The Breakdown: Do Negative Campaign Ads Sway Voters?

The Breakdown: Do Negative Campaign Ads Sway Voters?

The Breakdown: Do Negative Campaign Ads Sway Voters?

With attack ads battling it out on airwaves across the country, Chris Hayes asks Stanford professor Shanto Iyengar: do negative ads ever have positive effects?

Copy Link
Facebook
X (Twitter)
Bluesky
Pocket
Email

With candidates’ campaign ads battling it out on the airwaves and on our TV screens leading up to next week’s elections, Chris Hayes and Stanford professor Shanto Iyengar get to the bottom of whether negative ads ever have positive effects.

The Breakdown With days to go until the midterm elections and with buckets of money being poured into this year’s races, negative campaign ads are battling it out on airwaves and on TV screens across the country. But are these smear campaigns actually beneficial to the candidates who fund them? Do they leave a lasting impression in voters’ minds or just a bad taste in their mouths? And if they do work in swaying voters, why? On this week’s edition of The Breakdown, Stanford political science professor Shanto Iyengar joins The Nation‘s DC editor Chris Hayes to figure out whether negative ads ever have positive effects.

 

Related Links

Matt Lauer asking Meg Whitman and Jerry Brown to just get along.
A round-up of the worst negative campaign ads from this year’s primaries.
More information about guest Shanto Iyengar.

Subscribe to The Breakdown on iTunes to listen to fresh takes on the confusing concepts that make politics, economics and government tick. A new episode every week!

Support independent journalism that does not fall in line

Even before February 28, the reasons for Donald Trump’s imploding approval rating were abundantly clear: untrammeled corruption and personal enrichment to the tune of billions of dollars during an affordability crisis, a foreign policy guided only by his own derelict sense of morality, and the deployment of a murderous campaign of occupation, detention, and deportation on American streets. 

Now an undeclared, unauthorized, unpopular, and unconstitutional war of aggression against Iran has spread like wildfire through the region and into Europe. A new “forever war”—with an ever-increasing likelihood of American troops on the ground—may very well be upon us.  

As we’ve seen over and over, this administration uses lies, misdirection, and attempts to flood the zone to justify its abuses of power at home and abroad. Just as Trump, Marco Rubio, and Pete Hegseth offer erratic and contradictory rationales for the attacks on Iran, the administration is also spreading the lie that the upcoming midterm elections are under threat from noncitizens on voter rolls. When these lies go unchecked, they become the basis for further authoritarian encroachment and war. 

In these dark times, independent journalism is uniquely able to uncover the falsehoods that threaten our republic—and civilians around the world—and shine a bright light on the truth. 

The Nation’s experienced team of writers, editors, and fact-checkers understands the scale of what we’re up against and the urgency with which we have to act. That’s why we’re publishing critical reporting and analysis of the war on Iran, ICE violence at home, new forms of voter suppression emerging in the courts, and much more. 

But this journalism is possible only with your support.

This March, The Nation needs to raise $50,000 to ensure that we have the resources for reporting and analysis that sets the record straight and empowers people of conscience to organize. Will you donate today?

Ad Policy
x