Once upon a time, Labor Day was looked upon as the starting point for presidential election campaigns. However, the current campaign was well under way by last Labor Day.

With 65 days still to go until Election Day, this campaign is being called the nastiest on record. Nastiness is nothing new, but there is little doubt the 2012 campaign has been marked by attack ads and some of the roughest early rhetoric in any modern campaign.

None of the current TV ads have had the same impact as the 1988 Willie Horton spots and others aimed at hapless Democratic nominee Michael Dukakis that year. But collectively, the onslaught of negative ads - including many funded by “super PACs” which don’t disclose donors - has come earlier and more often than in previous campaigns.

Legally, candidates’ campaigns are not supposedto coordinate with the “independent” groups that are supporting them, but most voters are unlikely to understand that distinction, and these groups are responsible for many of the nastiest and most misleading ads.

The overwhelming majority of those TV ads are targeted at the swing or battleground states.

Residents of Arkansas and other states deemed as noncompetitive see only limited numbers of those ads, primarily on national networks or cable channels. However, some of the more strident and controversial ads become subjectsof news coverage and discussion, thus being seen by a broader audience.

Among those is one accusing the president of taking undeserved credit for the killing of Osama bin Laden and the White House of leaking sensitive information to boost the president’s image.

Then there’s the ad implying a link between Mitt Romney and the cancer death of the wife of a man who lost his job and health insurance after his company was acquired by Bain, the private equity fi rm Romney founded.

Each side is saying the other is trying to undermine Medicare and pro-Obama groups are hitting at controversial provisions in the budget plan of GOP vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan. The Romney campaign has tough ads falsely charging that Obama is eliminating work and jobtraining requirements for welfare recipients.

The campaigns continue the barrage of negative adsbecause strategists believe they work, and want to define opponents in a way that raises doubts about them.

While the TV ads are a major element of the campaign and record sums are being spent to air them, other factors and developments can direct attention in other directions. Just last week we saw Hurricane Isaac relegate the Republican Convention to twin-billing instead of solo prominence.

And there has been no shortage of stupid statements and gaff es, often quickly seized upon by the opposition and the media.

Examples include Romney’s “I like being able to fire people” and Obama’s comment that entrepreneurs “didn’t build” their businesses. Although it’s true Obama’s statement was taken out of context - his point was that government support for education, infrastructure, research, etc., has been broadly benefi cial - it was ready-made forthe opposition to pounce on. Quickly there was a Romney ad portraying Obama as anti-business.

Along with the nastiness, negative ads and gaff es, there is a troubling trend of beliefs prevailing over facts in this age of assertion.

One example of this was the incredibly ill-informed statements by U.S. Rep.

Todd Akin, R-Mo., a candidate for U.S.

Senate, on abortion and “legitimate rape.” Similar pronouncements have been made by other political figures, including some in Arkansas.

Another example: Despite the push for strict voter ID laws, based on the premise there is extensive voter fraud, a recent exhaustive study revealed the rate is infi nitesimal.

Unfounded assertions such as these are repeated so often in certain circles that those within those circles convince themselves they are true. Living in socio-media bubbles, as many do today, reinforcesthis tendency.

Romney himself reflected this trend with his comment that “no one has ever asked to see my birth certifi cate,” which could be seen as a nod to the birthers, who revel in advancing beliefs contradicted by facts.

One result of all this negativity and misinformation is that it might discourage citizens from participating in politics and casting their ballots. Indeed, some political strategists have exactly that intent.

Both presidential candidates say they deplore the negativity and want to focus on “the issues.” Perhaps we’ll see some change in the remaining weeks, though that seems unlikely.

Less nastiness and more well-founded political arguments would serve us better.

HOYT PURVIS IS A JOURNALISM AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS PROFESSOR.

Opinion, Pages 13 on 09/02/2012