NEW YORK, 28 October 2004 — With only five days left before the presidential election, the proverbial presidential gloves came off long ago — and both candidates have taken quite a battering in negative campaign advertising.

Mud throwing during an election is, historically, nothing new. The ends justify the means and any advantage gained is positive, no matter how personal the attack may be or how vile the assault may be. Or so goes the thinking.

But on the verge of an election that many political pundits have called one of the most important contested ever, attacks on President Bush and Sen. John Kerry make up most of what many voters know about the candidates. Many voters simply don’t like it that both presidential campaigns have chosen fear and smear tactics in an attempt to gain an edge in their tight race.

This war of words comes despite a new campaign finance law that requires candidates for federal office to appear in their own ads.

Despite this, only about one in four ads authorized by the presidential campaigns since Labor Day was “purely positive” in its tone, according to a recent study.

Ads authorized by the Bush campaign were split almost equally between attacks on Kerry (30 %), ads that contrasted the two candidates (34 %) and ads that promoted the president (36 %).

The Kerry campaign, meanwhile, aired no spots exclusively critical of President Bush, and only 16 percent of its ads were purely positive messages; as for the remainder of the Kerry ads, 84 percent were contrast spots.

But since Labor Day, the Democratic National Committee — operating independently of the Kerry campaign — has put out more than half of all TV campaign ads running on Kerry’s behalf, and 96 percent of those spots “attacked President Bush and his record,” according to a study by the Washington Post using data from the Campaign Media Analysis Group of the top 100 US markets. Both campaigns said the figures are accurate.

Conversely, scholars and political strategists say the Bush assault on Kerry has been particularly vicious, both for the volume of attacks and for the liberties the president and his campaign have taken with the facts. Though stretching the truth is hardly new in a political campaign, they say the volume of negative charges is unprecedented — both in speeches and in advertising.

The assault on Kerry is multitiered: It involves television ads, news releases, websites and e-mail, and statements by Bush spokesmen and advisers — all coordinated to drive home the message that Kerry has equivocated and “flip-flopped” on Iraq, support for the military, taxes, education and other matters.

Yet campaigns must be careful when they go negative, as they can grate against voters who still favor public courtesy.

In early September, more Americans thought Kerry had been unfairly attacked than Bush — 52 percent to 41 percent, according to a Gallup Poll with a 3-point margin of error.

Yet, some survey results suggest that Bush did succeed in portraying Kerry as “flip-flopping and not being a strong leader”.

If so, it came with a price — again and again Americans say they are simply fed up by campaign hardball.

In a Gallup Poll in 2000, 54 percent of American adults said campaigns have turned more negative in recent years, while only 8 percent said more positive. Forty-four percent strongly felt negative ads should have no place in campaigns, while just 11 percent strongly felt they should.

But as long as psychological experiments show it’s easier to remember negative traits than positive ones, the potency of this year’s vicious attack ads will undoubtedly continue for years to come.