Table of Contents
In the 2015 UK general elections, Defence Secretary Michael Fallon faced massive criticism for a deeply personal attack on opponent Ed Miliband. While the Labour, Conservative, and Liberal Democratic parties had all instigated negative campaigning, Fallon’s messaging was scrutinized and opposed because he crossed the line between political professionalism and personality.
Fallon claimed that Miliband’s competency for national security was questionable and that he could compromise it to gain power—like what he had done with his brother. The negative campaign quickly turned into a smear campaign, irking voters.
Negative campaigning is not a new phenomenon. It has existed since the first opposition rallied against the incumbent, spreading information about their shortcomings and attacking their policies. However, it is far from outdated. Negative campaigning is still very relevant.
The main reasons are:
- It highlights the faults, failings, and weaknesses of the opposition.
- It draws positive attention to the critique.
- It works.
You must follow some healthy techniques to ensure that your negative political campaigns work without inviting flak. This post looks at negative politics that work and those that backfire. It also covers the side most guides skip — how to sort out a negative campaign that has been aimed at you, and which of the four standard responses fits which kind of attack.
But first, let’s define negative campaigning.
Key Takeaways
Negative campaigning is messaging that targets or attacks a political opponent to expose their weaknesses, stop swing voters from shifting away, and position the campaigner as the better candidate.
Why negative campaigning persists
- Negative campaigning dates back to the first opposition movements that publicized an incumbent’s shortcomings, and it remains common because it highlights the opposition’s faults, draws attention to the critique, and works.
- About 90% of campaign ads ran negative during the final phase of the 2012 US primary elections.
- An LA Times study of that cycle found voters described the negative ads as pandering, yet the messaging still succeeded in casting opponents in a bad light.
- Data tracked by Journalist’s Resource shows negative messaging taking up a growing share of campaign advertising each election cycle, a trend that also holds in the UK.
When it backfires
- In the 2015 UK general election, Defence Secretary Michael Fallon drew heavy criticism for claiming Ed Miliband would compromise national security to gain power, just as he had allegedly done with his own brother.
- Fallon’s attack crossed from political criticism into personal smear, angering voters even though Labour, Conservative, and Liberal Democrat campaigns had all used negative tactics that cycle.
Techniques that work
- Attack advertisements, like the Conservative Party’s 2019 posters accusing Jeremy Corbyn of ignoring 17.4 million Brexit leave voters, work best when anchored to a common pain point, aimed at voters’ fears and emotions, and kept short and sticky, since negative emotions last longer than positive ones.
- Contrast advertisements pair an opponent’s failures, weaknesses, and policy shortcomings against the candidate’s own achievements, strengths, and policy proposals, causing less damage than attack ads while still building the candidate’s credibility.
- Negative campaigning by proxy uses lobby groups, which can be more persuasive than parties because they lack a direct stake in the election outcome and already carry established credibility and support.
- Criticizing an opponent’s policies exposes the downside of their platform while positioning the campaigner as a thought leader, and the messaging does not need to be lengthy or overly serious to land.
What is negative campaigning?
Negative campaigning is a form of messaging that identifies and targets or attacks the opponent. The criticism and attacks are designed in a way to:
- Bring attention to the failures or shortcomings of the opponent.
- Stop swing voters from swaying the other way.
- Establish oneself as the better candidate.
Does negative campaigning work?
During the final phase of the 2012 primary elections in the US, about 90% of the ads were negative campaigns. Marketing and campaign managers clearly saw potential in such messaging and ran with it.
The LA Times ran a study following this campaign, asking voters if such ads appeal to them. Interestingly, they claimed that the messaging with negative undertones seemed “pandering”. Yet, they subconsciously registered exactly what the ads aimed to do– put the opponent in a bad light.
Election after election, both the incumbent and the opposition have tipped the scale towards negative campaigning. The chart below shows how the negative messaging takes a more significant piece of the campaign pie yearly.
The trend holds in the UK too.
In a nutshell, negative campaigning does work when done intelligently. Let’s look at some effective techniques.
Healthy techniques for an effective negative campaign
Intelligent negative advertising in political campaigns will starkly contrast your opponents and you. When used strategically, this contrast will put you in a better light than your counterparts. Here are some healthy negative campaigning techniques to use:
Each technique below is anchored to a real negative campaigning example from an actual election — UK and US, party-run and candidate-run — so you can judge what the tactic looks like in practice before deciding whether it suits your race.
Run attack advertisements for negative campaigning
In the 2019 UK elections, the Conservative Party ran amok with negative campaigning that heavily targeted Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn for his views on Brexit. Their message was, “Politicians like Jeremy Corbyn are only respecting remaining votes—and ignoring 17.4 million leave voters. Add your name now—don’t let him get away with it.” The lines were carried in posters showing Corbyn and anonymous hands handling “leave” ballots (support Brexit).
While the Liberal Democrats also targeted Corbyn during this campaign, the Conservatives emerged victorious.
Some best practices to follow during such attack ads:
- Run A/B tests to determine the success of negative Vs positive campaigning.
- Identify common pain points for a central theme for your attack ads. In the above example, Brexit was a common pain point on which the Conservative party banked.
- Get in touch on people’s fears, insecurities and emotions while highlighting the risks of supporting your targeted opponent.
- Keep the positive aspects (what you bring to the table) for other campaigns. Attack ads are designed to be short, quick to understand, and sticky. Negative emotions last longer than positive ones.
Design contrast advertisements for negative campaigning
Unlike attack advertisements, contrast ads compare opponents’ weaknesses with your strengths. They show why the opponent must be criticized and why you are a great alternative.
Of course, these ads are less damaging than attack ads. However, these ads work great if you aim to highlight your competency rather than to bring down the opponent.
What messaging to use with contrast advertisements (messages in each row go together):
| Opponent | Your Candidate |
| Their failures | Your achievements |
| Weaknesses | Strengths |
| Policy shortcomings | Policy proposals/successes |
| Expectations Vs Reality | Future plans |
| Expert criticism | Testimonials |
Leverage lobby groups
Negative campaigning by proxy involves partnering with lobby groups and pushing your message. Political lobby groups can often be more effective than political parties in leading a negative campaign because they don’t seem to have a direct vested interest in the outcome of the elections (they don’t want to win the elections but get desired action on their cause). They already have established credibility and support levels, which can add to your advantage.
Here are some tips to follow while approaching lobby groups:
- Identify lobby groups fighting against causes that your opponent supports OR those fighting for causes that you support.
- Design material that invites media attention, not just the support of current stakeholders.
- Draw contracts or understanding regarding your role in the campaign, transparency towards voters, spin-doctoring, and other details.
Criticize policies
As a close follower of political developments, I believe this is the best way to attack or target an opponent for negative campaigning. It shows the downside of the opponent’s policies while establishing you as a thought leader.
Criticizing policies need not be super serious or long, either. A catchphrase, sticky line, memorable image, or video is enough to set your opponent back substantially. They differ from attack ads in that they provide you with the solution and from contrast ads as they don’t compare metrics.
Of all the negative campaigning examples in modern US politics, Daisy (1964) is the most cited — and it is the cleanest demonstration of this particular technique, because it attacked a position rather than a person. Senator Barry Goldwater had proposed the use of nuclear weapons in the Vietnam War. Lyndon Johnson’s opponent ran this ad, criticizing the use of such a destructive weapon and asking supporters to vote for him because “The stakes are too high for you to stay home.”
The messaging, creativity, and timing were perfect, giving Johnson a victory!
Online pushback for negative campaigning
The latest trend in negative campaigning, online pushback, is when your supporters demand explanations, critique policies, and generate a negative perception of your opponent on social media.
Campaigns can plan for such a pushback, leading the initiative with online critique or pushback and encouraging supporters to follow.
The advantages of this type of negative campaign are:
- It has great reach and the chance to “go viral.”
- Gradual decentralization of critique.
- Opportunity to stay relevant in the 24*7 news cycle.
- Unlimited material– you can focus on new posts or dig up old ones.
However, generating online pushback also has downsides. Some critical points are:
- You cannot control trolls and prevent supporters from getting too personal.
- Limited space for dialogue.
- Opponents can dig into your old posts for a smear campaign.
- Require dedicated efforts to avoid being a “one-time wonder.”
An excellent strategy for relishing the advantages and reducing shortcomings is to have a trusted, dedicated team monitor your and your targets’ social media. Ensure that every post from your profile is either drafted or at least approved by you.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s account is one of the clearest negative campaigning examples of an always-on approach, rather than a burst of activity timed to election day. It is always active and follows an informal messaging strategy to appeal to the Twitter audience. She attacks, supports, and posts regularly to keep herself relevant.
Negative campaigning techniques to avoid
While negative campaigning is proven to be effective, it also has obvious downsides. For one, it creates a pessimistic environment about the elections and candidates. This can also lead to polarization, radicalization, and demotivating constituents from voting.
To avoid such outcomes while also engaging in negative campaigning, avoid the following techniques:
- Dirty tricks: This includes secretly leaking photographs, videos, or other damning “evidence” and smearing opponents’ personal lives.
- Fake news and disinformation: Fake news is an intentional falsehood spread to create a smear campaign. Misinformation is inaccurate information spread unintentionally. To ensure a healthy negative movement, get your messaging fact-checked and verified.
- Push polls: Push polls are smear campaigns disguised as actual surveys. They involve asking misleading questions to supporters, such as how they feel about a candidate being a criminal. These questions have no concrete evidence but stick a doubt (often misdirected) in the opponent’s supporter.
How to fight negative campaigning
Your opponents are likely planning a negative campaign, as are you against them. It’s unavoidable. So, how do you fight against such campaigns and stand your ground?
Here are four proven ways that you can employ:
How do you deal with a negative campaign against you?
Choose one of four responses deliberately, instead of reacting to each attack as it lands:
- Rename, refresh, relaunch — when the attack has stuck to a specific policy or initiative that can genuinely be rebuilt and renamed.
- Show that the campaign holds no water — when the claim is factually wrong and you can prove it calmly, with evidence rather than indignation.
- Accept and offer a new solution — when the criticism is fair, and your answer is addressed to voters rather than to the opponent.
- Tie your policies to your end goal — when attacks are scattered across issues and the fix is one consistent theme they all have to argue with.
Two findings from the research literature should shape that choice. First, the attacks themselves are less reliable than campaign folklore suggests: the meta-analytic reassessment of decades of negative-campaigning studies by Richard Lau, Lee Sigelman and Ivy Brown Rovner, published in the Journal of Politics (University of Chicago Press), found no dependable evidence that going negative delivers the vote gains sponsors expect, and found indications that sustained negativity erodes trust and political efficacy more broadly. Second, the peer-reviewed work on the backlash (or “boomerang”) effect — the strand of political-communication scholarship carried in journals such as those published by SAGE — repeatedly finds that an attack can damage the attacker’s standing alongside the target’s, which is precisely what happened to Fallon in 2015.
The practical implication for a candidate under attack: time is usually on your side, and the responses below work because they are dignified, evidenced and consistent — not because they hit back harder.
Rename, refresh, relaunch
Negative messaging holds a lot of power. It can instantly dissuade a person from supporting you if your policies or ideologies are shown to be harmful. If you have become a target of such campaigns, one way to fight it off is to rename your campaign, refresh the messaging, and relaunch it.
Psychology professor Alison Ledgerwood says that mere renaming a policy or initiative “frees people from their initial negative conceptualization of it and allows them to adopt this new positive view.”
This initiative must not feel like a knee-jerk reaction to an attack, whitewashing, or a desperate attempt to save face. Rather, keep this as a solution only when:
- The opposition’s attack has earned considerable support.
- There is an opportunity to rebrand an initiative (some policies are so well established that rebranding is redundant).
- Such rebranding has not been done before for the policy in question.
- There is substantial merit to the rebranding.
Show that the campaign holds no water and discredit negative campaigning
If you sense falsehood in the opposition’s campaign, your best bet is to lift the curtains on it by proving it wrong. The important thing is to remain dignified rather than letting it feel reactive. A reactive or hurried reaction can make you look defensive and guilty.
Most negative campaigning examples are studied from the attacker’s side. This one is worth studying from the receiving end, because it is the response, not the accusation, that voters ended up remembering.
During the 2016 Senate elections, Democratic candidate Jason Kander was accused of not supporting gun owners’ rights. Kander, a former army captain who served in Afghanistan, responded with a video in which he assembles a blindfolded rifle. In the time it takes him to assemble the gun, he speaks about his views about gun safety and the risks surrounding it.
There’s no smearing, no accusations, and no loud defenses. Yet, the point comes through very elegantly and powerfully.
How to discredit an attack without looking defensive:
- Pin down the exact claim in writing first. Rebutting a vague impression is impossible; rebutting a specific, quotable sentence is straightforward.
- Lead with the verifiable record — the vote, the document, the date — and let the tone stay flat. Outrage reads as confirmation.
- Let third parties carry as much of the correction as possible: a fact-checking outlet, a reporter, a respected endorser with no stake in your win.
- Demonstrate rather than assert, as Kander did. A single piece of evidence voters can see for themselves outperforms a press release denying the charge.
- Answer once, thoroughly, then return to your own agenda. Serial rebuttals keep the opponent’s framing in circulation and hand them a second news cycle.
Accept and offer a new solution to fight negative campaigning
When a negative campaign against you is, in fact, valid, you can try to accept the campaign as a critique, acknowledge it, and offer a new way forward. It will show you in a positive light because you are responding to people’s feelings and opinions.
However, to employ such a tactic, your messaging must respond to the people, not your opponent. The latter will provide the opponent with added leverage. Moreover, avoiding alienating supporters who endorse the current policy or ideology would be best.
It is a delicate line to tread, but it can be a huge success if your campaign can pull it off.
What makes the difference is sequencing. Acknowledge the specific shortcoming early, while the story is still being written, rather than after a week of pressure — a concession that arrives late reads as a surrender, not a judgment call. Name what will actually change, in concrete terms a voter can check later, and avoid broad apologies that commit you to nothing. Deliver it on your own channels, in your own words, so the clip that circulates is yours. And give the supporters who backed the original position a reason to stay with you: frame the shift as a response to what you have heard on the doors, not as an admission that they were wrong to support you.
Tie your policies to your end goal when it comes to negative campaigning
As an election candidate, Barack Obama repeatedly endured negative campaigns against him. Opponents and voters criticized him frequently. But, he was a politically fresh change, and he used his tag and messaging of “Hope and Change” to tie together all his policies.
This constant re-establishing of one optimistic theme, a wave of change, and a dignified approach helped him stick his ground and fight off campaigns against him.
This is a discipline more than a slogan. Write one sentence that states what your campaign is for, check that every policy you run on visibly ladders up to it, and then route each incoming attack back to that sentence instead of to the person who made it. The advantage compounds: an opponent attacking a single policy has to argue against a frame voters have already heard for months, and the attack ends up restating your theme for you. It is also the only one of the four responses you can build before an attack arrives, which is why it belongs in the campaign plan rather than in the crisis folder.
Negative campaigning is here to stay. You can choose not to indulge or to make the most of it, but you cannot have an election cycle without it. If you decide to engage in such campaigning, you must have your research and target.
Sending a pessimistic message to the wrong audience may put them off, leading to a lost vote. For a guide on organizing such political efforts, read The only political campaign checklist you need to organize your efforts.
Feature image source: Ana Flávia/Unsplash.
