With the upcoming presidential election, candidates have begun to ramp up their rhetoric
and advertisements surrounding their campaigns. This activity, prevalent for the last
decade has contributed immensely to the polarization of American society and disinterest
of many crucial voters.
Since Joe Biden dropped out of the 2024 presidential race, research done by the Wesleyan
Media Project has shown that 95% of television advertisements run by the Republican
candidate are pure attack, meaning they focus entirely on attacking the opposing
candidate. Nearly 50% of the Democratic Nominee’s advertisements are purely attacking the
Republican Nominee. A study by Yale students in 2018 found that not one form of
advertisement (positive vs attack) works better than the other. Republicans, Democrats, and
Independants all respond similarly, no matter the form the advertisement takes. So why has
the American political landscape shifted to one that is so rooted in one of personal attacks
and smear politics in the last decade?
An estimated $12.32 billion will be spent on the 2024 presidential election advertisements, a 30% increase from the 2020 presidential election. This is a stark contrast compared to the 1.1 billion dollars raised in the entirety of the 2008 presidential election. This increase in spending of government elections is something that experts are warning gives rise to
nonstop campaign seasons. According to Comparative Politics and Governments teacher Diane Haleas, the culture of “non-stop campaigning” has contributed to many center-leaning voters tuning out of the most important elections entirely. While there have been attempts in the past to curb the amount of money expended on campaigns, Supreme Court rulings such as Citizens United vs FEC (2010), Speechnow.org vs FEC (2010), and McCutcheon vs FEC (2014), have all paved the way for unlimited campaign spending by corporations, the formation of Super PACS, and the removal of campaign finance laws.
These raised campaign funds are expended towards advertisements promoting candidates throughout their bids. A poll conducted by Pew Research reported that 62 percent of all adult Americans turned to television as a major source of their political opinions. A further 86 percent cited digital devices as a major outlet for their political consumption. This new digital landscape has birthed a political climate that fosters an attitude that political opponents are “enemies” and not simply “adversaries”. When running an advertisement, candidates can choose among different styles of advertisements, with some of the most popular being policy driven, positive candidate image (PCI), and attack advertisements. While policy and PCI are focused on the candidate running the advertisement itself and have been shown to have significant superiority in elevating voter turnout over negative counterparts, a study run by the Wesleyan Media Project showed that in recent elections, there has been a 91 percent increase in pure attack advertisements run by political candidates. In a recent poll, individuals were shown different examples of political advertising. When asked which, if any, would have had an impact on their decision if they had to vote for the candidate tomorrow, an overwhelming majority responded in favor of candidates with a positive subject, while very few had an inclination towards ads with negative undertones. When viewing Gerald Daughtery’s Travis County Commissioner reelection advertisement, Christina Mehta exclaimed, “I would have voted for him, and I don’t even know where he’s from!” before the video was even finished. The advertisement is an example of a positive candidate image advertisement. When faced with ads that were purely attack, such as the Lincoln Project’s advertisement, the majority of those interviewed admitted that they would have to conduct their own research before coming to a decision. When asked why they are drawn to the positive advertisements, Emerson Mehta said, “They’re just, like, so much happier and I’m just getting tired of all the, like, negativity always surrounding this stuff.” This was a view expressed by others, so why does a form of advertisement that is proven to lower voter turnout by five one hundredths of a percent for each time one aired seem so prevalent in our society. Saurin Mehta’s opinion drew comparisons to the restaurant review industry. “You might see a dozen four or five star reviews, but what’s going to stick with you is the one review that was complaining about the hair in their food.” He asserts that the same goes for political advertising. Politicians believe that if they can make one thing stick, voters are going to remember the negative more vividly than the positive. While this is an interesting theory, it is one that is yet to be tested and is still developing. With an increasingly competitive election cycle rapidly approaching, it is paramount that the Saint Ignatius community remain positive when faced with the inevitable negativity that is posed by political advertisements.
