Leafing through the annals of history, as far back as one century (100 years), there’s been one common theme which has bound aspirants to the highest post in the land, the presidency of the United States: to aim as low as possible and smear the opponent. It has always worked. Whichever candidate of whichever party has more money to smear the candidate of the other party is almost always certain to become the next president of the United States.
There are of course other factors, much less important however. For instance, if the incumbent presided over a period of financial distress, it is very likely the candidate challenging the incumbent would use the most aggressive smear campaign to displace the incumbent. Since the approach is used by both political parties – and campaign strategists believe it is effective – the smear campaign switches to overdrive in the general elections.
Although constituents of both political parties have always claimed they are tired of smear campaign, historical outcomes prove that the candidate with the most aggressive and sustained smear campaign would always win. So, it is to be discarded outright that a) the constituents object to smear campaign b) future candidates would stay away from such strategy.