However ...

Negative campaigning. In the last post, mentioned being assured by experienced politician that IT WORKS.

Here's the HOWEVER...
Within recent memory, in the state where I live, there were three gubernatorial candidates in the majority party's primary --
Candidate A (shall we say),
Candidate B, and
Candidate L.

Candidate A
had personal experience in statewide elected office & considerable family influence in the Party, and (I'd assume) Financial Resources with heft. And he's a lawyer.

Candidate B
was from our state's largest city (the most votes, + clout that comes with perception: people in the rest of the state may grumble about the city but we also elect people from there to be governor -- it's a plus to be from there, bottom-line-wise).

I don't know whether Candidate B was an attorney or not; he & his family have more money than God -- super-wealthy.

Candidate L -- from our state's capital, not the "City"; had been state senator from his district; not rich; not a lawyer.

The kingmakers -- and perhaps others -- in our state saw --
1) the majority-party's primary as, essentially, the contest; and
2) Candidates A & B as the Contenders.

Candidate L was the "Rodney Dangerfield" of that primary election.
As a potential winner, and next governor of our state, he wasn't "gettin' much respect."

-------------------------------------------------------------

And then this happened:

Candidates A & B ran a lot of negative advertising about each other, spent a ton of money, and the party's voters became so tired of hearing it that they voted for Candidate L in the primary.

It was like a total upset. No one expected that result & everyone talked about it.
It was considered a triumph of civility over Negative Campaigning.

Candidate L went on to win in the general election, that year, and four years later got re-elected for a second term.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

"People say they don't like negative campaigning, but it works."
This is what another guy, a former governor, assured me in -- maybe -- 1988.

So what does the A -- B -- L saga teach us?

I. Maybe it means that voters are turned off by negative campaigning and will express their displeasure with their votes, when the opportunity presents itself.

(You don't always have a third guy to vote for. If you have two candidates and they both engage in mud-slinging, we don't have a third option, we vote for one of the mud-slingers, and their operatives walk away saying "negative campaigning works."...You see what I'm saying? It doesn't mean that worked, it just means options were limited.)

II. Maybe it means that "the exception proves the rule" (old adage).

III. Maybe it means Anything can happen in politics. (I don't think that is an old saying; but I'm saying it, now.)

-30-