Negative campaign ads
 

What do you think of negative campaign ads? You know that ones I mean. A candidate doesn't state what he/she thinks about anything or his experience or record, only how his/her opponent thinks about issues. I despise them. Everyone I've spoken to about them hates them, too. But they must be appealing to some voters because they are used in every single campaign!

Why can't candidates and proposition backers tell us about their side? Why must they just be negative about their opposition?

If you are actually a fan of or swayed by negative campaign ads, please share why they appeal to you.

I guess I don't define negative campaigning the same way you do. As long as the issues are being actually addressed. Issues would not include personal things. If the add in question says that so-and-so voted some way on some bill, the implication is that the opponent sponsoring the add wouldn't have voted that way.

Negative adds attack things that are typically out of bounds, IMHO, with personal issues again being the issue. The Jack Ryan sex scandal would be the obvious example.

My state is a special case.

We have an incompetent, uncharismatic, semi-corrupt govenor. And we have an incompetent, uncharismatic, quite possibily corrupt challanger.

All they have are negative adds, there is nothing possitive to say about either of them. There is just something odd about illinois in the last few years that we just have only the dregs running.

I'd hardly call Obama "the dregs", but for the most part, you're right about the other state office holders.

Another party line socialist, wouldn't even make a ripple if he wasn't a well spoken black man, which is rare in the democratic party these days.

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).

I think they're hilarious, in a somewhat sad way.

*Screen turns Black/White* "Last year your governor murdered three thousand innocent babies. He promised a raise in school funding, but brought only death."
*Back to color. Shows candidate playing with children* "Vote Blah for governor. Stop the killing; bring sanity back to Blank."

The information on negative ad campaigns is useless.

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.

Obviously you've never sat down and spoken with the man. He's highly intelligent and very well spoken, not to mention well traveled and well read. I know, I know, he and I should get a room and I'm making it too easy for you.

Don't you have teeth to fix?

<center><img src="http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:qzuY8cffjG17eM:http://www.tdrortho.com/images/herbstpic.jpg"></center>

Herbts appliance, wouldn't use it on a dog.

I think negative campaign ads are annoying, but they seem to do the job. Much like spam and whatnot, they wouldn't do it if it didn't work.

Also, we should have a thread on why Obama is making waves, if only so I can agree with Ustwo and be on topic.

Get back to work, you slacker! :lol:

Hey that appliance makes me a lot of money.

A different orthodontist recomends it, I tell the parents we don't need to use it, and they come to me instead.

This could probably describe the majority of elections in this country. ;) To bad that our system is so messed up that it is easy for the currupt to get power and those who are not currupt but fortunate enought to climb the ladder get currupted by the system quickly.

OK, since I am not a dentist, I have to ask. what the hell is that thing? and what does it do? To me it appears to be a new jaw hinge? maybe for someone with a weak jawbone at the pivot point?

Its pure unrefined evil, thats all you need to know.

Not everyone agrees.....

And thank god for that. The herbts has been long proven to not make any orthopedic long term effects, breaks constantly, is very uncomfortable, and is more for lazy orthodontists who dont' want to monitor patient progress with more compliance oriented appliances. It works, but just like a bullet will end clinical depression, its not really the best way to do it.

Nothing is more fun than being the 2nd opinion after someone was recomended one of these monstrosities :thumbsup:

Also phase I treatment is how ordontists say 'I'd like to make more money.' Again as a concept its been proven to be a waste of time in most cases but when you tell someone that what they have been doing which works and makes them more money is not really needed, how do you think they react?

Well, you know what they say - people get the government they deserve!

:lol:

I will never understand why these negative ads work.

They spout out about how their opponent is the devil incarnate and wants to take all the money from working families and give it to Scrooge or my opponent wants to help terrorists kill you, etc.... They are bad, bad, bad people.

Then it will cut away to a picture of the smiling candidate sitting on the front porch with their spouse and three kids, "this message was brought to you by and approved by Jane Doe". They must be so proud.

This type of behavior is damaging to our country. As are the negative ads. RARELY do we see a negative ad that is completely factual. The majority of them have been exaggerated, many are blatant lies. I almost feel like they are a bunch of children on a playground..."Did you see what Johnny is wearing, gross" "Well i heard he eats worms, we shouldn't talk to him".

I agree with previous poster who said they would rather hear what the candidate is going to do to HELP me rather than what their opponent will do to hurt me.

Only thought i have about any of this is... the two party system is flawed and worthless and needs to be done away with.

Negative campaign ads are, as is all of politics, really, a reflection of us as a society. It's a sad thought, but true.

It's also an indication of the extent to which politics today is about "making" rather than "acting". The relationship between representative and constituency is one of subject and object rather than a dialogue between subjects, and the political decision is an exercise in the number crunching of social science rather than an act of genuine political will. They don't have to treat us as mature adults or as intellectual equals, and the quality of the discourse is completely irrelevant; what politicians do is simply what they find to work, i.e. the strategies that are statistically likely to tip the votes in their favor.

Quite apart from the difficulty in placing blame, I'm not sure really where one might begin to take practical steps in addressing the problem.

I am really curious as to why this threadjack is acceptable to lindalove or anyone else posting to a topic regarding negative ad campaigns:

Is it acceptable that U2 threadjack another topic?

This topic *was* about negative ad campaigns, *not* u2's opinion regarding dental appliances. Is there moderation here to speak of? :confused:

Um, everything you just quoted was "U2" (whatever that means) responding to posts that were addressed to him specifically. If anyone was threadjacking, it is those who posted the questions. I mean, seriously.

It's also a threadjack that ended 6 days ago. Let it lie.

I have to admit that every time I see that there's a new post in my topic only to find out it's not about my topic is a little disappointing. Well, more than a little. :|

To answer the question succinctly, I think it's about the impact of a soundbite.

The average voter's political exposure is going to be both minimal and passive. That means your ad has to make an impact in a very short amount of time and with a very weak hold on the listener / viewer.

Political positives tend not to assert themselves as strongly in one's consciousness or memory. These things are not attention-getting: Candidate X supports so-and-so; Candidate X has such-and-such experience; Candidate X is a defender of any of a large number of shiny generalities ('fiscal responsibility', 'caring for our elderly', 'fighting the war on terror'). These terms are so common and meaningless that they become background noise, mere static. You will not really remember much of this when you enter the polling booth.

On the other hand, (and especially if we assume that most of our representatives do decent jobs) negatives do catch our attention. Candidate Y's sex scandal; Candidate Y's hideous voting record on this or that important issue; Candidate Y's failure to deal with X while in office (to which we think: "Damn! I've been plagued by X problems for the last two years!").

It's the same reason Ann Coulter has so many readers. Candidates, like columnists, must out-sensationalize each other to get our attention, and that means appealing to the lowest-common denominator and producing shocking, rather than valuable, content.

I guess negative ads work best when there are only two choices. With the election process rigged so that only one of two parties can realistically get elected then making the other guy look bad will probably get as many or more votes as making yourself look good.

It's probably much the same in the marketplace with consumer goods. If Ford and Honda were the only choices then we would probably see more ads with Honda emphasizing the negative aspects of Ford. With more choices available they do better by emphasizing their own positives to try and distance themselves from the field instead of attacking the other choices by name one at a time.