Negative campaigning is as old as election campaigns themselves. Admittedly, in the U.S., they are carried out in a very explicit manner because of the country’s culture and electoral system. It’s also done relentlessly, as attack ads are really the bulk of political advertising.
Ever since Kamala Harris became the presumptive nominee, a race to define her hast started. Many voters have an impression about her, but it’s not yet a clearly defined opinion (unlike in the case of Donald Trump where everybody has an opinion, love or hate him). Whatever side can define Harris first, has the advantage. So she better gets ready for a barrage of attack ads.
So far, Donald Trump has operated according to the strategy “let’s throw everything at her and see what sticks.” And I think it’s a mistake.
I also write about this in the chapter about crisis management in my new book “Beat the Incumbent.” If you accuse somebody for many different things, it becomes easier for the accused to dismiss the accusations all together as one and as political mudslinging.
In fact, that was part of the reason why the various trials against Donald Trump have not hurt him in the polls. The fact that there were several trials made it easier for Donald Trump to dismiss them as politically motivated.
The key for effective negative campaigning is that you have to tell a coherent narrative, make a point that is credible with voters, and then deliver that point forcefully and repeatedly.
You can also watch my video on the art of negative campaign advertising here.