Marco’s from Miami. Charlie hugged Barack. Kendrick hasn’t returned Rangel’s money. Just the latest volleys in what might seem like the season of negative campaigning in the Race for Senate. Yet what should be noted is that (1) negative information about policies, as opposed to personhood, can provide valuable information to voters, and (2) negative campaigning can actually increase voter turnout.
What Rubio’s Senate tenure might look like probably has nothing to do with being from Miami. That cynical and ugly tactic from the Crist camp is the classic smear. See Rubio is slick, because he’s from Miami – like that Scarface character. The Governor’s embrace of the President, while similar, in that it tries to create an association – actually has a policy basis. See Crist will embrace Obama’s policies, because he’s actually embraced Obama. The Ferre accusation leveled at Meek is a little bit more mixed. Ferre is clearly trying to smear Meek by tying him to the tax evasion issues surrounding Rangel – but this is actually an ongoing issue for politicians (what is to be done with “tainted” money?) and one that has spurred other elected representatives to get rid of Rangel money.
When political scientists have investigated the effects of negative campaigning, it turns out to be a double-edged sword. Some amounts of negative campaigning actually increase voter turnout, as partisans, in particular, tend to salivate at the red meat spectacle. But as the amount of negative campaigning keeps expanding, turnout can start to get depressed as independents, in particular, tend to avert their eyes (and votes) when the mud really gets slung. That’s why in a primary, especially a closed primary state like Florida, it makes all sorts of sense to go negative during a primary as primary voters tend to be quite partisan. But in a general election the vitriolic and bombastic tone should really only be used if one wants to dampen turnout (i.e., a more extreme candidate looking to turnout the base).
