Leave the Attacking to Others: Assessing the Effectiveness of Candidate Endorsed and Independently Sourced Televised Attack Ads in the 2016 Presidential Election

Abstract

ABSTRACT Modern campaigns in the Citizens United era are awash with negativity, much of which originates from independent political groups (e.g., Super PACs, 501c organizations, etc.). In contrast to the plethora of work showing candidate endorsed attacks to be ineffective, more recent experimental evidence suggests that candidates may benefit from these independently sourced attack ads. However, the findings derived from this experimental research on independent attacks suffer from three critical shortcomings. The present paper identifies and addresses these shortcomings by assessing the net result of candidate endorsed and independently sponsored negativity using real presidential campaign data. The following develops a theory on the effects of source in negative campaigning for the highest office of the land, and tests whether it conforms to political behavior exhibited during the 2016 presidential campaign at both the state and county level. Results show the source of an attack matters, even in presidential contests, a finding particularly relevant given the hundreds of millions of dollars of attack ads from outside sources which saturate the televised airwaves of presidential campaigns today and well into the foreseeable future.