A couple of weeks ago, I mentioned Virginia’s Republican gubernatorial candidate, Jerry Kilgore, had put together a new TV ad effectively accusing his Dem opponent, Lt. Gov. Tim Kaine, of being soft on Hitler as part of a general smear against Kaine’s opposition to the death penalty. A Washington Post editorial described it as “a low moment in Virginia politics.”
But when it comes to an ad’s effectiveness, the depths of political discourse are irrelevant. Campaigns know all too well that blistering attack ads often work in smearing a candidate; that’s why we see so many of them.
In this sense, Kilgore’s Hitler ad wasn’t just a testament to the candidate’s character; it was a challenge to Virginia voters. Americans say they hate negative ads, but invariably believe them, remember them, and allow them to influence their voting behavior. Would Virginians reinforce the pattern? Maybe not.
A Washington Post poll conducted last week found that two of three Virginia voters said the ads were “unfair,” including nearly 75 percent of the self-described independents that both campaigns covet. Even 60 percent of those who favor the death penalty said the ads crossed the line. Those who had an unfavorable opinion of Kilgore jumped 10 points, and those who believed he “would say anything to get elected” increased 16 points, to 55 percent.
“It sounds like voters have really rebelled against this ad and are punishing the messenger,” said Darrell West, a political science professor at Brown University who has written extensively on the subject of political advertising.
What’s more, after the soft-on-Hitler ads had run for a few weeks, Kaine inched ahead in the race, leading Kilgore 47% to 44%.
The election’s next week. It may start to restore my faith in the electorate.