When Bad Press Is Good News

Abstract

This article identifies conditions under which bad press can help rather than hurt a congressional campaign. In elections such as congressional primaries, where information levels are extremely low and party cues do not help voters distinguish candidates, name recognition is perhaps the most important factor. In these situations, even negative coverage can benefit a campaign because it raises voter familiarity with the candidate. The author illustrates this phenomenon using two cases studies, the 1992 Republican primary in Ohio’s 15th district and the 2001 Democratic primary in Massachusetts’ 9th district. In both cases, the victor was also the candidate who received the most negative news coverage. It seems that the volume but not the tone affected voters’ assessments of the candidates. The article concludes with thoughts about how these observations speak to the larger literatures on campaigns and the media.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ansolabehere, Stephen , Roy Behr , and Shanto Iyengar . 1993. The Media Game: American Politics in the Television Age. New York: Macmillan.

Ansolabehere, Stephen , and Shanto Iyengar . 1997. Going Negative. New York: Free Press.

Bloom, Howard S. , and H. Douglas Price . 1975. “Voter Response to Short-Run Economic Conditions: The Asymmetric Effect of Prosperity and Recession.” American Political Science Review 69:1240-1254.

Burden, Barry C. , and Anthony Mughan . 1999. “Public Opinion and Hillary Rodham Clinton.” Public Opinion Quarterly 63:237-250.

Delli Carpini , Michael X. , and Scott Keeter . 1996. What Americans Know about Politics and Why It Matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Ezra, Marni. 1996. “The Benefits and Burdens of Congressional Primary Elections.”Ph.D. diss., American University, Washington, D.C.

Ezra, Marni . 2001. “The Benefits and Burdens of Congressional Primary Elections.” In Congressional Primaries and the Politics of Representation, ed. Peter F. Galderisi , Marni Ezra , and Michael Lyons . Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

Ferejohn, John A. 1977. “On the Decline of Competition in Congressional Elections.” American Political Science Review 71:166-176.

Gaddie, Ronald Keith , and Charles S. Bullock III . 2000. Elections to Open Seats in the U.S. House: Where the Action Is. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

10.

Lau, Richard R. 1982. “Negativity in Political Perceptions.” Political Behavior 4:353-378.

11.

Maestas, Cherie , and Patricia Jaramillo . 2001. “Closeness Counts: The Effects of Campaign Lengthon Congressional Election Outcomes.” Presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco.

12.

Maisel, Louis Sandy . 1986. From Obscurity to Oblivion: Running in the Congressional Primary. Rev. ed. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.

13.

Mann, Thomas E. , and Raymond E. Wolfinger . 1980. “Candidates and Parties in Congressional Elections.” American Political Science Review 74:617-632.

14.

Mayhew, David R. 1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

15.

Popkin, Samuel L. 1994. The Reasoning Voter. 2nd. ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

16.

Sabato, Larry J. 1991. Feeding Frenzy: How Attack Journalism Has Transformed American Politics. New York: Free Press.

17.

Schantz, Harvey L. 1980. “Contested and Uncontested Primaries for the U.S. House.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 4:545-562.

18.

Schram, Martin . 1987. The Great American Video Game. New York: William Morrow.

19.

Stokes, Donald E. , and Warren E. Miller . 1962. “Party Government and the Saliency of Congress.” Public Opinion Quarterly 26:531-546.

20.

Turner, Julius . 1953. “Primary Elections as the Alternative to Party Competition in ‘Safe’ Districts.” Journal of Politics 15:197-210.

21.

Zaller, John R. Forthcoming. A Theory of Media Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.