Negative Advertising and Campaign Strategy负面的广告和宣传策略.docVIP

Negative Advertising and Campaign Strategy: An Analysis of Negative Advertising in the 2000 Presidential Election Molly McCartney Creighton University Introduction An important aspect of political science is the analysis of political campaigns. One of the most influential areas of political campaigning is televised political advertising. The way a candidate chooses to relay a message to the American public (i.e., negative political advertisements, positive political advertisements, etc.) is almost as impactful as where (i.e., swing states, small television markets, etc.) that candidate airs his/her message. For example, in the 2000 election, Bush ran a very strong negative campaign in South Carolina, but not in Texas. This leads us to wonder why a candidate’s campaign strategy is formulated the way it is. In order to gain a better understanding of the behaviors involved in television political advertising, an important question is, “In the 2000 Presidential Election, why did George W Bush choose to run negative television advertisements in some media markets and not others?” This question is worth addressing for many reasons. First, with the number of negative ads on the rise, it is important to gain an understanding into why some candidates find negative ads to be such a useful part of political campaigning. Second, many voters report dislike for negative ads, so it is important to analyze why candidates would choose to run advertisements to which the voting public often has a negative response. Third, most candidates do not run the same advertisements in all DMAs. Because of this, it is important to analyze why candidates choose to run negative ads in some DMAs and not in others. Negative political advertising is an area of study that many political scientists struggle to understand. The research on the topic is often skewed, with some political scientists finding that negative ads are beneficial to a candidate, and other political scientists findin