Campaign tactics and the decision to attack

Research an negative political campaigning can be sorted into two groups: formal theory that designs optimal campaign strategies, and empirical work that explores the consequences of negative ads on the motivation of voters. This paper establishes a link between these two approaches using a series of thought experiments involving political consultants. We design a variety of hypothetical campaigns that mimic theoretically distinct questions and ask a nationwide sample of political consultants to place themselves in each of these campaigns and to make tactical decisions. We then compare the consultants' responses with theory. With the ability to manipulate our hypothetical campaigns, we can explore the political applicability of different theoretical models. We also examine party differences; that is, whether consultants who work for Democratic candidates advise more or less attack politics than Republican consultants.