I found this post at Seth's Blog this morning to be particularly interesting. All of his posts are compelling — I encourage you to check out his blog if you don't already follow it yourself. This one about negative campaigning by politicians is an insightful look at whether or not it is effective, and what makes a negative campaign more effective than another.
My favorite quote from the post resonates with my own view of the unfortunate situation:
should be above that. The fact that negative stories have influenced
every election of my lifetime, though, means that I'm wrong, we're not
above it. If politicians are going to tell negative stories, they might
as well pick useful ones. [my emphasis]
I try not to pay attention to the negative campaigning in general, but I wonder if the same reasoning that Seth uses in his article can be applied to Richmond politics. Are there negative statements that are being made about any of the candidates that, regardless of the truth of the statement, may shake up that candidate's base? I hesitate to ask for fear of drawing out the political negativity that may come with the answers…