Is negative campaigning losing its efficacy?

Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:

Are we related some how? Jeez, remember when Chicago used to the capital of common sense before it became Frisco East?
More...

Frisco East, indeed. Have you read this?
http://www.suntimes.com/news/education/1211535,CST-NWS-skuls09web.article

A high school for homos. How long will it be before we have actual sexual experimentation in the classroom. Lets just have a couple of the young lads blow each other, just to see if they like it. Far fetched? Not with an Obama appointed, radical left supreme court.
 
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

I think a lot of attack ads are overdone, dark gray tones with ominous soundtrack and all that. Most negative campaigning consists of pointing out the opponent's record. How is that a bad thing?

The problem with McCain is that he is not very good at it. He bitterly resents personal criticism himself, and feels he should be above it, hence his support for McCain-Feingold, which severely eroded core First Amendment rights.

Voter polls consistently say that the thing voters hate the most is negative campaigning, yet any campaign pro will tell you they are used heavily for one reason: they work.

The republicans failed to use the summer to construct an alternative persona for Obama, and they are paying the price now. I believe they were lulled into complacency by the relatively good polling data. Now it's too late. Voters have decided they are comfortable with obama. He can brush away truthful attacks now as "desperation moves" by McCain.

If the bailout had not come up or if McCain had handled it differently, we would have had another very close election. If McCain had conveyed to voters that Obama was a far left radical with a lifetime of odious associations who was trying to deceive them, he would have a comfortable lead. As it is, Obama can put it on cruise control until the election.
More...



The voting record is a bad thing because its so misleading. Track records are great, but the fact is the votes are taken so far out of context its ridiculous. Every singe vote record I've researched is misleading because the public don't think about it. If a bill gives a tax break to Exxon mobile, in exchange for them donating X amount of money to a local school and you vote for it someone could say "He voted to give oil companies tax breaks!", vote against it "He voted against more funding for schools". Almost EVERY single track record bill you hear about has a story just like that behind it. They should have to divulge all the information behind a bill, then I bet you wouldnt hear about it. If you vote for funding for troops etc (good), you are usually taking money away from a decent cause (bad), if not then you are simply a "spender" (bad). Its ridiculous and since I don't plane on reading the whole bill, I dont really judge them based on 1 vote they cast.


Also I hate the personal attacks. AAA is right, they use them because they work...because as sickening and stupid as it is people actually pay far MORE attention to these than they do the issues. If you don't believe me look at the threads in this section. There really isn't a huge reason to campaign solely on your ideas and real logical reasons because people would knw what the hell you were talking about, because they dont care enough to find out. Why do you think we allow such incompetent politicians in office? Apathy. Give us the gritty personal attacks, any mental work is asking too much.
 
Quote from jonbig04:

The voting record is a bad thing because its so misleading. Track records are great, but the fact is the votes are taken so far out of context its ridiculous. Every singe vote record I've researched is misleading because the public don't think about it. If a bill gives a tax break to Exxon mobile, in exchange for them donating X amount of money to a local school and you vote for it someone could say "He voted to give oil companies tax breaks!", vote against it "He voted against more funding for schools". Almost EVERY single track record bill you hear about has a story just like that behind it. They should have to divulge all the information behind a bill, then I bet you wouldnt hear about it. If you vote for funding for troops etc (good), you are usually taking money away from a decent cause (bad), if not then you are simply a "spender" (bad). Its ridiculous and since I don't plane on reading the whole bill, I dont really judge them based on 1 vote they cast.


Also I hate the personal attacks. AAA is right, they use them because they work...because as sickening and stupid as it is people actually pay far MORE attention to these than they do the issues. If you don't believe me look at the threads in this section. There really isn't a huge reason to campaign solely on your ideas and real logical reasons because people would knw what the hell you were talking about, because they dont care enough to find out. Why do you think we allow such incompetent politicians in office? Apathy. Give us the gritty personal attacks, any mental work is asking too much.
More...

You make some good points about the way votes can be misleading. Like McCain supporting Bush 90% of the time, maybe? The vast majority of votes are more or less unanimous or routine procedural matters. There are a number of interest groups that carefully catalogue votes on major issues. Over time, these paint a pretty accurate picture of a candidate.

The real problem is, what else do we use? How else do you get a sense of what a candidate will do? By listening to his speeches and reading his position papers? Please, who is that naive?

The sad fact is that most voters will vote for the candidate who is more attractive, taller, has better hair, speaks better and seems more likeable.
 
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

The sad fact is that most voters will vote for the candidate who is more attractive, taller, has better hair, speaks better and seems more likeable.
More...


You are right. There's no excuse for it. However as wrong as it is to vote for a candidate because he's likeable, charismatic, and a better speaker...that doesnt mean hes the WRONG guy, even if a vast majority of his voters are voting for him for the wrong reasons. Honestly I try to ignore them entirely.
 
Quote from jonbig04:

lol see what I mean?
More...

Are you denying Obamas close personal relationship with Rezko? Is your opinion that Rezkos little venture into Iraq isn't war profiteering, pure and simple? Facts are facts. Obama was in bed with Rezko while it was politically convenient. He's nothing but an opportunist.
 
Quote from CaptainObvious:

Are you denying Obamas close personal relationship with Rezko? Is your opinion that Rezkos little venture into Iraq isn't war profiteering, pure and simple? Facts are facts. Obama was in bed with Rezko while it was politically convenient. He's nothing but an opportunist.
More...


Sigh.
 
Quote from jonbig04:

Sigh.
More...

You're not from Chicago. Captain O and me are.

It's a REAL scummy situation. No, Obama is not "kosher." That doesn't mean a corruptible person can't be a good leader-apples and oranges-but I don't like Obama on vision either.

To deny though that Obama/Rezko isn't properly examinable as an issue is either naive or partisan. Rezko is in prison on a bribery related conviction. Rezko is now cooperating with prosecutors in regard to additional crimes. Rezko was BY FAR Obama's largest contributer as well as a close personal friend. They had a peculiar PRIVATE business deal involving Obama's mansion. Yea, it doesn't reflect well and EVERYONE IN CHICAGO knows it was unsavory relationship. Chicaaahgo doesn't moralize on election day though......
 
I could find the same questionable relationships if I examined mccain. I could probably find them if I examined you, or if you examined me. The fact that people complain about our leaders and then use criteria such as this when choosing who to elect is amazing to me. Figures.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top