View source for Negative campaigning

{{Short description|Campaign strategy focused on attacking other alternatives}}
{{Globalize|article|USA|2name=the United States|date=October 2017}}

{{Political campaigning}}

'''Negative campaigning''' is the process of deliberately spreading negative information about someone or something to damage their [[public relations|public image]]. A colloquial and more derogatory term for the practice is '''mudslinging'''.

Deliberate spreading of such information may be motivated either by a genuine desire to warn others against real dangers or deficiencies, or by the campaigner's dishonest attempt to win in political, business or other spheres of competition against an honest rival. However, if the mudslinging statements can be proved to be correct, mudslinging takes the moral dimension of an opponent's duty serving the greater good by exposing the weakness of the other candidate.

The public image of an entity can be defined as [[reputation]], esteem, [[respect]], acceptance of the entity's appearance, [[values]] and behaviour by the general public of a given territory and/or a [[social group]], possibly within time limits. As target groups of public and their values differ, so negativity or positivity of a public image is relative; thus, to be successful, negative campaigning has to take into account current values of the group it addresses. The degree of strictness in practicing the group's values as opposed to its tolerance for violating the norms has also to be taken into consideration.

== Techniques ==
[[File:1864 US election poster.jpg|thumb|210px|Poster attacking the Democratic Party ticket in the run-up to the [[1864 United States presidential election]].]]

There are a number of techniques used in negative campaigning. The most standard form of negative campaigning is [[campaign advertising]] that serves as an attack on an opponent's personality, record, or opinion. There are two main types of ads used in negative campaigning: attack and contrast.

[[Attack ad]]s focus exclusively on the negative aspects of the opponent. There is no positive content in an attack ad, whether it is about the candidate or the opponent. Attack ads usually identify the risks associated with the opponent, often [[fearmongering|exploiting people's fears to manipulate]]. Because attack ads have no positive content, they have the potential to be more influential than contrast ads in shaping voters’ views of the sponsoring candidate's opponent.<ref name="Fridkin & Kenney, 2004">{{cite journal | last1=Fridkin | first1=Kim Leslie | last2=Kenney | first2=Patrick J. | title=Do Negative Messages Work? | journal=American Politics Research | publisher=SAGE Publications | volume=32 | issue=5 | year=2004 | issn=1532-673X | doi=10.1177/1532673x03260834 | pages=570–605| s2cid=144841980 }}</ref> One of the most famous attack ads was ''[[Daisy (television commercial)|Daisy Girl]]'' by the campaign of [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] that successfully portrayed Republican [[Barry Goldwater]] as threatening [[Nuclear warfare|nuclear war]]. Common attack ad themes include painting an opponent as soft on criminals, dishonest, corrupt, or a danger to the nation. Another relatively common theme is attacking the other side for running a negative campaign.

Unlike attack ads, contrast ads contain information about both the candidate and the opponent. The information about the candidate is positive, while the information about the opponent is negative. Contrast ads compare and contrast the candidate with the opponent, juxtaposing the positive information about the candidate with the negative information of the opponent. Because contrast ads must contain positive information, contrast ads are seen as less damaging to the political process than attack ads.<ref name="Fridkin & Kenney, 2004"/>

[[Push poll]]s are attacks disguised as [[Robo call#Political calls|telephone polls]]. They might ask a question like "How would you react if Candidate A was revealed to beat his wife?", giving the impression that Candidate A might beat his wife. Members of the media and of the opposing party are deliberately not called making these tactics all but invisible and unprovable.

Dirty tricks are also common in negative political campaigns. These generally involve secretly leaking damaging information to the media. This isolates a candidate from backlash and also does not cost any money. The material must be substantive enough to attract media interest, however, and if the truth is discovered it could severely damage a campaign. Other dirty tricks include trying to feed an opponent's team false information hoping they will use it and embarrass themselves.

Often a campaign will use outside organizations, such as [[lobbying|lobby groups]], to launch attacks. These can be claimed to be coming from a neutral source and if the allegations turn out not to be true the attacking candidate will not be damaged if the links cannot be proven. Negative campaigning can be conducted by proxy. For instance, highly partisan ads were placed in the [[2004 U.S. presidential election]] by allegedly independent bodies like [[MoveOn.org]] and [[Swift Boat Veterans for Truth]].

== Advantages ==
Sponsors of overtly negative campaigns often cite reasons to support [[mass communication]] of negative ideas. The [[Office of National Drug Control Policy]] uses negative campaigns to alert the public about serious health risks. Similar negative campaigns have been used to rebut mass marketing by [[tobacco companies]] or to discourage [[drunk driving]]. In politics, proponents of negative campaigning argue that voters have a right to know the truth about a candidate even if the information is unfavorable. In other words, if an opponent is crooked or unethical, then the public should be informed of the same.

[[Martin Wattenberg (political scientist)|Martin Wattenberg]] and [[Craig Brians]], of the [[University of California]], Irvine, considered in their study whether negative campaigning mobilizes or alienates voters. They concluded that data used by [[Stephen Ansolabehere]] in a 1994 American Political Science Review article to advance the hypothesis that negative campaigning demobilizes voters was flawed.

A subsequent study done by Ansolabehere and [[Shanto Iyengar]] in 1995<ref name="Ansolabehere, S. 1995">{{cite book |last1=Ansolabehere |first1=S. |last2=Iyengar |first2=S. |year=1995 |title=Going negative: How campaign advertising shrinks and polarizes the electorate |location=New York |publisher=The Free Press}}</ref> corrected some of the previous study's flaws. This study concluded that negative advertising suppressed voter turnout, particularly for Independent voters. They speculated that campaigns tend to go negative only if the Independent vote is leaning toward the opponent. In doing so, they insure that the swing voters stay home, leaving the election up to base voters. They also found that negative ads have a greater impact on Democrats than on Republicans. According to them, base Republicans will vote no matter what (and will vote only for a Republican), but Democrats can be influenced to either stay home and not vote at all or to switch sides and vote for a Republican. This, combined with the effect negativity has on Independents, led them to conclude that Republicans benefit more from going negative than Democrats.

Other researchers have found different, more positive outcomes from negative campaigns. [[Rick Farmer]], PhD, an assistant professor of political science at the [[University of Akron]] found that negative ads are more memorable than positive ads when they reinforce a preexisting belief and are relevant to the central issues of a marketing campaign. Researchers at the [[University of Georgia]] found the impact of negative ads increases over time, while positive ads used to counteract negative ads lack the power of negative ads.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0DTI/is_11_32/ai_n8569068 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050622031838/http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0DTI/is_11_32/ai_n8569068 |url-status=dead |archive-date=2005-06-22 |title=Sock it to 'em: can a negative marketing campaign have positive results? Here's what to know before you strike the first blow &#124; Entrepreneur &#124; Find Articles at BNET |publisher=Findarticles.com |access-date=2011-03-15 |year=2004 }}</ref> Research also suggests negative campaigning introduces controversy and raises public awareness through additional news coverage.<ref>{{cite report |url=http://www.economics.ucr.edu/news/SWET/Garrett_Asay.pdf |title=Why negative campaigning? The chaotic dynamics of an election |author1=Garrett R. Asay |author-link2=Donald G. Saari|author2=Donald G. Saari |date=December 10, 2004 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060323181046/http://www.economics.ucr.edu/news/SWET/Garrett_Asay.pdf |archive-date=March 23, 2006 }}</ref>

[[Kyle Mattes]] and [[David P. Redlawsk]] in ''The Positive Case for Negative Campaigning'' show through surveys and experiments that negative campaigning may provide informational benefits for voters. Without negativity, voters would not have full information about all of their choices, since no candidate will say anything bad about herself. They argue that candidates have to point out the flaws in their opponents for voters to be fully informed.

Most recent research distinguishes between a dichotomous (positive versus negative) and graded conceptualization of negative campaigning. The latter accounts for differences in the strength of negative communication.<ref name=":0">{{cite journal |last1=Haselmayer |first1=Martin |title=Negative campaigning and its consequences: a review and a look ahead |journal=French Politics |date=23 March 2019 |volume=17 |issue=3 |pages=355–372 |doi=10.1057/s41253-019-00084-8|doi-access=free }}</ref> It argues that positive (i.e. information about parties and candidates) and derogatory (i.e. democratic disaffection) effects of negative campaigning will depend on the strength or intensity of negative campaigning. Similarly, political candidates and parties have been found to adapt the strength of their negative messages during election campaigns in order to preserve the chances for post-electoral collaboration in countries with frequent coalition governments.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Haselmayer |first1=Martin |last2=Jenny |first2=Marcelo |title=Negative campaigning among coalition partners |journal=Research & Politics |date=11 September 2018 |volume=5 |issue=3 |pages=205316801879691 |doi=10.1177/2053168018796911|doi-access=free }}</ref>

== Risks and consequences ==
Some strategists say that an effect of negative campaigning is that while it motivates the base of support it can alienate centrist and undecided voters from the political process, reducing [[voter turnout]] and radicalizing politics.<ref name="Ansolabehere, S. 1995"/> 
In a study done by Gina Garramone about how negative advertising affects the political process, it was found that a consequence of negative campaigning is greater image discrimination of the candidates and greater attitude polarization. While positive ads also contributed to the image discrimination and attitude polarization, Garramone found that negative campaigning played a more influential role in the discrimination and polarization than positive campaigning.<ref name="Garramone 1990">{{cite journal | last1=Garramone | first1=Gina M. | last2=Atkin | first2=Charles K. | last3=Pinkleton | first3=Bruce E. | last4=Cole | first4=Richard T. | title=Effects of negative political advertising on the political process | journal=Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media | publisher=Informa UK Limited | volume=34 | issue=3 | year=1990 | issn=0883-8151 | doi=10.1080/08838159009386744 | pages=299–311}}</ref>

Negative ads can produce serious backlash. A [[1993 Chrétien attack ad|disastrous ad]] was run by the [[Progressive Conservative Party of Canada]] in the [[1993 Canadian federal election]], apparently emphasizing [[Liberal Party of Canada]] leader [[Jean Chrétien]]'s partial facial paralysis, which was caused by [[Bell's palsy]], in a number of unflattering photos, with the subtext of criticizing his platforms. Chrétien took maximum advantage of the opportunity to gain the public's sympathy as a man who struggled with a physical disability and his party's subsequent overwhelming victory in the election helped reduce the governing Progressive Conservatives to two seats, along with losing official party status.

A similar backlash happened to the Liberal Party in the [[2006 Canadian federal election|2006 federal election]] for running an [[2006 Liberal Party of Canada election ads|attack ad]] that suggested that [[Conservative Party of Canada|Conservative]] leader [[Stephen Harper]] would use Canadian soldiers to patrol Canadian cities, and impose some kind of martial law. The ad was only available from the Liberal Party's web site for a few hours prior to the release of the attack ads on television; nevertheless, it was picked up by the media and widely criticized for its absurdity, in particular the sentence "we're not making this up; we're not allowed to make this stuff up". Liberal MP Keith Martin expressed his disapproval of "whoever the idiot who approved that ad was," shortly before Liberal leader Paul Martin (no relation) stated that he had personally approved them. The effect of the ads was to diminish the credibility of the party's other attack ads. It offended many Canadians, particularly those in the military, some of whom were fighting in [[Afghanistan]] at the time. (See [[2006 Canadian federal election]])

In the 2008 US Senate race in [[North Carolina]], Republican incumbent [[Elizabeth Dole]] attempted an attack ad on Democratic challenger [[Kay Hagan]], who had taken a small lead in polls, by tying her to [[atheists]]. Dole's campaign released an ad questioning Hagan's religion and it included a voice saying "There is no God!" over a picture of Kay Hagan's face. The voice was not Hagan's but it is believed the ad implied that it was. Initially, it was thought the ad would work as religion has historically been a very important issue to voters in the American south, but the ad produced a backlash across the state and Hagan responded forcefully with an ad saying that she was a Sunday school teacher and was a religious person. Hagan also claimed Dole was trying to change the subject from the economy (the ad appeared during the [[Great Recession]]). Hagan's lead in polls doubled and she won the race by a nine-point margin.

Because of the possible harm that can come from being seen as a negative campaigner, candidates often pledge to refrain from negative attacks. This pledge is usually abandoned when an opponent is perceived to be "going negative," with the first retaliatory attack being, ironically, an accusation that the opponent is a negative campaigner.

While some research has found advantages and other has found disadvantages, some studies find no difference between negative and positive approaches.<ref>{{cite conference |conference=2005 Meeting of the American Political Science Association, September 1–4, Washington, D.C. |url=http://americandemocracy.nd.edu/working_papers/documents/Arceneaux_Nickerson_Negative_Messages.pdf |title=Two Field Experiments Testing Negative Campaign Tactics |author1=Kevin Arceneaux |author2=David W. Nickerson |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090325013318/http://americandemocracy.nd.edu/working_papers/documents/Arceneaux_Nickerson_Negative_Messages.pdf |archive-date=March 25, 2009 }}</ref>

Research published in the Journal of Advertising found that negative political advertising makes the body want to turn away physically, but the mind remembers negative messages. The findings are based on research conducted by James Angelini, professor of communication at the [[University of Delaware]], in collaboration with Samuel Bradley, assistant professor of advertising at [[Texas Tech University]], and Sungkyoung Lee of [[Indiana University]], which used ads that aired during the 2000 presidential election. During the study, the researchers placed electrodes under the eyes of willing participants and showed them a series of 30-second ads from both the [[George W. Bush]] and [[Al Gore]] campaigns. The electrodes picked up on the "startle response," the automatic eye movement typically seen in response to snakes, spiders and other threats. Compared to positive or neutral messages, negative advertising prompted greater reflex reactions and a desire to move away.<ref>{{cite web |publisher=University of Delaware| title=Viewers Are Repulsed by Negative Campaign Ads | via=Newswise | date=2008-10-09 | url=https://www.newswise.com/coronavirus/viewers-are-repulsed-by-negative-campaign-ads}}</ref>

== Causes ==
Studies have shown a variety of different negativity's predictors. Some of the negativity's drivers stated are: The attacker's personality traits ([[Big Five personality traits|Big Five]], [[Dark triad|Dark Triad]], [[Populism]]),<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal |last=Nai |first=Alessandro |date=July 2020 |title=Going Negative, Worldwide: Towards a General Understanding of Determinants and Targets of Negative Campaigning |journal=Government and Opposition |language=en |volume=55 |issue=3 |pages=430–455 |doi=10.1017/gov.2018.32 |s2cid=149757039 |issn=0017-257X|doi-access=free |hdl=11245.1/cfbbf8d9-a6b9-4113-9040-d8d902db6028 |hdl-access=free }}</ref> the media environment,<ref>{{Cite book |last=Iyengar |first=Shanto |title=Media politics: A citizen's guide. |publisher=WW Norton & Co |year=2019 |location=New York}}</ref><ref name=":0" /> and election-related factors<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Maier |first1=Jürgen |last2=Jansen |first2=Carolin |date=September 2017 |title=When do candidates attack in election campaigns? Exploring the determinants of negative candidate messages in German televised debates |url=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1354068815610966 |journal=Party Politics |language=en |volume=23 |issue=5 |pages=549–559 |doi=10.1177/1354068815610966 |s2cid=147764996 |issn=1354-0688|url-access=subscription }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Elmelund-Præstekær |first=Christian |date=March 2010 |title=Beyond American negativity: toward a general understanding of the determinants of negative campaigning |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/european-political-science-review/article/abs/beyond-american-negativity-toward-a-general-understanding-of-the-determinants-of-negative-campaigning/DD274B1E509301F4BA1081D6EFD9ADE4 |journal=European Political Science Review |language=en |volume=2 |issue=1 |pages=137–156 |doi=10.1017/S1755773909990269 |s2cid=145008948 |issn=1755-7747|url-access=subscription }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Hansen |first1=Kasper M. |last2=Pedersen |first2=Rasmus Tue |date=December 2008 |title=Negative Campaigning in a Multiparty System |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2008.00213.x |journal=Scandinavian Political Studies |language=en |volume=31 |issue=4 |pages=408–427 |doi=10.1111/j.1467-9477.2008.00213.x|url-access=subscription }}</ref><ref name=":1" /> (competitiveness, a candidate's rank in polls, type of election, party system).

== Notable examples ==

===United States===
In [[United States politics]], negative campaigning has been called{{who|date=June 2019}} "as [[American way of life|American]] as Mississippi mud" and "as American as apple pie".<ref>{{Cite book|title = The modern presidential campaign: Mudslinging, bombast, and the vitality of American politics|last = Scher|first = R. K.|publisher = M. E. Sharpe|year = 1997|location = New York|pages = 27}}</ref> Some research suggests negative campaigning is the norm in all political venues, mitigated only by the dynamics of a particular contest.<ref>{{cite journal|url=http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/politics/seminars/russian5.pdf|title=The Rational Attacker in Russia? Negative Campaigning in Russian Presidential Elections|doi=10.1111/1468-2508.00117|jstor=2691664|author1=Lee Sigelman|author2=Eric Shiraev|journal=The Journal of Politics|year=2002|volume=64|issue=1|pages=45–62|citeseerx=10.1.1.693.7080|s2cid=154960655}}</ref> [[Lee Atwater]], best known for being an advisor to presidents [[Ronald Reagan]] and [[George H. W. Bush]], also pioneered many negative campaign techniques seen in political campaigns today.<ref>{{cite news| url=https://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/20/opinion/20sat3.html | work=The New York Times | title=The Political Legacy of Baaad Boy Atwater | first=Eleanor | last=Randolph | date=September 20, 2008 | access-date=May 20, 2010}}</ref>

[[File:Daisy (1964).webm|thumb|250px|thumbtime=3|"Daisy" advertisement]]
* 1828: The [[Coffin Handbills]] used by supporters of [[John Quincy Adams]] against [[Andrew Jackson]] in the [[1828 United States presidential election|1828 presidential campaign]]. 
* 1934: Unethical campaign tactics were used against [[Upton Sinclair]] in the California gubernatorial election.<ref>Mitchell, Greg. [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/07/movies/mank-upton-sinclair.html ‘Mank’ and Politics: What Really Happened in 1934 California]. New York Times, December 7, 2020.</ref>
* 1936: The first radio advertising using negative campaigning came from the [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican Party]] in 1936.<ref>{{cite web | last=Edelstein | first=Rob | title=Timeline & Fun Facts | website=Broadcasting + Cable | date=2011-11-21 | url=https://www.nexttv.com/news/timeline-fun-facts-112619}}</ref>
* 1964: The [[Daisy ad]] used by [[Lyndon Johnson]] against [[Barry Goldwater]] in the [[1964 United States presidential election]]
* 2008: [[Hillary Clinton]]'s "3 a.m. phone call" ad questioning the [[crisis management]] abilities of her opponent, [[Barack Obama]].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://jfuinsurance.com |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070202005533/http://www.jfuinsurance.com/ |url-status=dead |archive-date=February 2, 2007 |title=3 a.m. ad |access-date=March 13, 2008 }}</ref>
* 2008: [[Elizabeth Dole]]'s ad against Democratic challenger [[Kay Hagan]] in her [[United States Senate election in North Carolina, 2008|2008 Senate re-election campaign]], where Hagan was said to be "Godless", as an attack to the lack of religious piety of her opponent. The ad backfired, as it sharply reduced support for Dole.<ref>{{cite web|title=Pollster: 'Godless' Ad Hurt Dole |url=http://www.drudge.com/archive/114871/pollster-godless-ad-hurt-dole |publisher=The Drudge Report |access-date=3 December 2010 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110716191435/http://www.drudge.com/archive/114871/pollster-godless-ad-hurt-dole |archive-date=16 July 2011 }}</ref> Dole was defeated by Hagan in the election.
* 2012–present: [[List of nicknames used by Donald Trump|Nicknames used by Donald Trump]] before, during, and after his presidency.<ref>{{Cite web |title=16 people President Trump has nicknamed |url=https://www.tmj4.com/news/16-people-president-trump-has-nicknamed |access-date=2023-03-16 |website=TMJ4 News |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=King |first=Ledyard |title=Riots. Radicalism. Corruption. Trump and Biden supporters turn to apocalyptic themes in campaign ad wars. |url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/08/01/trump-biden-ad-wars-candidates-apocalyptic-messages/5443313002/ |access-date=2023-03-16 |website=USA TODAY |language=en-US}}</ref>
* 2014: [[Justin Amash]] was smeared as "[[Al-Qaeda]]'s best friend in Congress" by his primary opponent Brian Ellis.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2014/08/justin-amash-al-qaeda-brian-ellis|title=GOP Rebel Justin Amash Just Beat a Guy Who Called Him "Al Qaeda's Best Friend"}}</ref>

===Elsewhere===
* Argentina: In the [[2023 Argentine general election]], the governing [[Unión por la Patria]] launched various [[fearmongering]] ads during one of the worst economic crisis of the history of the nation, in which they claimed economic crisis and human rights would worsen if they're not voted.
* New Zealand: In the [[1975 New Zealand general election]], the opposing [[New Zealand National Party|National Party]] launched the infamous [[Dancing Cossacks advertisement|"Dancing Cossacks" television advertisement]]. Animated by [[Hanna Barbera]], the attack advert claimed the incumbent [[New Zealand Labour Party|Labour Party]]'s recently introduced compulsory superannuation scheme could eventually lead to Soviet-style communism.
* Canada: In the [[1993 Canadian federal election]], the [[Progressive Conservative Party of Canada|Progressive Conservative Party]] launched attack ads that were widely seen to be mocking opposing candidate Jean Chrétien's facial deformity. See: [[1993 Chrétien attack ad]]
* United Kingdom: During the run up to the [[1997 United Kingdom general election|1997 general election]], the [[Conservative Party (UK)|Conservative Party]] ran a campaign that stated that the [[Labour Party (UK)|Labour Party]] was dangerous and used posters of Labour leader [[Tony Blair]] with "demon eyes" on them titled "[[New Labour, New Danger]]" (in reference to the [[New Labour]] slogan).<ref>{{cite news| url=http://politics.guardian.co.uk/election2001/images/0,9350,449562,00.html | location=London | work=The Guardian | title= New Labour, New Danger – Demon eyes (Conservative, 1997) – Election 2001}}</ref> The campaign failed as Labour won a landslide victory, ending 18 years of Conservative government.
* Mexico: in the 2006 presidential election, [[Felipe Calderón]], president from 2006 to 2012, launched TV ads that stated his opponent, [[Andrés Manuel López Obrador]], was "a danger to Mexico". To this day, López Obrador continues blaming the negative campaign for his defeat and saying that it was part of a conspiracy that the Mexican business [[elite]] planned against him.<ref>{{cite web | website=Gobierno Legítimo de México | title=Trayectoria Política - Andrés Manuel López Obrador | url=http://www.gobiernolegitimo.org.mx/trayectoria/ | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071129234550/http://www.gobiernolegitimo.org.mx/trayectoria/ | archive-date=2007-11-29 | url-status=dead | language=es}}</ref>
* Canada: In the [[2008 Canadian federal election]], the [[Conservative Party of Canada|Conservative Party]] released an ad featuring Opposition Leader [[Stéphane Dion]] being [[defecated]] on by an animated [[puffin]]. Harper later apologized for the ad.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/harper-apologizes-for-tasteless-bird-excrement-attack-ad-on-dion-1.712632 |title=Harper apologizes for tasteless bird-excrement attack ad on Dion |access-date=2008-09-11 |url-status=dead |work=CBC News |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080917205240/https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/harper-apologizes-for-tasteless-bird-excrement-attack-ad-on-dion-1.712632 |archive-date=September 17, 2008 }}</ref>
* In the Crewe and Nantwich By-election in 2008, The Labour Party ran a personal class-based campaign against the Conservative candidate Edward Timpson, calling him "the [[Tarporley]] Toff", "[[Lord Snooty]]", "[[Tory#Great Britain|Tory]] Boy Timpson".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.creweandnantwichlabour.org.uk/dont_be_conned_by_tory_boy |title=Don't be conned by Tory Boy |publisher=Crewe and Nantwich Labour |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080925122323/http://www.creweandnantwichlabour.org.uk/dont_be_conned_by_tory_boy |archive-date=2008-09-25 }}</ref> Labour supporters donned [[top hat]]s to mock Timpson, whose family own a national shoe repair and key-cutting business.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3972727.ece|title=Attempts to stir class war backfire for Labour in Crewe & Nantwich | work=The Times | first=Ben | last=MacIntyre | date=21 May 2008 | access-date=30 April 2010 | location=London}}{{dead link|date=September 2024|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}}</ref> The campaign was very poorly received and was condemned as negative and xenophobic by Conservative leader David Cameron.<ref>{{cite news| url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7415362.stm | work=BBC News | title=Cameron hails 'end of New Labour' | date=May 23, 2008}}</ref>
* Serbia: In the [[2018 Belgrade City Assembly election]], the ruling party [[Serbian Progressive Party|SNS]] launched a negative campaign against two candidates, [[Aleksandar Šapić]] and [[Dragan Đilas]]. In a TV political ad they were portrayed as tycoons and criminals who are too busy protesting against [[Aleksandar Vučić]] and meeting other criminals than attending meetings. The advertisement caught the attention of [[:sr:Регулаторно тело за електронске медије|REM]], which resulted in a suspend of the advertisement.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.rts.rs/page/stories/sr/story/2728/izbori-2018/3042256/rem-obustaviti-emitovanje-spota-liste-aleksandar-vucic--zato-sto-volimo-beograd.html|title=REM: Obustaviti emitovanje spota liste "Aleksandar Vučić – Zato što volimo Beograd"|last=Serbia|first=RTS, Radio televizija Srbije, Radio Television of|access-date=2018-02-18|language=sr}}</ref>
* Philippines: then-vice presidential candidate [[Antonio Fuentes Trillanes IV]] aired a negative ad against then-presidential candidate [[Rodrigo Duterte]] in the tail end of the [[2016 Philippine general election]] highlighting his public obscenity.<ref>{{cite AV media |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnwrCPCc-gw  |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/varchive/youtube/20211222/KnwrCPCc-gw |archive-date=2021-12-22 |url-status=live|title=Anti Duterte Ad by Trillanes |via=YouTube }}{{cbignore}}{{Password-protected}}</ref>
* Poland: Chairman of the Polish public broadcaster [[Telewizja Polska|TVP]], [[Jacek Kurski]] aired a negative claim against then-presidential candidate [[Donald Tusk]] during [[2005 Polish presidential election]] falsely claiming that his grandfather had briefly fought in Hitler's army.<ref>{{cite web | title=Polish Campaign Dredges Up the Past |date=2005-10-17 | website=DW.COM | url=https://www.dw.com/en/polish-campaign-dredges-up-the-past/a-1743707}}</ref>

== See also ==
* [[Ad hominem]]
* [[Defamation]]: includes libel, slander
* [[List of democracy and election-related topics|Democracy and election-related topics]]
* [[Opposition research]]
* [[Political campaign]]
* [[Push poll]]
* [[Smear campaign]]
* [[Tu quoque]]

== Footnotes ==
{{reflist}}

== References ==
* Kim Fridkin and Patrick Kenney. 2019. Taking Aim at Attack Advertising: Understanding the Impact of Negative Campaigning in U.S. Senate Races. Oxford University Press.
*{{cite book |author=Mattes, Kyle and David P. Redlawsk. 2014. |title=''The Positive Case for Negative Campaigning''. | publisher=University of Chicago Press |url=http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/P/bo19211592.html}}.
* {{cite journal |author=Wattenberg, Martin P. |title=Negative Campaign Advertising: Demobilizer or Mobilizer |publisher=UC Irvine, Department of Politics and Society |date=August 22, 1996 |journal=EScholarship Repository |url=http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=crisp | access-date=January 29, 2005}}
* {{cite web |author=Bike, William S. |title=Campaign Guide: Negative Campaigning |publisher=City: San Diego |date=March 28, 2004 |work=CompleteCampaigns.com |url=http://www.completecampaigns.com/article.asp?articleid=8 |access-date=August 3, 2005 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051201170443/http://www.completecampaigns.com/article.asp?articleid=8 |archive-date=December 1, 2005 |url-status=dead }}
* {{cite web|last=Saletan |first=William |author-link=William Saletan |title=Three Cheers for Negative Campaigning |publisher=City: Washington |date=November 25, 1999 |work=Slate |url=https://slate.com/news-and-politics/1999/11/three-cheers-for-negative-campaigning.html |access-date=August 3, 2005 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050409180604/http://slate.msn.com/id/56628/ |archive-date=April 9, 2005 }}
* Does Attack Advertising Demobilize the Electorate? Stephen Ansolabehere, Shanto Iyengar, Adam Simon, Nicholas Valentino, 1994, ''[[American Political Science Review]]'', 88: 829–38''
* [http://pcl.stanford.edu/common/docs/research/iyengar/1996/goingneg.html Winning, But Losing, Ansolabehere and Iyenger, 1996]
* [http://www.cnn.com:80/2008/POLITICS/03/10/clinton.ad.obama.ap/index.html?iref=newssearch Girl seen in Clinton's '3 a.m.' ad supports Obama]{{dead link|date=January 2025|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}}
* {{cite web |title=The Effects of Negative Campaign Ads on YouTube |date=October 2012 |url=http://www.noveltysense.com/2012/10/negative-political-campaign-ads-on-youtube.html |access-date=2013-07-09 }}
* {{cite journal | last1 = Ennser-Jedenastik | first1 = Laurenz | last2 = Dolezal | first2 = Martin | last3 = Müller | first3 = Wolfgang C. | title = Gender differences in negative campaigning: the impact of party environments | journal = [[Politics & Gender]] | volume = 13 | issue = 1 | pages = 81–106 | doi = 10.1017/S1743923X16000532 | date = March 2017 | s2cid = 13330235 }}
* {{cite journal | last1 = Haselmayer | first1 = Martin | last2 = Jenny | first2 = Marcelo | title = Friendly fire? Negative campaigning among coalition parties | journal = [[Research and Politics]] | volume = 5 | issue = 3 | pages = 205316801879691 | doi = 10.1177/2053168018796911 | date = September 2018 | doi-access = free }}
* {{cite web|title=Political Mudslinging: Definition & Examples |website=Study.com |date=March 1, 2016 |url=https://study.com/academy/lesson/political-mudslinging-definition-examples.html}}
{{Media manipulation}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Negative Campaigning}}
[[Category:Election campaigning]]
[[Category:Political campaign techniques]]
[[Category:Articles containing video clips]]