The issue: Attack ads have come under scrutiny during debates between Kentucky state representative candidates Patti Minter and Ben Lawson.

Our Stance: The outcome of this election is a matter of more than party politics. It is about how voters perceive the presentation of information and the impact of attack ads.

Election day is upon us. Kentucky has some important seats open in its state legislature that will be filled by Wednesday morning.

The retirement of Jody Richards left an open seat for candidates Ben Lawson and Patti Minter to vie for the office of state representative.

In past elections, Kentucky has favored Democrats at the state level and Republicans at the national level—it voted red for our past few presidents, both of its U.S. Senators are Republican, and the majority of its Representatives to the U.S. House are Republican. However, Democrats have sway within state legislature historically, according to Ballotpedia. From 1992 to 1999 Democrats controlled the state House and state Senate as well as the office of governor. At the turn of the millenium, the state legislature experienced a split in party control between its congressional chambers. It wasn’t until 2017 that Republicans gained full control over state legislature and the governor’s office.

Party politics will undeniably play a major role in the outcome of this year’s heavily partisan midterms, but another factor has been of significant contention in the weeks leading up to the election: attack ads. 

The debate between Minter and Lawson is a local piece to a larger national discussion about the impact of running a negative campaign. Lawson has been accused of signing off on a false personal attack about Minter as a means of elevating his status among voters and smearing hers, but deferred from directly admitting that it was him who authorized the ads, according to the Bowling Green Daily News.

Minter has said her campaign is “positive people powered” and therefore has not supported any attack on Lawson personally.

The source of attack ads are important to consider when deciding credibility of the information in them as well as where voters should place their blame for the dissemination of false or unnecessarily personal attacks against candidates. 

Mudslinging is ever more present in the national political rhetoric, and making yourself aware of who is responsible for inciting it is important. 

Attack ads have both positive and negative effects. On one hand, it is critical to highlight public the contrast between opposing candidates in order to display specific content areas where the two differ. On the other hand, attack ads contribute to the growing tension between individuals on both sides of the political aisle due to an uptick in petty criticisms of opponents’ intimate qualities. 

Politics have gotten too personal, and identity politics devise a poor marker for quality of a candidate. 

The shift in focus from policy to personality has been the demise of ethical campaigning, and this election cycle is evidence that many politicians want nothing to do with the stigma of running attack ads. 

It’s much easier to decide that a personality trait is undesirable than it is to reason with the feasibility and implications of a policy stance or legislative implementation strategy. While a person’s character could have an impact on their ability to be a successful politician, their vote on the floor and their ability to hammer out the language of a bill matters significantly more. 

Attack ads aren’t necessarily bad, however. If they are based in truth and effectively sway voters who fear the negative qualities of an opponent’s election, they have performed a positive function for the sponsor of the ad.

But voters who are less inclined to vote based solely on party affiliation should judge how candidates have decided to present information during their run. 

This election will be the true test of the contrast between a negative and positive campaign focus, and one will prevail over the other. Kentucky could reject the negativity of a attack ads, or voters could decide that attack ads are a viable way to communicate a message about the potential negative impact of an opponent’s win.

Politics get dirty, and attack ads are the byproduct. Be an informed and acute voter this year. 

Election day is upon us. Kentucky has some important seats open in its state legislature that will be filled by Wednesday morning.

The retirement of Jody Richards left an open seat for candidates Ben Lawson and Patti Minter to vie for the office of state representative.

In past elections, Kentucky has favored Democrats at the state level and Republicans at the national level—it voted red for our past few presidents, both of its U.S. Senators are Republican, and the majority of its Representatives to the U.S. House are Republican. However, Democrats have sway within state legislature historically, according to Ballotpedia. From 1992 to 1999 Democrats controlled the state House and state Senate as well as the office of governor. At the turn of the millenium, the state legislature experienced a split in party control between its congressional chambers. It wasn’t until 2017 that Republicans gained full control over state legislature and the governor’s office.

Party politics will undeniably play a major role in the outcome of this year’s heavily partisan midterms, but another factor has been of significant contention in the weeks leading up to the election: attack ads. 

The debate between Minter and Lawson is a local piece to a larger national discussion about the impact of running a negative campaign. Lawson has been accused of signing off on a false personal attack about Minter as a means of elevating his status among voters and smearing hers, but deferred from directly admitting that it was him who authorized the ads, according to the Bowling Green Daily News.

Minter has said her campaign is “positive people powered” and therefore has not supported any attack on Lawson personally.

The source of attack ads are important to consider when deciding credibility of the information in them as well as where voters should place their blame for the dissemination of false or unnecessarily personal attacks against candidates. 

Mudslinging is ever more present in the national political rhetoric, and making yourself aware of who is responsible for inciting it is important. 

Attack ads have both positive and negative effects. On one hand, it is critical to highlight public the contrast between opposing candidates in order to display specific content areas where the two differ. On the other hand, attack ads contribute to the growing tension between individuals on both sides of the political aisle due to an uptick in petty criticisms of opponents’ intimate qualities. 

Politics have gotten too personal, and identity politics devise a poor marker for quality of a candidate. 

The shift in focus from policy to personality has been the demise of ethical campaigning, and this election cycle is evidence that many politicians want nothing to do with the stigma of running attack ads. 

It’s much easier to decide that a personality trait is undesirable than it is to reason with the feasibility and implications of a policy stance or legislative implementation strategy. While a person’s character could have an impact on their ability to be a successful politician, their vote on the floor and their ability to hammer out the language of a bill matters significantly more. 

Attack ads aren’t necessarily bad, however. If they are based in truth and effectively sway voters who fear the negative qualities of an opponent’s election, they have performed a positive function for the sponsor of the ad.

But voters who are less inclined to vote based solely on party affiliation should judge how candidates have decided to present information during their run. 

This election will be the true test of the contrast between a negative and positive campaign focus, and one will prevail over the other. Kentucky could reject the negativity of a attack ads, or voters could decide that attack ads are a viable way to communicate a message about the potential negative impact of an opponent’s win.

Politics get dirty, and attack ads are the byproduct. Be an informed and acute voter this year.