Reyneveld Goes Negative in the Ballard-area House Race

Comments

1

This happens because it works. It moves poll numbers and votes. It works because voters allow it to work on them. Every voter gets the mailer. Not every voter reads the response in the media by the Berry campaign and her surrogates.

"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

More reporting by The Stranger on something as common as the sun rising in the east.

2

@1 -- It can also backfire. Someone who is on the fence can see this mailer and go "What???"

Then they do a little bit of research, find this article and conclude (rightly so) that it is bullshit. They then vote for the other candidate (I would, if I was in that district).

Good job Rich. This is exactly the type of reporting we need to sort out bullshit attacks from things that actually have substance.

3

@2, It doesn't backfire. Every poll done after these things show support for the other candidate going down. Maybe one voter sees that, does the research and goes what? But for every one that does, there is more than one that does not. They wouldn't do it, if they didn't have the research showing it works.

4

@3 Bullshit. Of course they can backfire. A simple search leads to articles like this: https://www.startribune.com/negative-ads-work-but-they-can-backfire/502274161/
In this case, it will likely backfire. Flyers can be effective, but usually as a means to gain name recognition, or otherwise present yourself as someone worth considering. There is a reason why ads like this aren't common -- they often backfire.

This is a desperate act by someone who figures she has nothing to lose. That isn't true. She will lose the race, and will lose credibility and respect in the future. This is a bush league move by someone who has just killed her political future. That is some stupid shit.

5

@3 They do it because marketing firms and consultants make money doing it. And politics is a fear based industry. If YOU don't do it, maybe your opponent will! OH NO!'

But actual data shows mailers like these — and negative ads in general — have almost ZERO effect at all at moving voters.

"A comprehensive literature analysis published in 2007 in the Journal of Politics examined the effects of political ads. The authors reported that negative ads tended to be more memorable than positive ones but that they did not affect voter choice. People were no less likely to turn out to the polls or to decide against voting for a candidate who was attacked in an ad."

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-negative-political-ads-work/

And yes. They can backfire spectacularly.

https://theconversation.com/how-political-attack-adverts-can-backfire-140304

Anything else you wan't to be wrong about today?

6

@4, From your own source, "Negative ads can occasionally backfire,..."

"Occasionally" is the operative word. The probability is that in any specific case they will work, and over a repetition of cases they work much more often than they don't. If they didn't work, they wouldn't be done, in election cycle after election cycle.

What does that say about the humans that vote?

7

@6 Is there an echo? Nobody said they ALWAYS backfire. We literally said that "can." And some times do — spectacularly.

And of course you ignored the other studies presented that proved they rarely if ever move voters by any appreciable measurement. Because that isn't what they are for.

They are there to signal to an opponent what level of fight they are in. Some times to coax an undisciplined opponent into an expensive negative ad war hoping to provoke a backfire and drain war chests.

But. Mostly they are an act of desperation and exist to make money for a consultant and give them a reputation as an attack dog for the next client.

And it is absolutely worth taking the time to debunk them as a measure of the integrity, honesty and character of a given politician and how low they are willing to stoop.

8

This campaign flyer backfired with me. I was truly undecided but when I got Reyneveld's slimy flyer, I decided to vote for Liz Berry instead.

9

in the Age of Trumpf
how could Lying
EVER Backfire?

10

@7, Meanwhile, your ire is focused on the candidates that engage in it, rather than what it says about the wisdom of voters and human nature.

11

@9, In 2016, it didn't. People who voted for him knew, even then, that he lied. I am hopeful he loses in 2020, but win or lose, it won't be because of his lying, and other character flaws.

12

"People who voted for him knew, even then, that he lied." --Bess

bingo

13

apologies, Bess

I was commenting on the
wisdom of emulating Fake 'prez.'

14

Why is everyone focused on the least important issue about whether a negative mailer affects the outcome of an election. It does if the citizens are reactionary and uninformed and if Rich Smith controls the narrative by what's written in this article. Did anyone actually look up Matt Shea and all of his offenses? It's not just etc. etc. Why would Rich Smith be so dismissive about Matt Shea? Why did WSAJ Justice for ALL PAC support Shea by giving Shea money? Who does the oversight at WSAJ? Why did the democratic caucus including Noel Frame vote for the bill that Shea sponsored in 2018. I don't care how good the bill was. Supporting Shea's bill rewarded Shea and gave him legitimacy. Where is the accountability? Shea is a domestic terrorist. He physically and emotionally abused his 1st wife that he was married to between 2002-2008. In 2011, he pulled a loaded gun on a motorist (and he didn't have a concealed weapons permit), and it is alleged that Shea had angry outbursts in his legislative office. He was disarmed by a commander while he served in Iraq due to anger management issues. And he is associated with a white nationalist hate-group! Oh and read about the biblical basis of war manifesto he distributed. And Shea did this all before 2019. So all of you who are clutching your pearls because you think Sarah's mailer is "negative" should ask yourself if you are ok if people are complicit. Liz is the CEO of the WSAJ. Who else has WSAJ’s political arm given money to and are these people that are given money vetted? Matt Shea was given money by the WSAJ JFA PAC for his campaign in 2016 and 2018 and WSAJ waited until 2019 to relinquish support of Shea. And why does it matter if Sarah went to Zoo lights with Berry and was in a book club with Frame. What does that have to do with anything? Why try to defend your position with such sophomoric responses? Confront these issues. Stop being apologists. Reyneveld's mailer was not negative. It is exposing the morally corrupt and complicit politicians, PACS and lobbyists. And everyone trying to deflect from the real issues are complicit and part of the problem. Why isn't Shea criminally convicted? Why has he been given so many "lucky" breaks? In fact so lucky, that Shea continues to work in state government being paid by our tax dollars and given money for his campaigns. Look up who Matt Shea is and why can't Liz actually respond to WSAJ's financial support of Shea. Liz is the CEO of WSAJ, not the mail clerk or receptionist. Saying that she simply doesn't get a say where PAC funds go to and doesn’t know Shea is just passing the buck. How can we the people change the system if we don’t people with power accountable?