Are you guys noticing the ads on TV for political candidates are heavy on the negative side? The only positive ads I've been seeing are the Jerry Brown ones. At this point in political history, I'm not convinced that negative ads are very effective, but if you don't want to run on your record, what else is there? Where's a democrat running an ad saying, "I voted for the health care bill, the stimulus package, cap and trade, and all the other great legislation passed these past 2 years" ? Instead I am seeing, "Carly Fiorina took $100M severance package from HP." Fiorina is running ads stating, "this is Barbara Boxer's California" with the imagery of the movie Brazil. In the close races, I'm seeing republicans running negative ads, too. Meg Whitman is running ads that are highly critical of Brown's history as governor. But at least it is talking to record. Not much consolation in that. Republicans could easily be running effective ads that are positive with some zing factor to them. "The congress of the past two years have failed on the economy, and I'm here to fix it." On C-SPAN last night, they had a round table discussion about the political races. The panel included top officials of the DNC, RNC, and house election committees of both parties. The republicans were upbeat (buoyed by the polls). The democrats were all about opposition research. It sure looks to me like those running the negative ads are doing so out of desperation.
scaring the voters and giving them something to fear, works. It's the reason why every R uses "liberal politics" or "Policies of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid" in their ads, and D's use the "out of touch" type ads.
Meg Whitman may have overplayed her hand putting $140 million into the campaign. You can't watch a ballgame, news program, movie or anything else without 5 Whitman commercials. She has gotten to be like Nationwide Insurance or Free Credit Report.com; everyone knows the name but it has become an annoyance. Like, crap, I've already seen this commercial a million times! And that's been going on since spring.
Does Christine O'Donnell's "I'm not a witch" count as positive? The ads here in PA are getting ridiculous. In the Senate race, Pat Toomey (R) ran an ad about the stuff that Joe Sestak (D) supported from the Obama administration, ending with the line "that's liberal, that's Joe Sestak." Sestak responded with an ad where Toomey says, "My voting record is basically identical to Rick Santorum" and then quotes him praising Sarah Palin.
Part of the imbalance is the Democrats have nothing to run on, which is shocking given their long list of legislative accomplishments. It's actually an acknowledgement that they governed against the will of the people. As for the Republicans, they're as unpopular as the Democrats. Their message seems to be, "We f*cked up before, but we've learned our lesson". That being said, there's not a lot to be proud of on either side. And if you can't brag on much, you tear down the other person. It's also an unfortunate circumstance, but negative ads work. Perhaps not on those who follow politics closely, but it works on casual voters.
This is the truth, unfortunately. Can't count how many times where I've heard a negative ad with some kind of crazy spin put on it, and, while I might know the 'actual" truth of what happened, or the rest of the missing soundbyte, I'll inevitably talk to someone who doesn't and make comments based solely off of the ad they saw. And most people are too lazy to check or care, and just go with it. And if you're running, and you know it works, why not, I suppose. I hate it, but you know it isn't going to stop ever.
This has been going on for years. The relationship between the GOP and Dems has progressively gotten worse and worse and worse. I thought the Bush/Kerry election was especially dirty.
I am sure it has happened plenty of times, but agreed about the Bush Kerry election. That was one of the first ones where I felt like there was a huge amount of attack ads NOT from the parties themselves, but from different PACs, Swift Boat type things, as opposed to actually endorsed by the candidate. I am certain they happened before, but that year, they seemed to really stand out more.
Are you kidding me? Jerry Brown has an ad of Meg Whitman at a weird angle with a pinochicco hat and her nose growing. Its pretty fucking disgraceful he'd stoop that low.
Make a difference between negative and critical ads. It's fair to lambast someones voting record or stance on certain issues so long as it's factual. The problem is that 90% of the ads are intentionally misleading or out & out lies. Makes me feel like I'm listening to Canzano.
This guy running for the House in RI, Cicciline (Mayor of Providence), is up 20 points in almost every poll and he's running a bunch of negative ads against his opponent. I don't get it.
Just once I would love to see a candidate come out and be a badass. Did you sleep with that intern? "Fuck ya I did. She was hot. Are you saying you wouldn't?" What's your opinion of your opponent? "That guy is an asshole. Why would you want him running things?" Gay marriage? "Shiiiiit.... if Brad Pitt asked me to marry him, I'd do it."
The simple truth is that we want the quick and easy responses to political issues. We don't want to think. So instead of going into depth about an issue, we want to be able to say "John Doe raised my taxes!" or "Jane Doe lowered my taxes!" "Jane Doe hates Gays!" "John Doe supports TEH GHEYS". Don't make me think, just make me parrot the political keynotes. It works for both parties, and both parties are equally guilty. As for why they do it? It works.
