What do you think aboput negative campaigns
 

The conventional wisdom around PP and most places is that people do not like negative campaigns.
I am betting that is not true. What people hate is when the other side engages in negative campaigning. When my side does it, it is simply truth-telling.
I am betting that politics will win out over any aversion to theoretical negative campaigning in the up-coming Presidential race. The early prognostications are that Obama will go hard negative, early and often. My bet is that Obama supporters will not be deterred in the least.
So, before the real campaigning begins, and this is all theoretical, I am asking what you all think.
Is the so-called aversion to negative campaigning real, or simply politics as usual?

Has a campaign add ever changed your mind about anything?









Anybody?

I think the research is that people say they do not like them..
but politicians keep doing it because it is effective....

Why would campaigns spend Millions $$ to make ads if they had no effect?

For principled people from any part of the political spectrum, I doubt if ads have any effect.
For those who do not pay attention until they drive to the polling place, maybe they have some effect.

Like the polling numbers reflect, I don't like them but they must be effective.

Isn't awful how negative those darn Democrats are?

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/10/25/126242/mcconnell-obama-one-term/

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2009/01/20/35012/limbaugh-obama-fail/

http://www.birthers.org/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgce06Yw2ro

Good news is boring and puts the reader/viewer to sleep. Bad news may be discomfiting to the viewer, but it sure attracts attention. Campaign carnage raises the visibility of both candidates. The tricky part of executing such a strategy is ensuring that the populace regards the recipient of the mud slinging as the less-electable douchebag.

So whats it like to know for a fact that Obama will get reelected? I'm looking at the right winger perspective here. Are you angry, sad, in denial? Are you mad at your own candidates for making fools of themselves? Which is it?

With the billions spent on them I think they are very good for the economy.

Or at least for the Broadcast media....

It's curious that the OP states, nearly as fact, that the incumbent will be going negative early on. What's the source of this crystal balling?

First, who is the incumbent going to go negative on? The GOP won't have a candidate for nearly a year, so how is the President going to go negative? The premise being pitched by the OP doesn't make sense.

Isn't it the storyline of the GOP candidates that to appease "the base" they need to generate "red meat" style campaigning against the President? There was a candidate that recently tested the water against Romney before the NH debates and wound up on his back exposing his belly . . . what happened to that guy? :D

Campaigns have always been negative. There's nothing to see here. The right has been on a relentless negative campaign against Obama since before he was elected and ever since. Posters of him as Che, posters of him as a chimp, questioning his citizenship, calling him a communist, a socialist, a nazi and everthing in between.

I don't know, like the OP appears to know, that Obama will come out strongly negative, but I frankly hope he does. Especially if one of the current lineup of Republican doofuses ends up with the nomination. He ought to hit them hard and low and show them up for the hypocritical shills and looneybin nutballs they are. Having said that, I doubt he'll do it.

Not that I have an opinion one way or the other.

And faster than anyone could blink, think or turn on the lights Honus goes right to the teflon double negative: "I'm only negative 'cus you are and you did it first...".

And I thought we could discuss the issue BEFORE it became political. Silly of me.

Of course it's silly because the one's tied to BHO will lash out, and those tied to anything but BHO will also. We've already seen that in this short thread. Now there are already ads - just saw one today- about how the republicans are doing horrible things to the middle class and in 2012 we need to stop them. It's not the president running the ad however- but it's not pro democrats or pro tea party or pro libertarians- it's anti republicans.

:confused:

You really didn't see anything political about your OP?

I never said any such thing. My point was that it was silly for MS Fowler to single out Obama in this thread about negative campaigning. I find it hard to believe that you would find my point to be controversial, although I admit that my previous post left room for you to come up with an insulting reply. My bad.

"We've already seen that"? I think you mean that you've seen it.Your point being?

When Lyndon Johnson ran for Congress, legend says, he wanted to spread the rumor that his opponent was a pig-f&*ker. Johnson's campaign manager said, "Lyndon, you know he doesn't do that!" Johnson replied, "I know. I just want to make him deny it."

:D

Every time I see your screen name, it looks like it says tits. :D

What is an "oboput"???? :D

I don't like the negative ads at all. I generally pay no attention to them but try to keep my eye on the ball and figure out what the candidates really think.

O tries to avoid going negative I think.

Of course if the opposition tries to destroy SS and Medicare one has to point that out.

I really was not singling him out. I was using the assumption by some political types that he will go negative as a jump-off point for the discussion.

Somewhere in the negative campaigns is at least a sliver of truth about the target. I surely don't expect candidate "X" to come out and say the bad things he is or has done. That is the job of other guy. Of course, when the other guy says "X raised taxes (or any other action you don't like) every year he held some office, I expect candidate "X" to complain that the other guy is just going negative. Really, what other response can you put up if the other guy is in fact telling a truth about you? Campaigns have been nasty, negative affairs as long as the US has existed (and longer, really). I just look at all the information and try to discern the truth of the matter.

:D Is this the part of the OP's writing that was supposed to be "apolitical?" :D

Campaigning is advertising which is selling. Companies do not spend millions/billions on add campaigns just for the sake of blowing money. They will put their adds in front of test audiences to see their reaction. They uses science and psychology to sell products. Certain colors for me and others for women, same with shapes.

The adds do work on the people they are intended to work on.

No you didn't. If you did not want this to be a political discussion you would not have mentioned Obama. You made a very specific effort to make this political. Do not try and pee on my leg and then tell me it's raining.

Yes, silly him.

+1.

I never expect it could be so funny in Politics. I live in CA and if I want to be sure that my vote could make a difference then I need to move State. But I like it here.

A lot of American live in a cocoon and if you bombard them with negatives or lies then they will think it is the TRUTH.

i'm all for negative campaigning. The worse the better is what i say.

FYI: a negative political ad attacks something real or imagined; and often portrays something in a bad light. A positive ad touts the abilities or accomplishments of the politician. No one has posted any links or anything that attacks or is negative? Only things which tout their "side"?

If you cannot see the point I trust your sight on not much at all. You may not agree with the point but not seeing it? Does that tactic work for you in court?

SOS from the same old players. For all the venom spewed in these threads, you guys really do get effin boring after a while.

:deadhorse:

and to think the first caucus' and primaries are still six months away.

Same *****e, different election.

It was more of a lament that political threads about a presidental campaign seem to be starting earlier. Perhaps not, but since it appears to be only a contested GOP primary season ahead, at least most of the discussion will be about that field.

and what a field it is! :D

i really love michelle bachmann. she is that wonderful combination of the true believer and the woefully ignorant. on the other hand, our current leader is well educated and has the morals of a snake. :D

I suspect the campaigns of the GOP hopefulls will will center around who has the most Tea.

And the members of the GOP should decide on their candidate--not dems or progressives crossing over to vote in primaries where that is allowed.

The state party caucuses decide that. If you don't like it you should be whining to the RNC.

yes, the poor quality of GOP candidates must be blamed.... on someone else!

project much? :D

What do you mean by Morals of a Snake?

It's a 40-40-20 game...The adds only deal to the the 20!Those of us who who have been doing this for a while..work the the 20

simple !!

Adam blamed Eve.

Eve blamed the snake.

The snake didnt have a leg to stand on !! :D:D ;)

obama closed the books on cia abuses today. what happened to transparency?

(sorry, didn't mean to insult snakes.)

actually, for someone who joked that obama's birth certificate might be found at the zoo, it's a little cheeky for you to even show up on thread about negative campaigning. there's plenty of reasons to be appalled about obama; race is not one of them.

I think some need to lighten up a little.

As I explained at the time, go ask a high school student about going to the zoo to visit their relos ~ Darwinism. Its a common joke, nothing to do with race. Others made the race connection.

Too many are haunted by their countries past.

Best they get over it !!

If I had to choose between politicians and snakes (IMO not much of an effin choice), I'll take the snakes.

Mainly because you won't go to jail for applying the business end of a shotgun to a snake. Politicians are infinitely harder to get rid of.

well, that explains everything. thanks so much. :D

speaking of countries - though i think you meant country's, or countries'? - how are the aboriginals doing these days? finally realizing that it was a good thing that the brits came over and showed them the light?

A bit like the "brits" discovering America I guess. :rolleyes:
Different country ~ different spelling!!! :rolleyes:

I didnt see you comment about "aboput" :rolleyes:

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone!!"

I find it best to let infraction bait pass to the keeper.

What I am seeing reminds me of some one who has had a long Friday night drinking session. Its lunch time Saturday here.

hey, mr. GMT (?) its only 8 pm here in los angeles.

for the record, as a white person in america, i'm very careful to respect african americans, since they were screwed over here for several hundred years. you. living in a country with a similar history of race based oppression, seem to have no such qualms. so be it.