, by the form of it that many well-funded candidates and their political action committees have chosen. This first piece is about its definition and essential role. (As usual, I’m going to write like I know what I’m talking about, leaving it to your comments to help me get it right.)