A2Politico: When Candidates and Their Supporters Go Low, Ann Arbor Voters Should Go High

by P.D. Lesko

From union leaders who handed out money and endorsements inequitably, to self-serving non-profit leaders and right on down to loopy locals, the August 2022 Democratic primary election is turning into a doozy. Rich, white, men (mostly) are trying to control local elections by going low, waving around their money and spewing conspiracy theories and misinformation. There’s the “struggling business owner” millionaire who “matches” campaign donations made to Taylor’s candidates. He’s matching here, matching there, matching everywhere to elect candidates in any and all Wards who support “density.” And he does it all from the comfort of his 3,500 square foot, single-family Burns Park home.

Our “struggling business owner” is joined by other “density” proponents who (incredibly) post on social media that luxury, unaffordable, high rise development will make Ann Arbor less gentrified and more affordable. Watching them ignore the fact that the City is thousands of units behind on its affordable housing goals the Mayor promised we would meet, is like watching Putin talk up the attack Ukraine launched against Mother Russia. Three of these “density proponents” had a braggy, public Facebook exchange about the enormous appreciation of their single-family homes. Seriously? I’ve met drag queens with more self-awareness and humility.

The rich, white people who want to continue to define public policy in Ann Arbor so that it continues to favor rich, white people have businesses that give away “diversity” scholarships to white men, STR empires, real estate holdings, high rise developments, university jobs and law offices that are kept running by minimum wage workers without benefits. These workers can’t afford to live near their jobs in Ann Arbor. In this election, these rich, white people have spent a bundle trying to buy seats for people on City Council.

They want to put into office people who will vote in support of housing developments (mostly rentals) that enrich developers and landlords, policies that make Ann Arbor less affordable, even less diverse and exponentially less welcoming. We know renting does not provide generational wealth, expand opportunity, diversity or inclusion. These white people who want to run the show have their single-family homes in upscale neighborhoods without sidewalks. They have wealth, and good schools for their children. They have jobs where they can be on Twitter, Facebook and Nextdoor all the work day long trying to convince (or bully) others into agreeing that “poor people are morons,” to quote Donald Trump. So, for that matter, is anyone who questions their gaslighting.

I get it. There’s a lot at stake. The Mayor is up to his eyeballs in legal investigations, scandals, and broken promises. The wheels are coming off his $84,000 campaign, as evidenced by his misleading, negative campaigning. Together, Taylor and his slate of candidates in the three contested races in Wards 1, 4 and 5 have raised over $185,000, according to recently filed campaign finance disclosures. Much of that money has come from the same monied interests in (and out of) town: political insiders, wanna-be political insiders, millionaires, real estate moguls, landlords, lawyers, and tech twinks–Kool-aid drinkers one and all. Most of these people are not from Michigan. Their public policy stances show little Midwestern sensibility, or even common sense. Rather, they share their considered opinions in public comments that Ann Arbor could be “better” if only there were more bike lanes, fewer cars, fewer “stingy, old” people, slower speed limits, more “density” comprised of lots more unaffordable “affordable” housing and, of course, more “civility” on City Council.

The Mayor, Ward 4 candidate Dharma Akmon and Ward 5 candidate Jenn Cornell Queen (running as Jenn Cornell), have pulled out the Big Guns: negative campaign strategies and materials. Their postcards are peppered with omissions, distortions, and flat out lies. Their campaign donors spew frenzied conspiracy theories all the day long on social media. In other words, they are going really low. Does negative campaigning work? Political science researchers and studies say losing candidates (candidates who perceive they are losing their elections) go negative.

However, statistically, going negative doesn’t help the candidate who does it.

In a 2019 research paper published by Springer, “Negative campaigning and its consequences: a review and a look ahead,” author Dr. Martin Haselmayer writes, “…Attacking an opponent is a risky strategy. Thus, there is also some evidence showing that voter evaluations of the attacking party suffer considerably (also see: Kahn and Kenny 2004). Overall, this backlash effect is slightly stronger and more consistent than the effect on target evaluations in the meta-analysis (Lau et al. 2007). On balance, there is no evidence supporting common wisdom about negative campaigning representing an effective strategy for maximizing votes.”

Political science researchers say that negative campaigning and attack ads are the definition of anti-Democratic and regressive campaigning. Those candidates who engage in negative campaigning themselves or through proxies expect one result: to demobilize the electorate. In other words, these candidates and their proxies go low, because they don’t want you to vote. They want to suppress your vote as surely as imposing literacy tests and poll taxes were meant to suppress voting in the pre-Civil Rights era Deep South.

Here’s the good news: according to a study that measured various voters’ responses to negative campaigning, the results ranged from neutral (no demobilization) to a 3-5 percent impact on turnout. Interestingly, the more educated the voter, the lesser the impact negative campaigning has on turnout. Ann Arbor is a very educated city, the most educated in the entire nation.

So vote on August 2, and when you do remember Michelle Obama. At the 2016 Democratic National Convention, it was Mrs. Obama who said, “The hateful language we hear does not represent the spirit of this country….When they go low, we go high.”