Competitive Positioning, Deracialization, and Attack Speech

Previous research on negative campaigning has focused on the influence of competitive circumstances and the timing of attacks. Here, we focus on whether campaign issues or character are more likely to be the focus of attacks and whether, as part of a deracialized campaign, minority candidates attack less than do nonminorities. Data are derived from content analyses of newspaper coverage and candidates’ TV ads in the 2001 Los Angeles mayoral election. Contrary to expectations, one’s position in the horse race is not a significant predictor of attacks in the primary campaign. More important are conditions in the campaign environment that maximize the benefits of attack speech. When candidates attack, they are likely to do so on salient issues and character. We also find that minority candidates attack significantly less than do nonminorities, in support of our expectations regarding deracialized campaigns. In a concluding section, we discuss the implications of our findings.