With the election behind us it is perhaps fitting to reflect on the meaning of this result, which saw the Progressive Labour Party given its third mandate by voters. By all accounts this campaign was mired in more acrimony than any election in recent memory; it was a litmus test of the strength and credibility of the parties' respective leaders; and it saw the juxtaposition of policies and promises alongside the assertion of ominous consequences if the "other" party won.

The tone of this campaign left a sour taste in the mouths of many because of the sustained invective – but this started long before the election was called in November. Those of us on Facebook will know that long before November a few misguided students – possibly expressing in more extreme form sentiments they garnered from their parents – wished death upon our Premier and looked forward to spitting on his grave. To their credit senior bloggers for the UBP quickly condemned this sentiment but we knew early on what to expect moving forward.

As the election drew nearer both sides stepped up the heat and pressure-through the print and electronic media, blogs, talk radio and traditional advertising. Strategists in both parties argued persuasively that negative advertising works and so such tactics were widely adopted. Alongside the PLP's Puppet ad there was the pro-UBP Absolut Corruption Internet ad. One of the more egregious components to the election campaign was the inaccurate and deliberately misleading pro-UBP anti-independence ad campaign by the anonymous Reality on Independence group-which seems to have been born when the election was announced and died on election day. They probably spent close to $200,000 trying to get people to react to and vote emotionally on an issue that was never raised by either party and was not an election issue. Many residents grew weary of the negativity and just wanted it to come to an end.

Much of the negativity was directed at Premier Dr. Ewart Brown and then Opposition Leader Mr. Michael Dunkley, the former more so than the latter. Dr. Brown was the object of a sustained attack virtually since he assumed the leadership; no leader has ever been subjected to such expansive and personal attack. In this regard the Mid-Ocean News apparently took the lead in waging war against the Premier, abetted by the curmudgeonly Mr. Harold Darrell, who selectively passed on information from Police files in the hope there would be a negative political impact. There was none; and the clear rejection of independent candidate Darrell at the polls suggests he had no resonance with the public as well.

Mr. Dunkley came in for attack over his clear plan to shut down Government television and over his views on how to deal with criminal activity.

Another challenge came from former police officer Larry Smith, who raised questions about Dunkley's involvement in a drug case.

My view is that these negative components of the election campaign had minimal impact on the outcome – that such negativity has appeal primarily to the hard core party supporters and does little to motivate the all important "swing" voter. If one accepts that both parties each currently have a core base of support of about 40 percent of the electorate, these "swing" voters, approximately 20 percent of voters, are those middle-of-the-road Bermudians who will give critical reflection to each parties' accomplishments, platform, candidates and vision and render their vote based on their assessment.

For those commentators who have either implied or stated outright that voters, in returning the PLP to office, have either made a mistake or had their decisions coloured by some emotional appeal, they have failed to grasp why an increased majority of voters wanted the PLP back in office compared to 2003.

Two anecdotes help explain this.

Months before the November election call I had a chat with Glenn Smith, the UBP Election Campaign Chairman. In response to his comment that he was back to get my party out of power I asked him a simple question: "Can you identify anything the PLP has done in nine years that has made Bermuda better?" He looked at me and refused to answer the question.

Another ardent UBP member I was talking to on a separate occasion condemned the PLP housing policy. I asked him what would he propose to address the problem. When he began to talk about macro-economic policy and market forces I interrupted him and asked what he would say to the single mother of three who has nowhere to sleep tonight. His response: "She needs to make better choices."

From the first anecdote we see a campaign chairman who refused to acknowledge the PLP had done anything right; and this was reflected in the entire UBP campaign. While the UBP rallied against the PLP these denizens of doom would have the public believe the PLP had been nothing but bad for the country. The hard core PLP supporters aside, the "swing" voter could easily see the numerous accomplishments of the PLP governments which have directly benefited people and in their vote have demonstrated they want to see more. Governments should be assessed first and foremost on their record of policy and legislation and this is what voters did.

The second anecdote gets at a sharp difference between the two parties. We are way beyond the ideological schisms of the 1960s and 70s; and many of the great challenges in the quest for social justice have largely been overcome. Both parties embrace a liberal-democratic capitalist structure with varying degrees of weight given to free market forces and state intervention to address social issues. Today one key aspect that separates the UBP and PLP is the notion of empathy with the struggles and aspirations of everyday people. Our first instinct as a party is to help people in need and allow them to retain a sense of dignity – not to condemn them for their life choices. I heard this sentiment expressed on the campaign trail by many candidates who chanted "PLP-people loving people." This empathy was not reflected in the UBP campaign, although there are individuals like Wayne Furbert and Tillman Darrell who argued passionately for the interests of people.

In 2007 you had a party in power that put sound policies in place; maintained a strong economy and social stability; and demonstrated a genuine concern for the betterment of people. This is what had real resonance with voters. This is what led to a third victory for the Progressive Labour Party.

Because this viewpoint is at variance with a common line of interpretation a few comments on race and the election are in order. In essence, this contrary view is as follows:

(1) the PLP used racial rhetoric and race-baiting to appeal to black voters

(2) this was successful and explains the PLP victory.

Even the casual observer will know that race remains a salient issue in Bermuda today. It is the prism through which all social, political and economic issues are refracted; and we will make progress as a country when its influence abates. With regard to voting habits, it is an incontrovertible fact that black voters have always divided their vote between the PLP and UBP. It is similarly an incontrovertible fact that white voters, to date, have by an overwhelming majority supported the UBP. We will make progress as a society when greater numbers of white voters feel the PLP can better represent their interests and divide their vote between the two parties.

It is true that there were PLP candidates who invoked racial imagery in their campaign and there was at least one PLP campaign ad that had a none-too-subtle racial message. Alongside this the UBP countered with its own outreach to black voters: a free gospel concert and Conversation in the Park campaign ad with black UBP candidates on race issues.

In fact, one could argue that much of the UBP campaign strategy was to secure black support since they essentially could take white voters for granted. In the end, however, I suspect these overtures had little impact on the voting decisions of the "swing" voter as they have never before reflected any predilection for voting along racial lines.

With the election behind us we must begin the process of working to build a stronger, better and united Bermuda. The campaign brought into relief not just the salience of race but also differing visions about other members of the Bermuda community: long term residents, guest workers and the rights of those who face discrimination on a number of levels.

Our approach as we move forward to address many of these issues has to be one that embraces rather than divides, includes rather than excludes and focuses in the first instance on solving problems rather than simply positing and adhering to political positions. When we can do this collectively Bermuda will be a better place for all of us.

Sen. Walton Brown is a political pollster and ran for the Progressive Labour Party in the December general election in Pembroke West.