"You're mudslinging" should be a mudslinging counter

Mudslinging, which is negative campaigning, is when a candidate attacks his or her opponent to boost himself or herself. It's often ad hominem and missing the point, because it tries to bring down the opponent's credibility by pointing out flaws that may not be relevant to the candidate's platform.

Nowadays we're informed enough about this practice that we detest it. So, why not make mudslinging itself a "flaw" vulnerable to mudslinging? Meaning that if a candidate speaks out against your candidacy on unrelated matters like how you evaded a parking ticket, counter by saying, "This person is using ad hominem and has no idea what he/she's talking about. Do you trust someone that mudslings? I actually stand up for my policies (insert them here) instead of trying to bring down other people with me."

I'm fairly certain that a lot of people running for office have and are doing that. But sometimes, it's best to actually discuss the issue you're being asked about. It shows you can stay on task and know what you're doing. (Or not, depending on the individual. But the point remains that sometimes it's best to ignore a ridiculous taunt until someone asks you about it. )

Well, negative campaigning could turn off voters if they're not informed, so I don't know about just ignoring them. By actually informing them of mudslinging via this type of counterattack, it can renew support for a candidate as more charismatic and make them better voters as a whole, because you're educating them that this is bad.

Regarding talking about the issues, do you mean the actual policy issues or otherwise?

I meant the actual policy issues that any given candidate is basing their campaign on. It just seems more productive to me for a politician to focus on the things they're concerned about than going constantly on the defensive with "they're calling me a mean name!" It's alright if they make a few comments about an opponent's idiot campaign, but I wouldn't want them to spend too much time on it because then it looks like two schoolkids tattling on each other.

If the candidate wants the job that much, then they can spend that time and money more productively getting the information about the issues out there, stating what they stand for, rather than replying in the negative to a slur campaign. That does much more in my opinion.

Because, by and large, mudslinging works and most people don't care about the issues. For the majority of voters, the two most important things about a candidate are "relatability" and "character". If you start using terms like "ad hominem" and "logical fallacy", you're going to alienate the majority of voters. Voters make decisions based on their emotions, not on logic.

Appealing to voters' rationality is a surefire way to lose an election.

But this tactic still works. If your negative campaign is based on the notion that your opponent is nothing but a mudslinger who doesn't actually know how to govern properly, then why not use that to defend yourself and educate the public at the same time?

I'd say go right ahead. Character assassination, whether by making accusations against a political opponent, or by calling that person a mudslinger who is unfit to govern is really two sides of the same coin.

Sure there are those who examine the issues carefully, but you can't waste much time and effort appealing to them. You've got to hit people in the gut if you want to get their votes. They need easy to digest soundbites and short, pithy phrases.

Appeal to Emotion, while it is a logical fallacy, is necessary to win. And winning is the only thing that should matter to a candidate. If you can win while maintaining your integrity and ideals, more's the better. But if you're willing to sacrifice your chances of winning to maintain your integrity, then flip the coin.

Because it typically goes like this in a straight debate.

• Candidate A: "Mr. B over here is not the guy you want in office, because when he was a kid, he threw rocks at car windows."
• Candidate B: "Mr. A, that has nothing to do with global warming. I politely ask you stop mudslinging—"
• Candidate A: "Please! Mr. B! Stay on topic! We all know you threw rocks at those cars! Let's focus on the issue at hand!"

Saying he's mudslinging quickly turns into mudslinging itself, which can detract from the issue and make the initial victim seem weak or desperate, at least more so than their opponent, while all the way keeping the audience's mind hooked on the reason-for-mudslinging, ex: throwing rocks at cars. The more you talk about it without resolving it, the more people hear and think about that. And in the end, you're just labeled as a sensitive mudslinger yourself.

edited 16th Nov '11 11:38:12 PM by HeavyDDR

It could turn into one of those things people say whenever it suits them, I think. As in, someone could bring up a legitimate criticism of their opponent's character - something which actually demonstrates they're not the right person for the job - and the opponent would just counter with "Mudslinger! He's mudslinging!". Even if it's relevent.

"That's an obvious smear campaign: The allegations are baseless, sheer malicious slander. We've got issues to work on, so we're not going to get bogged down with scare-mongering bullshit" could be an efficient, no-nonsense response.

I agree with Savage's formulation. The point of it would be to bring the topic back to the candidates' platforms, the actual topic.

I guess I would try to be the candidate that keeps my cool and stays composed. Candidate B here sounds impatient; I would not let him or her interrupt like that. If he/she insists on mudslinging, I would point out that act to everyone, and show how detrimental it is to the whole process, and then bring the audience back to what's really important.

edited 17th Nov '11 5:32:09 PM by abstractematics

How well has this actually worked in the past though?

Well, from my personal experience, in state elections, an ad campaign that does nothing but relentlessly attack others just made me think that such an ad was worthless.

And I've read that some actually got negative reception because of this very reason - I think it was one of the gubernatorial elections where a candidate was damaged for mudslinging too much. Imagine if this negative backlash was capitalized upon to counter the ad campaign and build support.

Showing the voters that you have a sturdy character able to defend against criticisms is appealing, after all.

Wouldn't it be totally awesome if the way two candidates competed against each other was by talking about their policies and how they'll benefit the country the best?

Take your meds, man. That's crazy talk.

As a practical matter, if you're running for an office as large and powerful as President of the United States, then you need to appeal to as broad an audience as possible. Corn farmers in Iowa have different priorities from filmmakers in California or unemployed auto workers in Detroit. As a result, if you're running a national campaign, you need to keep your message simple.

I have often wondered, though, if people engage in negative advertising because it works, or because they believe it works. How often are elections won when the candidate doesn't engage in negative campaigning?

Oh it works, but sometimes it works against the ad itself. An overly negative campaigner makes me want to not vote for that person.