COMMUNICATION STRATEGY 

From “AMLO is a danger to Mexico” to “Ricky Riquín Canallín” 

The communication strategy behind the dirty electoral war 

Why do all presidential candidates bet on this communication strategy? What does it consist of? It is effective?… 

Mexico’s current electoral process has turned into a dirty war of disqualifications between candidates. Never in history have contenders for the presidency had so many spaces in the media and balance of information in the news. However, these have not been used efficiently to present their proposals and government program. The radio and TV spots are filled with childish musical choruses and rhetorical phrases, but they are mainly being used to talk about each other, to send attacks and defamatory messages to their opponents. And this is not exclusive to any party, everyone participates in this dirty war. 

The ad hominem communication strategy 

The discrediting of the candidates by their opponents and detractors is perceived by society in general as something casual or as a dirty war, which arises naturally in the heat of the war. However, behind each attack there is an elaborate communication strategy based on what in Logic is called ad hominem arguments (Latin: against man) consisting of a rhetorical figure, a type of fallacy that discredits an argument, not for the content of the same, but for the discredit of who issues it. 

The Ad Hominem communication strategy aims to damage the reputation and discredit the opponent so that everything he says lacks value and credibility in front of the voters. It is used in all electoral processes, since from the discredit of the other, it is intended to show that one candidate is better than another, or perhaps demonstrate who is less worse. Thus, the arguments and proposals are not attacked, but whoever issues them. 

These ad hominem arguments are constructed as follows: 

• CANDIDATE A makes a campaign proposal 
• CANDIDATE B, who is his opponent, responds to CANDIDATE A with a negative statement about him in order to damage his reputation and discredit his arguments and proposals. 
• Thus, CANDIDATE B, instead of debating proposals or direct accusations, bets on damaging the image of its opponent and influencing the perception of the voters that CANDIDATE A is not trained or does not have moral authority to sustain their arguments and fulfill their proposals. . 

This rhetorical figure has become the most effective communication strategy on which all the electoral campaigns of the candidates for the presidency are currently built. It is so powerful that it sets the agenda for the day, generates trends in social media, is the center of the controversial post debate, but above all, it influences the mood of the voters, mainly the undecided and the less informed. 

The ad hominem communication strategy, much more than spontaneous insults, witty phrases or journalistic transcendence, responds to structured campaigns that start from aspects such as espionage about the opponents, sociological and opinion studies of what people think and want, construction of short and simple messages with a high emotional charge and a great investment in diffusion and propaganda. 

Regardless of the depth of each campaign, it has three main components: 

Gestation. 

The past of the opponent is investigated, studied and analyzed trying to find unpopular aspects, characteristics and perceptions in the person’s reputation. 

Positioning. 

Through different communication techniques, negative information is made public, often directly through political propaganda, speeches or statements by the contestants; other times it is done through third parties, by leaking information to the media, or trends are built on social media (a rumor is generated and spread) 

Discredit. 

Once the smear campaign permeated the popular unconscious, phrases like: “The Power Mafia”, “Prian”, “Chavismo”, “Ricky, Riquín, Canallín”, “Master Scam”, “AMLO is a danger to Mexico ”, acquire more strength and influence more on the decision of the voters than the government’s proposals and programs. Any electoral proposal of any candidate, to be processed by the voters, will have to fight the battle of personal disqualifications. According to this logic, everything that the candidates say due to their “supposed past” or “doubtful reputation” will be false, lacks veracity and therefore is not reliable. 

It is important to mention that the trap for the voter is that it will be difficult for him to distinguish the truth or falsity from the arguments and proposals since the fact that someone discredits the speaker does not prove anything about the falsity or truthfulness of what he says.