Negative ads

zenith-nadir · 27th September 2004, 03:24 PM

I find negative ads turn me off. I don't care who it is, Bush or Kerry. I lose faith in a party who needs to use negativity to sell themselves as the better party. If that is all they have to offer is negativity and mudslinging then what good are they. I would be more inclined to vote for a party who is above all that....but alas, there is no party above that.

Anyone else feel this way?

(On a side note... I would gladly vote Republican just to shut Ted Kennedy the 'F' up)

geni · 27th September 2004, 03:38 PM

Nope because in britian we have a part dedidcated to posertive campianing.

http://www.omrlp.com/

BPSCG · 27th September 2004, 03:44 PM

No, because the Democratic ads are dirty and dishonest. The Republican ads are just good ol' rough 'n' tumble politics.

That's what my neocon handlers told me to say...

Meadmaker · 27th September 2004, 06:15 PM

I think too much is made of "negative ads". Not all negative ads are alike.

When the Republicans say, "Jonh Kerry voted against every weapons system." that's a negative ad. However, it happens to be policy based and more or less true. When the Kerry camp says, "George Bush has created a mess in Iraq." That's a negative statement, but it's a legitimate issue that is part of the substance of the campaign.

What turns me off is not negativity, but character assassination. I hate hearing, "George Bush didn't fulfill his national guard duties." That is a personal attack not relevant to this campaign. It turns me off, and it is the reason I won't vote for Kerry. If he wants the job badly enough that he resorts to slander, I don't want to give it to him.

In other words, I don't mind negativity when it is more or less true and related to a legitimate issue, but mudslinging, personal attacks, and digging into candidates personal lives are really bad.

P.S. Every campaign season in recent memory, I hear candidates posting ads that say, "My opponent is dirty, no good, low down, moronic jerk. But what really makes me mad is that he uses negative advertising!"

Charlie Monoxide · 27th September 2004, 06:46 PM

Hmmm, IMHO the reason they are used (more effectively by the GOP and cohorts) is that they work.

I have some older friends who are hard-core Republicans. We rarely talk politics even though I'm intensely curious to understand their position and reasoning. So far it seems to be an intense hatred (yes hatred is a strong word) of John Kerry. We I asked about them some of GWB obvious goof ups (WMD, going it alone), I get blank stares. One of them was reading a new right-wing hack job book (I forget the title), that she recommend I read. I glanced through it and after it touted GWB 5 years of "service" versus Kerry's 1 or 2 years, I had to put it down.

Charlie (hate is the message, but love is the drug) Monoxide

Vorticity · 27th September 2004, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Meadmaker
...What turns me off is not negativity, but character assassination. I hate hearing, "George Bush didn't fulfill his national guard duties." That is a personal attack not relevant to this campaign. It turns me off, and it is the reason I won't vote for Kerry...

Which ad was that? Or was it a speech? A google search of various versions of that phrase yields no quotes that come from Kerry. Just curious.

epepke · 27th September 2004, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorticity
Which ad was that? Or was it a speech? A google search of various versions of that phrase yields no quotes that come from Kerry. Just curious.

John Kerry has, however, said that Bush served honorably.

Remember: decision first, reasons later.

Dorian Gray · 27th September 2004, 10:04 PM

Quote:

That is a personal attack not relevant to this campaign. It turns me off, and it is the reason I won't vote for Kerry.

By that logic, you shouldn't be voting for Bush either.

BPSCG · 28th September 2004, 04:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Meadmaker
It turns me off, and it is the reason I won't vote for Kerry. If he wants the job badly enough that he resorts to slander, I don't want to give it to him.

So who's it gonna be, Meadmaker? Nader or Badnarik? And I'd be interested in hearing your reasons, beyond, "he doesn't slander his opponents."

Meadmaker · 28th September 2004, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorticity
Which ad was that? Or was it a speech? A google search of various versions of that phrase yields no quotes that come from Kerry. Just curious.

The DNC's "Fortunate Son" campaign. Yes I know that the DNC is not the Kerry campaign. I also know that one call from Kerry would stop it.

If the election were held today, it would be Badnarak. I don't agree with the large L Libertarians, but their hearts are in the right place. I don't mind throwing a symbolic vote in their direction. If they had a prayer of winning, I would have to think about it.

After I wrote the original above, I decided to check the DNC web site. I couldn't find any reference to "Fortunate Son". Good. There's another month to go before the election. Maybe I'll change my mind.

crimresearch · 28th September 2004, 08:47 AM

If they had stuck with someone like Ron Paul, they might have a prayer of making a respectable showing.

Meadmaker · 28th September 2004, 09:05 AM

Correction: I didn't see the video, but a search of the DNC site had several recent references to "Fortunate Son" and this, from the front page:

"Today, the Los Angeles Times investigates President Bushâ€™s service in the Texas Air National Guard in 1972 and 1973 and raises more troubling and unanswered questions about Bushâ€™s tenure in the Guard. "

So, as long as they keep this up, I won't even consider their candidate.

Vorticity · 28th September 2004, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Meadmaker
Correction: I didn't see the video, but a search of the DNC site had several recent references to "Fortunate Son" and this, from the front page:

"Today, the Los Angeles Times investigates President Bushâ€™s service in the Texas Air National Guard in 1972 and 1973 and raises more troubling and unanswered questions about Bushâ€™s tenure in the Guard. "

So, as long as they keep this up, I won't even consider their candidate.

Uh-Oh. Better not look at the front page of the RNC right now:
http://www.rnc.org/

Charlie Monoxide · 28th September 2004, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorticity
Uh-Oh. Better not look at the front page of the RNC right now:
http://www.rnc.org/

I checked the site out. Not much substance on Bush, but a heck of a lot of anti-Kerry crap.

Flipper cam? Come on!

Charlie (choose me and hate the other) Monoxide

aerocontrols · 28th September 2004, 12:55 PM

Negative adds are really just subtractions.

Brown · 28th September 2004, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by aerocontrols
Negative adds are really just subtractions.

What we really get are complex ads, with a real part and an imaginary part.

TragicMonkey · 28th September 2004, 01:01 PM

My problem with negative ads is that they aren't negative enough. They're boring.

"John Kerry isn't a strong leader." --oooh! Shocking. This would be much more interesting:

"John Kerry once stabbed a pregnant woman in the forehead with a barbeque fork, and laughed at her pain. Just like he'll laugh at your pain, America. He's planning to cheat on his wife with your sister, and he dares you to stop him."

"In his term as president, George Bush was personally responsible for the rise of poisonous spider bites by a trillion percent from 1999, and has made absolutely no commitment to defending America against the threat of asteroid bombardment. Is this leadership? A vote for Bush is a vote for winding up a spider-bitten corpse at the bottom of a smoking crater."

But then, entertainment is pretty much all I expect from political leadership these days. And they can't even deliver on that.

merphie · 28th September 2004, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
"In his term as president, George Bush was personally responsible for the rise of poisonous spider bites by a trillion percent from 1999, and has made absolutely no commitment to defending America against the threat of asteroid bombardment. Is this leadership? A vote for Bush is a vote for winding up a spider-bitten corpse at the bottom of a smoking crater."

That's funny.

gnome · 28th September 2004, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Brown
What we really get are complex ads, with a real part and an imaginary part.

good one!!!!

What amazes me the most is how much we Americans hate negative campaigning... you ask any one, and they'll go on a rant about it...

And yet they work so well that both sides find themselves forced to do it... I think we're the hypocrites...

or... perhaps there's a psycho/sociological dynamic going on that we're all trapped by... whoever works it out so we can at last abandon farces like this, while still retaining democracy, deserves a Nobel prize.

Brown · 28th September 2004, 01:46 PM

Negative campaigning does not always work.

In Iowa about six years ago, there was a heated race for governor. In the last few weeks of the campaign, one of the candidates, who held a significant lead in the polls, started running negative ads, saying his opponent was in favor of (gasp!) nude dancing in the state.

The voters held this ad against the candidate who ran it. He lost his lead, and lost the race for the governor's office.

Cleon · 28th September 2004, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Brown
Negative campaigning does not always work.

In Iowa about six years ago, there was a heated race for governor. In the last few weeks of the campaign, one of the candidates, who held a significant lead in the polls, started running negative ads, saying his opponent was in favor of (gasp!) nude dancing in the state.

The voters held this ad against the candidate who ran it. He lost his lead, and lost the race for the governor's office.

Or maybe people took it seriously and really wanted to keep nude dancing.

Meadmaker · 28th September 2004, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorticity
Uh-Oh. Better not look at the front page of the RNC right now:
http://www.rnc.org/

"Flippercam" seems a bit childish, with the dolphin picture and all, but actually, I don't mind their stuff so much. It's issue oriented.

If John Kerry "flips", then that's an issue. I don't see anything wrong with bringing it to public attention. I don't find it persuasive, but it doesn't make me angry.

There are two kinds of negative ads that bother me. One is the muckraking sort, where people dig dirt on the opponent, especially in his personal life. The "Fortunate Son" is an example. Although they aren't ads, I was disgusted by Kitty Kelly and everything having to do with charges related to Bill Clinton's sex life as well.

The second kind of ad that bothers me is one that so distorts someone's record that reasonable people would say that candidate A was lying about candidate B. One variation of this that really gets my goat is one that shows a candidate with a hated public figure, and suggests that they are good friends. So the "Here is John Kerry sitting next to Jane Fonda" stuff really bothers me.

The "Al-Qaeda wants Kerry to win" ads are pretty sick, too, but at least there's a legitimate issue somewhere down there, if you wipe the slime off the top.

Snide · 28th September 2004, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Brown
Negative campaigning does not always work.

In Iowa about six years ago, there was a heated race for governor. In the last few weeks of the campaign, one of the candidates, who held a significant lead in the polls, started running negative ads, saying his opponent was in favor of (gasp!) nude dancing in the state.

The voters held this ad against the candidate who ran it. He lost his lead, and lost the race for the governor's office.

Funny stuff.

I lived in Iowa for four years. Saw Governor Branstedt(sp?) win because his opponent was against the death penalty.

The slimy campaign won, yet AFAIK, Iowa still has no death penalty.

Snide · 28th September 2004, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Brown
Negative campaigning does not always work.

In Iowa about six years ago, there was a heated race for governor. In the last few weeks of the campaign, one of the candidates, who held a significant lead in the polls, started running negative ads, saying his opponent was in favor of (gasp!) nude dancing in the state.

The voters held this ad against the candidate who ran it. He lost his lead, and lost the race for the governor's office.

Funny stuff.

I lived in Iowa for four years. Saw Governor Branstedt(sp?) win because his opponent was against the death penalty.

The slimy campaign won, yet AFAIK, Iowa still has no death penalty.

Skeptic · 28th September 2004, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Brown
Negative campaigning does not always work.

In Iowa about six years ago, there was a heated race for governor. In the last few weeks of the campaign, one of the candidates, who held a significant lead in the polls, started running negative ads, saying his opponent was in favor of (gasp!) nude dancing in the state.

The voters held this ad against the candidate who ran it. He lost his lead, and lost the race for the governor's office.

This one has so many joke possibilities I don't know where to start.

AD: "My opponent will allow nude dancing..."

VOTER: "Cool! What's the guy's name again? I should remember to vote for him--always wanted nude dancing close to home... "

POLLSTER: "Mr. Voter, you are one of the many who changed their vote after the infamous 'nude dancing' ad aired. Care to give your reasons?"

VOTER (clears throat): "Well, er, I just didn't like all the negative campaigning!"

Brown · 29th September 2004, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Snide
I lived in Iowa for four years. Saw Governor Branstedt(sp?) win because his opponent was against the death penalty.

The slimy campaign won, yet AFAIK, Iowa still has no death penalty.

Governor Terry Branstad (a Republican) was in office for 16 years, longer than any Iowa governor. To this day, I do not see the appeal of the guy. In my first two jobs after graduate school, I worked as an employee for the State of Iowa. Throughout that time, I had to listen to the governor bad-mouth the work of state employees. It was, of course, very popular to insult government "bureaucrats"; but imagine what it would do to YOUR morale to hear the chief executive of your company bad-mouth everything the company's employees were doing.

Branstad is perhaps best "known" for a race in which he, as an incumbent, got challenged for his party's nomination by congressman Fred "Gopher" Grandy. Appearance-wise, Branstad looked a lot like Stan Marsh's father.

Branstad was not above slinging mud, but those who challenged him generally had too much good taste to sling mud back. For example, Branstad's teenage son was repeatedly convicted of underage drinking and subsequently killed two people with his car (and I believe he did no time for it, even though he was clearly at fault). No one ever suggested in a campaign, however, that Branstad was an unfit parent.

27th September 2004, 03:24 PM	#1
zenith-nadir Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 4,500	Negative ads I find negative ads turn me off. I don't care who it is, Bush or Kerry. I lose faith in a party who needs to use negativity to sell themselves as the better party. If that is all they have to offer is negativity and mudslinging then what good are they. I would be more inclined to vote for a party who is above all that....but alas, there is no party above that. Anyone else feel this way? (On a side note... I would gladly vote Republican just to shut Ted Kennedy the 'F' up)
	__________________ The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled. -- Plutarch

27th September 2004, 03:44 PM	#3
BPSCG Cannibal Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Looting Fafner's Cave Posts: 17,556	No, because the Democratic ads are dirty and dishonest. The Republican ads are just good ol' rough 'n' tumble politics. That's what my neocon handlers told me to say...
	__________________ Philanthropist (n.) - Someone who spends his own money to advance his version of Utopia. Socialist (n.) - Someone who spends your money to advance his version of Utopia.

27th September 2004, 06:15 PM	#4
Meadmaker Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Detroit suburbs Posts: 11,440	I think too much is made of "negative ads". Not all negative ads are alike. When the Republicans say, "Jonh Kerry voted against every weapons system." that's a negative ad. However, it happens to be policy based and more or less true. When the Kerry camp says, "George Bush has created a mess in Iraq." That's a negative statement, but it's a legitimate issue that is part of the substance of the campaign. What turns me off is not negativity, but character assassination. I hate hearing, "George Bush didn't fulfill his national guard duties." That is a personal attack not relevant to this campaign. It turns me off, and it is the reason I won't vote for Kerry. If he wants the job badly enough that he resorts to slander, I don't want to give it to him. In other words, I don't mind negativity when it is more or less true and related to a legitimate issue, but mudslinging, personal attacks, and digging into candidates personal lives are really bad. P.S. Every campaign season in recent memory, I hear candidates posting ads that say, "My opponent is dirty, no good, low down, moronic jerk. But what really makes me mad is that he uses negative advertising!"
	__________________ Dave "War is Peace. Freedom is slavery. Particles are waves."

27th September 2004, 06:46 PM	#5
Charlie Monoxide Wag Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: London, Ontario Posts: 2,761	Hmmm, IMHO the reason they are used (more effectively by the GOP and cohorts) is that they work. I have some older friends who are hard-core Republicans. We rarely talk politics even though I'm intensely curious to understand their position and reasoning. So far it seems to be an intense hatred (yes hatred is a strong word) of John Kerry. We I asked about them some of GWB obvious goof ups (WMD, going it alone), I get blank stares. One of them was reading a new right-wing hack job book (I forget the title), that she recommend I read. I glanced through it and after it touted GWB 5 years of "service" versus Kerry's 1 or 2 years, I had to put it down. Charlie (hate is the message, but love is the drug) Monoxide
	__________________ Major General Wag of JREF

27th September 2004, 09:50 PM	#7
epepke Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 7,950	Quote: Originally posted by Vorticity Which ad was that? Or was it a speech? A google search of various versions of that phrase yields no quotes that come from Kerry. Just curious. John Kerry has, however, said that Bush served honorably. Remember: decision first, reasons later.
epepke Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 7,950

27th September 2004, 03:38 PM	#2
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 26,557	Nope because in britian we have a part dedidcated to posertive campianing. http://www.omrlp.com/

27th September 2004, 08:20 PM	#6
Vorticity Fluid Mechanic Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Los Alamos, NM Posts: 2,649	Quote: Originally posted by Meadmaker ...What turns me off is not negativity, but character assassination. I hate hearing, "George Bush didn't fulfill his national guard duties." That is a personal attack not relevant to this campaign. It turns me off, and it is the reason I won't vote for Kerry... Which ad was that? Or was it a speech? A google search of various versions of that phrase yields no quotes that come from Kerry. Just curious.

27th September 2004, 10:04 PM	#8
Dorian Gray Hypocrisy Detector Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Dayton, Ohio Posts: 20,195	Quote: That is a personal attack not relevant to this campaign. It turns me off, and it is the reason I won't vote for Kerry. By that logic, you shouldn't be voting for Bush either.
	__________________ "A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men." - Willy Wonka "Rational arguments don't work on religious people. If they did, there wouldn't be any religious people." - House Additionally to Carlin being funnier than Izzard, I think Dorian is funnier than the Marquis. - Ron Tomkins

28th September 2004, 04:49 AM	#9
BPSCG Cannibal Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Looting Fafner's Cave Posts: 17,556	Quote: Originally posted by Meadmaker It turns me off, and it is the reason I won't vote for Kerry. If he wants the job badly enough that he resorts to slander, I don't want to give it to him. So who's it gonna be, Meadmaker? Nader or Badnarik? And I'd be interested in hearing your reasons, beyond, "he doesn't slander his opponents."
	__________________ Philanthropist (n.) - Someone who spends his own money to advance his version of Utopia. Socialist (n.) - Someone who spends your money to advance his version of Utopia.

28th September 2004, 08:43 AM	#10
Meadmaker Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Detroit suburbs Posts: 11,440	Quote: Originally posted by Vorticity Which ad was that? Or was it a speech? A google search of various versions of that phrase yields no quotes that come from Kerry. Just curious. The DNC's "Fortunate Son" campaign. Yes I know that the DNC is not the Kerry campaign. I also know that one call from Kerry would stop it. If the election were held today, it would be Badnarak. I don't agree with the large L Libertarians, but their hearts are in the right place. I don't mind throwing a symbolic vote in their direction. If they had a prayer of winning, I would have to think about it. After I wrote the original above, I decided to check the DNC web site. I couldn't find any reference to "Fortunate Son". Good. There's another month to go before the election. Maybe I'll change my mind.
	__________________ Dave "War is Peace. Freedom is slavery. Particles are waves."

28th September 2004, 08:47 AM	#11
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618	If they had stuck with someone like Ron Paul, they might have a prayer of making a respectable showing.
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618

28th September 2004, 09:05 AM	#12
Meadmaker Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Detroit suburbs Posts: 11,440	Correction: I didn't see the video, but a search of the DNC site had several recent references to "Fortunate Son" and this, from the front page: "Today, the Los Angeles Times investigates President Bushâ€™s service in the Texas Air National Guard in 1972 and 1973 and raises more troubling and unanswered questions about Bushâ€™s tenure in the Guard. " So, as long as they keep this up, I won't even consider their candidate.
	__________________ Dave "War is Peace. Freedom is slavery. Particles are waves."

28th September 2004, 12:03 PM	#13
Vorticity Fluid Mechanic Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Los Alamos, NM Posts: 2,649	Quote: Originally posted by Meadmaker Correction: I didn't see the video, but a search of the DNC site had several recent references to "Fortunate Son" and this, from the front page: "Today, the Los Angeles Times investigates President Bushâ€™s service in the Texas Air National Guard in 1972 and 1973 and raises more troubling and unanswered questions about Bushâ€™s tenure in the Guard. " So, as long as they keep this up, I won't even consider their candidate. Uh-Oh. Better not look at the front page of the RNC right now: http://www.rnc.org/

28th September 2004, 12:45 PM	#14
Charlie Monoxide Wag Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: London, Ontario Posts: 2,761	Quote: Originally posted by Vorticity Uh-Oh. Better not look at the front page of the RNC right now: http://www.rnc.org/ I checked the site out. Not much substance on Bush, but a heck of a lot of anti-Kerry crap. Flipper cam? Come on! Charlie (choose me and hate the other) Monoxide
	__________________ Major General Wag of JREF

28th September 2004, 12:55 PM	#15
aerocontrols Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 3,445	Negative adds are really just subtractions.
	__________________ Misunderestimated in 2000. Unredefeated in 2004. My dog does his tricks. My roomate's dog tries to escape the kitchen. We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling's, and trading with interest. Source

28th September 2004, 01:00 PM	#16
Brown Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Twin Cities, Canada Posts: 12,145	Quote: Originally posted by aerocontrols Negative adds are really just subtractions. What we really get are complex ads, with a real part and an imaginary part.

28th September 2004, 01:01 PM	#17
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Pither Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 30,068	My problem with negative ads is that they aren't negative enough. They're boring. "John Kerry isn't a strong leader." --oooh! Shocking. This would be much more interesting: "John Kerry once stabbed a pregnant woman in the forehead with a barbeque fork, and laughed at her pain. Just like he'll laugh at your pain, America. He's planning to cheat on his wife with your sister, and he dares you to stop him." "In his term as president, George Bush was personally responsible for the rise of poisonous spider bites by a trillion percent from 1999, and has made absolutely no commitment to defending America against the threat of asteroid bombardment. Is this leadership? A vote for Bush is a vote for winding up a spider-bitten corpse at the bottom of a smoking crater." But then, entertainment is pretty much all I expect from political leadership these days. And they can't even deliver on that.
	__________________ One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.

28th September 2004, 01:20 PM	#18
merphie Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Oklahoma Posts: 1,890	Quote: Originally posted by TragicMonkey "In his term as president, George Bush was personally responsible for the rise of poisonous spider bites by a trillion percent from 1999, and has made absolutely no commitment to defending America against the threat of asteroid bombardment. Is this leadership? A vote for Bush is a vote for winding up a spider-bitten corpse at the bottom of a smoking crater." That's funny.
	__________________ "They that can give up Essential Liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin "Don't argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."

28th September 2004, 01:24 PM	#19
gnome Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,869	Quote: Originally posted by Brown What we really get are complex ads, with a real part and an imaginary part. good one!!!! What amazes me the most is how much we Americans hate negative campaigning... you ask any one, and they'll go on a rant about it... And yet they work so well that both sides find themselves forced to do it... I think we're the hypocrites... or... perhaps there's a psycho/sociological dynamic going on that we're all trapped by... whoever works it out so we can at last abandon farces like this, while still retaining democracy, deserves a Nobel prize.
gnome Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,869	__________________

28th September 2004, 01:46 PM	#20
Brown Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Twin Cities, Canada Posts: 12,145	Negative campaigning does not always work. In Iowa about six years ago, there was a heated race for governor. In the last few weeks of the campaign, one of the candidates, who held a significant lead in the polls, started running negative ads, saying his opponent was in favor of (gasp!) nude dancing in the state. The voters held this ad against the candidate who ran it. He lost his lead, and lost the race for the governor's office.

28th September 2004, 01:57 PM	#21
Cleon King of the Pod People Moderator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 20,510	Quote: Originally posted by Brown Negative campaigning does not always work. In Iowa about six years ago, there was a heated race for governor. In the last few weeks of the campaign, one of the candidates, who held a significant lead in the polls, started running negative ads, saying his opponent was in favor of (gasp!) nude dancing in the state. The voters held this ad against the candidate who ran it. He lost his lead, and lost the race for the governor's office. Or maybe people took it seriously and really wanted to keep nude dancing.
	__________________ "People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz." - Newt Gingrich

28th September 2004, 05:08 PM	#22
Meadmaker Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Detroit suburbs Posts: 11,440	Quote: Originally posted by Vorticity Uh-Oh. Better not look at the front page of the RNC right now: http://www.rnc.org/ "Flippercam" seems a bit childish, with the dolphin picture and all, but actually, I don't mind their stuff so much. It's issue oriented. If John Kerry "flips", then that's an issue. I don't see anything wrong with bringing it to public attention. I don't find it persuasive, but it doesn't make me angry. There are two kinds of negative ads that bother me. One is the muckraking sort, where people dig dirt on the opponent, especially in his personal life. The "Fortunate Son" is an example. Although they aren't ads, I was disgusted by Kitty Kelly and everything having to do with charges related to Bill Clinton's sex life as well. The second kind of ad that bothers me is one that so distorts someone's record that reasonable people would say that candidate A was lying about candidate B. One variation of this that really gets my goat is one that shows a candidate with a hated public figure, and suggests that they are good friends. So the "Here is John Kerry sitting next to Jane Fonda" stuff really bothers me. The "Al-Qaeda wants Kerry to win" ads are pretty sick, too, but at least there's a legitimate issue somewhere down there, if you wipe the slime off the top.
	__________________ Dave "War is Peace. Freedom is slavery. Particles are waves."

28th September 2004, 05:17 PM	#23
Snide Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Twin Cities Posts: 3,187	Quote: Originally posted by Brown Negative campaigning does not always work. In Iowa about six years ago, there was a heated race for governor. In the last few weeks of the campaign, one of the candidates, who held a significant lead in the polls, started running negative ads, saying his opponent was in favor of (gasp!) nude dancing in the state. The voters held this ad against the candidate who ran it. He lost his lead, and lost the race for the governor's office. Funny stuff. I lived in Iowa for four years. Saw Governor Branstedt(sp?) win because his opponent was against the death penalty. The slimy campaign won, yet AFAIK, Iowa still has no death penalty.

28th September 2004, 05:24 PM	#24
Snide Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Twin Cities Posts: 3,187	Quote: Originally posted by Brown Negative campaigning does not always work. In Iowa about six years ago, there was a heated race for governor. In the last few weeks of the campaign, one of the candidates, who held a significant lead in the polls, started running negative ads, saying his opponent was in favor of (gasp!) nude dancing in the state. The voters held this ad against the candidate who ran it. He lost his lead, and lost the race for the governor's office. Funny stuff. I lived in Iowa for four years. Saw Governor Branstedt(sp?) win because his opponent was against the death penalty. The slimy campaign won, yet AFAIK, Iowa still has no death penalty.

28th September 2004, 05:55 PM	#25
Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Behind the chessboard Posts: 18,361	Quote: Originally posted by Brown Negative campaigning does not always work. In Iowa about six years ago, there was a heated race for governor. In the last few weeks of the campaign, one of the candidates, who held a significant lead in the polls, started running negative ads, saying his opponent was in favor of (gasp!) nude dancing in the state. The voters held this ad against the candidate who ran it. He lost his lead, and lost the race for the governor's office. This one has so many joke possibilities I don't know where to start. AD: "My opponent will allow nude dancing..." VOTER: "Cool! What's the guy's name again? I should remember to vote for him--always wanted nude dancing close to home... " POLLSTER: "Mr. Voter, you are one of the many who changed their vote after the infamous 'nude dancing' ad aired. Care to give your reasons?" VOTER (clears throat): "Well, er, I just didn't like all the negative campaigning!"

29th September 2004, 08:27 AM	#26
Brown Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Twin Cities, Canada Posts: 12,145	Quote: Originally posted by Snide I lived in Iowa for four years. Saw Governor Branstedt(sp?) win because his opponent was against the death penalty. The slimy campaign won, yet AFAIK, Iowa still has no death penalty. Governor Terry Branstad (a Republican) was in office for 16 years, longer than any Iowa governor. To this day, I do not see the appeal of the guy. In my first two jobs after graduate school, I worked as an employee for the State of Iowa. Throughout that time, I had to listen to the governor bad-mouth the work of state employees. It was, of course, very popular to insult government "bureaucrats"; but imagine what it would do to YOUR morale to hear the chief executive of your company bad-mouth everything the company's employees were doing. Branstad is perhaps best "known" for a race in which he, as an incumbent, got challenged for his party's nomination by congressman Fred "Gopher" Grandy. Appearance-wise, Branstad looked a lot like Stan Marsh's father. Branstad was not above slinging mud, but those who challenged him generally had too much good taste to sling mud back. For example, Branstad's teenage son was repeatedly convicted of underage drinking and subsequently killed two people with his car (and I believe he did no time for it, even though he was clearly at fault). No one ever suggested in a campaign, however, that Branstad was an unfit parent.