Originally Posted by dc_dux

Political consultants measure the effectiveness of ads in a variety of ways and for the most part, they will say that negative ads are the most effective and have a deeper and more lasting impact than ads stating their own candidate's position.

One I saw recently.....an ad by A that shows what looks like his opponent sitting by his pool at his mansion watching his "illegal" gardener mow the lawn as the "illegal" maid brings him a martini. This had no basis in reality. But what are you likely to remember most...that image or A describing his position on a guest worker program?

I distingush negative ads like that from "attack" ads where a candidate's ad highlights the opponent's record. If its factual, I dont see a problem.

The worse type of negative ads is "push polling" because it touches voters one-on-one. A purported indepdent pollling company (that is actuallya phone bank paid by a candidate) calls thousands of voters and presents misleading or outright false information in the form of poll questions.

Karl Rove is the master of push polling. The two classic examples are in Bush's first campaign for governor against Ann Richards, when the "polling company" asked...."would you be more or less likely to vote for a candidate for governor if SHE were a lesbian?" (there was only one "she" running)

And the primarty race in SC in 2000 between Bush and McCain, where it was even more direct: ""Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?" (He and his wife had in fact adopted a baby from Bangledesh).

They are called push polls because they succeed in pushing votes away from a candidate without lying outright, but by framing it in the form of a hypothetical questions.