The paper here has an editorial about the house race that has turned a bit dirtier than even standard elections with baseless and outrageous claims coming from both sides. The writer had a what I think is a pretty good accounting of standard low blows and dirty campaigning tricks:
Quote: That's the genius of this devious strategy: You get to plant a seed and stir suspicions without allowing the other guy to confront his accuser, all while claiming your own hands are clean.
What's striking about this outbreak of unfairness is that it's not necessary, because there are plenty of ways to insinuate within the normal bounds of political campaigning.
Candidates can tag their opponents with a procedural vote, or a vote on a bill introduced just to force an embarrassing roll call.
Or they can zero in on a minor provision of a large bill. In the real world of governing, politicians know they have to support some things they don't want to get the things they do want, and vice versa. In the language of political campaigns, that up or down vote represents a candidate's record on every single letter and comma in the measure.
Office-seekers can use the misdeeds or unpopular politics of their opponents' staffers, supporters, and party leaders as ammunition. They can populate ads with scary voices, images, and words, and darken the overall tone to create a sinister mood.
And they can take a kernel of documented truth, or a credible allegation by an identifiable person, and exaggerate it beyond recognition. Happens all the time.
Still, the commonly accepted rules of engagement demand that there be a kernel, something voters can evaluate on their own to decide whether it's credible.
Richmond keeps up with Cao, smear for smear: Stephanie Grace | NOLA.com
What are your electioneering pet peeves?
I hate the push polls and the harassing robocalls.
At least when they hire a real person to make the phone calls you can mess with their script by asking, "why should I vote for Mr. X?" And follow it up with asking for a more specific question about their stance on the policy and when they say, "do you even live in this district or this country? Why should I listen to you for advice on who to vote for?"