2012 election may be nastier than 2008

Jun 06 2011, Written by Michael Shammas in News, 0 Comments

The next presidential election is more than a year away, but potential candidates are already attacking one another for political gain. Whether one looks at Sarah Palin’s public critique of “Romneycare” or Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann’s questioning of our President’s citizenship, the 2012 election is shaping up to be even nastier than the 2008 election. So is there any hope for civil discourse? New data from the Fuqua School of Business suggests we shouldn’t hold our breath.

“Our study implies that campaigns with lots of money tend to be more negative,” said Ron Shachar, visiting professor at Fuqua, who led the research. “Given that experts expect the 2012 election to attract a lot of money, one can expect—given our findings—that 2012 will be quite negative.”

Initially, Shachar wished to understand a more common political phenomenon: why campaigns tend to grow more negative as election day approaches. In this process, however, he undermined a common assumption. He discovered that, contrary to previous belief, it’s not the intensity of the competition that helps predict if candidates go on the attack, but instead the money and attention a tight race draws. As both increase, so too does a candidate’s negative advertising.

Importantly, though candidates with deeper pockets or media saturation often turn to attack advertisements, lesser known candidates tend to focus on positive advertising. The reason for this is simple: a candidate who is not as well-known as others must spend time getting voters to know who he or she is, Shachar said.

Whatever the case, the upcoming Republican primaries should provide ample opportunity to see Shachar’s research in practice. I’m excited.