Political Ad Dollars Running 10-1 Negative

Anyone who's been watching much TV lately knows that the overwhelming majority of candidate ads are negative. Don't just vote for me, vote against my opponent because he's every manner of slimeball. The LA Times has the numbers:

WASHINGTON - So far this campaign, the political parties have exposed voters to nearly $160 million in ads attacking congressional candidates. How much spent painting a positive image? About $17 million. That's nearly $1 of nice for every $10 of nasty.

The message ingrained in such a disparity in numbers: Don't vote for a candidate; vote against the opponent.

Negative ads are the coin of the realm in politics. With one week left in the campaign, voters will continue to be bombarded on television, in the mail and over the phone as political strategists make their closing arguments to a shrinking pool of those who haven't made up their minds.

Under the terms of a 2002 campaign finance law, these messages are independent expenditures that the parties can undertake only if they do not coordinate with the candidates they are seeking to help. This type of spending by the parties on congressional campaigns is 54 percent higher than it was for the same period in the 2004 campaign season, according to data compiled by the Federal Election Commission.

It is also decidedly more negative. In 2004, the parties spent about $6 on ads in favor of congressional candidates for every $5 spent opposing candidates.

Why is this year so much different than 2004? I've got a couple of theories (as you knew I would). Number 1, the Democratic campaign at all levels has been based on "Bush is bad", and most ads from the Dem side are spent trying to morph GOP candidates into Bush or otherwise link them to Bush policies. Those ads are always negative.

Number 2, the GOP is in a tough spot, and so to make their case, they need to link Dem candidates to people like Pelosi, Murtha, etc. and to family values issues in which Dems are generally out of step with most of America like gay marriage. Again, the ads are going to be negative.

Number 3, neither side can give a good reason why they should be elected except for the fact that they're not the other guy. The Republicans can't boast of many great achievements while they've been running things (with the obvious exception of preventing additional terror attacks at home, and don't get me wrong, that's a big deal). The GOP has spent like a drunken sailor (apologies to drunken sailors) and has grown government at rates that nobody would have predicted in 2000. The Dems have done little but support the Iraq war when it was politically advantageous to do so, and then promptly cut-and-run when it got tough. Their campaign promises consist basically of surrendering to terrorism and raising taxes. Not a winning combination, and certainly nothing out of which you'd want to make a 30 second commercial.

Until somebody on either side has something they can genuinely brag about, I don't foresee there will be much of an increase in positive ads.