What do you think aboput negative campaigns - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

MS Fowler · #1 06-30-2011, 07:04 PM

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?

tjts1 · #2 06-30-2011, 07:08 PM

Has a campaign add ever changed your mind about anything?

Anybody?

leathermang · #3 06-30-2011, 07:15 PM

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

MS Fowler · #4 06-30-2011, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tjts1

Has a campaign add ever changed your mind about anything?

Anybody?

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.

SwampYankee · #5 06-30-2011, 07:18 PM

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

Honus · #6 06-30-2011, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

...The early prognostications are that Obama will go hard negative, early and often...

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

PaulC · #7 06-30-2011, 07:34 PM

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.

tjts1 · #8 06-30-2011, 07:42 PM

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?

Jorn · #9 06-30-2011, 08:01 PM

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

leathermang · #10 06-30-2011, 08:03 PM

Or at least for the Broadcast media....

MTI · #11 06-30-2011, 08:56 PM

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?

elchivito · #12 06-30-2011, 09:49 PM

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.

MTUpower · #13 06-30-2011, 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honus

Isn't awful how negative those darn Democrats are?

[URL="http://...[/URL]

[URL="http://...[/URL]

[URL="http://...[/URL]
[URL="http://...[/URL]

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...".

MS Fowler · #14 06-30-2011, 10:57 PM

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

MTUpower · #15 06-30-2011, 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

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.