First, we wish to thank Professor Mutz for her careful assessment of our work. We greatly appreciate her perspective. In drawing a parallel between our findings on negativity and hers on civility, her point is well made. Voters say they dislike negativity, yet they can handle—and likely pay more attention to—robust debates between candidates which might even include attacks on one another. Voters also say they dislike incivility, and yet it clearly draws attention (and ratings). The goal of “friendlier” campaigns—that are more positive and civil—countermands the goal of more-knowledgeable voters.

As Mr. Dooley told us over a century ago, “politics ain’t bean-bag.” Prof. Mutz also reminds us that campaigns are about competition; they are “inherently competitive” much like sporting events. We would all do well to keep that in mind. Why should opponents be expected to minimize their opposition to each other’s goals and objectives? There is always only one winner. We find her sporting analogy fitting. Hockey players who hit opponents intentionally with their sticks have rarely faced criminal assault charges. They are allowed tremendous leeway in committing violent acts. Politicians who hit opponents with vicious lies have rarely faced charges of libel and slander; the courts allow tremendous leeway in political expression. Importantly, these allowances support our democratic ideals (otherwise, how easy would it be for incumbents to silence their opponents?). But as Professor Mutz explains, the prospect of facing vicious personal attacks can also dissuade highly-qualified candidates from running for public office.

Prof. Mutz wonders if we are right to suggest professional journalistic norms are the primary reason that media cannot play an effective watchdog role, saying that perhaps the real problem is simply lack of people to do the work. This makes sense in a world where traditional journalism has been gutted; newspapers closing, newsrooms decimated. It is certainly true that we cannot expect effective watchdogging from muzzled dogs. Still, while we might revise some of our assessment of the media if we were writing today, we would also continue to argue that candidates themselves must be able to respond as their own watchdogs. Our sense is that Prof. Mutz ultimately agrees with this point.

Interestingly, since we wrote our book, the rise of Donald Trump has reinvigorated the watchdog enterprise. At the same time, we have seen a push toward partisan versions of fact-checks run by the campaigns themselves; during two of the debates, Hillary Clinton actually directed viewers toward “real-time” fact-checking of Trump. On the other hand, it is clear that President-elect Donald Trump regularly speaks in hyperbole; many of his supporters recognize this and do not take his statements as literally as a fact-checker would. Furthermore, fact checks rarely seem to get through to supporters of any political candidate, since people in general are motivated to maintain their existing political support despite evidence to the contrary.

Regarding one of Professor Mutz’s observations, it is true that much of our assessment of negativity is cognitive, and that we did have respondents consider the texts of potential ads. However, we also showed real campaign ads (the video versions) to some respondents. And, for these twenty-one ads, we measured emotional responses (anger) toward these ads along with cognitive reactions and behavioral intentions. We found that the more-defamatory negative ads did in fact anger people the most.

Finally, Prof. Mutz is correct to point out that we give little attention to possible downsides of negativity. Clearly there are risks, and our main concern would be the prevalence of false attacks in campaigns. Readers interested in this would do well to read her book, as many of her concerns with incivility—especially undermining the perceived legitimacy of the opposition—are relevant to negative and positive campaigns that thrive on misinformation.