|
I don't think they are of any use, period, and I think people who watch them, anyone, probably don't take them as anything but a joke.
Say you supported candidate A, and A has a bad record on abortion laws, it should be fairly obvious that those who voted for candidate A in the first place are OK with this. So candidate B runs a segment on how A has a bad record on abortion laws (usually kept vague like this just to say, implicitly, that whatever I, candidate B is doing, A is doing the opposite of, and therefore bad. Which is bad logic in and of itself, but that's another issue.) These records are also public opinion, so it wouldn't mean much for candidate B to try and lie about A's position, he'd get called on it immediately, so we'll assume the ad actually is telling the truth.
So the ad is run for Candidate B, and, if anything, all it does is appease the B voters because they already know about A's bad records, hence adding to reasons to not have originally voted for him. Candidate A voters don't give a shit because they already support A, probably for the very reasons that B is against A for having. So nothing gets accomplished. All you have are slight ad hominem attacks against a rival candidate with no real effort to explain why A's bad records are worthy enough for you to reconsider your position and perhaps check out B's position.
Unfortunately, most candidates are smart enough to realise that people are easily swayed by a person's personal flaws rather than with what the actual argument behind anything is. So they use this as an attack and hope people will convert for the reasons that the other person is a douchebag (which may be true), rather than having douchebagish views (which may not actually be true).
__________________
"Marino could do it."
|