Negative = Good? Another area of where Begley’s character shows through is when she said, “If you believe pundits and voters, this should practically spell the end of democracy as we know it.” Begley is basically saying that some believe that negative campaigning is putting to end to our democracy, but she says itin a very dramatic way. This impression of Begley tells the readers that she feels very strongly about the issue and people tend to agree with others who have firm beliefs in a matter and Begley uses that to her advantage to persuade readers. Another method that Begley used that was very persuasive to audiences is refuting that statistically election turnouts are not affected or are actually better with negative campaigning. An example of evidence to this claim is this statement by Begley: Comparisons of turnout after races with many or few negative ads suggest that people are not so disgusted they withdraw and vow a pox on all their houses: in races that bombarded people with negative ads, there was either no effect or an uptick in turnout. This evidence gives the audience factual knowledge that may be contrary to what most people thinkabout the results of negative campaigning. Another example of evidence is when Begley said, “Both lab experiments and analyses of actual elections now show that the effect on turnout is more nuanced.” As discussed earlier, Begley has established herself in this article as trustworthy and the readers will more likely than not believe these statements which give the readers evidence that supports as to why negative campaigning is beneficial, regardless to what people think. Begley is very persuasive in her article about negative campaigning because, she uses evidence that gives the readers logical reasoning behind how negative campaigning can actually be beneficial.