Negative campaigning works, why?

Ask anyone, they will tell you that negative campaigning works.

Negative campaigning does not mean offering straightforward
criticism of a candidate, their conduct, their competence, or
their record. While any of those might be a negative, telling
the truth; candidly, forthrightly and honestly, is not negative
campaigning.

Pointing to the fact that Marty Chavez has had 12 years to
end the cronyism and corruption in City Hall is negative, as
far as Chavez is concerned, but is not dishonest, nor misleading, nor is it "negative campaigning".

In contrast, Marty Chavez' criticism of RJ Berry's vote on
the state budget last year. Chavez points to Berry's support
of "the largest budget in state history", one that is now $400M
in the red.

Chavez is trying to paint Berry as a profligate spender.
The simple truth is that he is not, and anyone implying that
he is, is being dishonest in an effort to deliberately mislead voters.

Most state budgets are "the largest in history". The cost of
living, even for government, goes up every year. Further,
this budget is in the red for a lot of reasons, some of which
were unpredictable.

To imply, to try to get others to believe, that a vote for
Berry is a vote for record budgets and record deficits
is simply dishonest.

As further example, Chavez' repeated boast that he has
"balanced city budgets". He would have people assume he
"fought" for a balanced city budget against others who would
have had deficit spending instead. In truth, city budgets must
be balanced according to the law. Chavez could have been
the worst mayor ever, and city budgets would still have been balanced.


Sorely, Chavez' negative campaigning,
his fundamental willingness to deceive
and deliberately mislead voters,
will ultimately get him votes, not cost him.

It defies reason.




photo Mark Bralley