Mudslinging In Campaigning

[Alexandra]

I'm seeing this more in the republican ads but now I'm also seeing this in Obama's ads as well and its really annoying me to no end, mudslinging. Why is this so effective, why are people so easily taken in by this type of campaigning. I wish there was a candidate who didn't just say the other guy sucks so vote for me and instead told people why they would make a good candidate. I mean is that really so hard a thing to do not use slander and libel to beat your opponet its a disgrace to the basis of American politics if you ask me

[Rockies Fan in Diapers]

I'm seeing this more in the republican ads but now I'm also seeing this in Obama's ads as well and its really annoying me to no end, mudslinging. Why is this so effective, why are people so easily taken in by this type of campaigning. I wish there was a candidate who didn't just say the other guy sucks so vote for me and instead told people why they would make a good candidate. I mean is that really so hard a thing to do not use slander and libel to beat your opponet its a disgrace to the basis of American politics if you ask me

Amen! This is so true, but unfortunately I believe that we have been conditioned to mudsling & we somehow think that mudslinging will get us farther than just being honest about our goals & our past & what we want to do etc.

[TBlazer]

At one point in our history it was worse, I believe in the early 1900s when Teddie Roosevelt was passing anti-monopoly laws.

There are many similarities today, in that corporate power has largely usurped the power of people. Hence our problems with health care, low wages, jobs going overseas, etc. Along with that comes mudslinging-I think its just a distraction to keep us from uniting and focusing on real issues that would force both parties to disobey their lobbyists.

I was hoping (go figure) that Obama would act as a trojan horse and change things for the better, but that hasnt happened. It will probably take a new party to swing the pendulum back to a sane government. Or a depression.

[Diapered Jason]

Why is it so effective, because people are so mesmerized by scandal, especially if sex is involved. It is same reason the Hollywood tabloids are so popular and numerous. We like hearing about Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky or John Edwards and his mistress, or even more recently, the secret service and the prostitute. The media picks these stories, because they get better ratings, not because there is not so much news going. There is so much going on right now besides the secret service scandal. It is no coincidence a campaign ad would do the same and not focus on the real issues.

[redneck diaper boy]

This campaign will consist of mudslinging and class warfare. Obama has nothing positive to run on so he is all negative. He claims that Osama binLaden is dead but will not show photos or videos. Obama claims that GM is alive but the invsetors have not been paid as per US bankruptcy law. Now they have created a fake war on women.

Now President Obama wants rich people to pay "their fair share" of taxes but will never define what anyone's fair share is.

It is going to be interesting to see how the uneducated dumb masses buy in to Obama's rhetoric.

Here is reality:

• How about a job? About 15 million Americans of working age have no job and are looking for work.

• Every fifth man in America is out of a job.

• Fewer Jobs. There are 5.5 million fewer jobs right now than there were when Obama was inaugurated.

• Employment Levels. Employment has been below the pre-recession peak for over 50 consecutive months.

• U3 Unemployment Stats. This is the 8.2% figure quoted by Obama for last month. This counts only people who have applied for a job in the previous four weeks.

• U6 Unemployment Stats. This figure counts the number of people who have applied for jobs in the previous 6 weeks. It also includes people who are working in part-time jobs who want to work full time. The U6 unemployment rate is now around 15%

• College Graduates In 2007 90% of all college graduates found a job. Today that figure is 56%.

• Nearly 87 million Americans are NOT in the labor force.

• Dropping Out. Since Obama was sworn in about 3 million people have dropped out of the jobs market. These people are no longer even bothering to look for a job. If they were still in the market – still hopeful – the unemployment rate would be about 10.8%.

• Economic Growth after Great Depression. In 1934, 35 and 36 our economy growed at 11%, 9% and 13%. Economic growth in 2010 was 3%. In 2011 it was 1.7%. This year we’re running between 2 and 3%.

• Ethnic Jobless Rates. For young workers 20 to 24 the unemployment rate is 13%. For Hispanic teenagers it’s 30.5%. For black teenagers it’s 37.9%.

• Private Sector Hiring. Through June of 2011 private sector hiring was 10 times slower after the passage of ObamaCare than it was in the 16 months prior to ObamaCare.

• New Businesses. We need 1 million new businesses every year to sustain growth. We’re running about 400,000 right now.

• Layoffs and Hiring. In the first months of 2012 layoffs have risen 18% from a year ago. Hiring plans have dropped 82%.

• Per Capita Income. In May of 2008 per capital income in the U.S. was at $37,752. It’s now at $37,606. Adjust this for inflation and you have $36,641 in 2008 dropping to $32,600 now. This is the first time since the 1930s that inflation-adjusted incomes have decreased in America.

• Welfare Over $1 trillion spent on government entitlement programs in the last two years.

• Welfare Increase A 5,500% jump in means tested welfare since 1970.

• Welfare percentage Over

[Alexandra]

RDB I did not create this topic to create more partisan bickering so I'm asking you niecely please keep your comments in the general sense, I don't want anyone saying either side alone is guity of this because really everyone is doing this and this is more about the current state of politics than any one candidate

[Leilin]

I'm seeing this more in the republican ads but now I'm also seeing this in Obama's ads as well and its really annoying me to no end, mudslinging. Why is this so effective, why are people so easily taken in by this type of campaigning. I wish there was a candidate who didn't just say the other guy sucks so vote for me and instead told people why they would make a good candidate. I mean is that really so hard a thing to do not use slander and libel to beat your opponet its a disgrace to the basis of American politics if you ask me

Look at the posts in this forum. Mudslinging appeals implicitly to the lowest common denominator and people who can't process anything more complex than a bumper sticker statement in their political decisions. Sadly, these people seem to be a majority, in my experience, and the loudest ones. Furthermore, they're worse in groups and it doesn't seem to be something which is exclusive to any political leaning. For every drooling, sexist, racist, bigoted moron who goes on talking about Obama's birth certificate or callling him a Marxist or calling Sandra Fluke the C-word, there's somebody equally idiotic concentrating on calling Gingrich fat or making fun of Romney for being Mormon or calling Bush a Fascist, rather than actually addressing the content of their statements or their actions.

[sarah_ab]

when i run for president in 2020 my ads will only sing my praises. I will not mudsling against anyone else, i will just continue to explain how awesomely awesome I am.. I will win w/ my positivity... among other things....

[Leilin]

I'm picturing Sarah's campaign videos having very dignified pictures of her, headlines praising her, the Hallelujah chorus going in the background, etc.

[TBlazer]

Yes, overwhelming narcissism is what it would take to run for office, and is a big reason our presidents suck donkey balls.

[Diapered Jason]

Redneck, a question you did not answer in your attack is why I should vote for the other guy. I have been very disappointed by the current president in quite a few areas, but why is the other guy any better? Can you answer these questions? Do you now see the problem the OP brought up?

[Horndog]

Due to the forum rollback, my thread on partisan bickering went el-gone-o, but it goes to what Alexandra said. 100% agreed.

[redneck diaper boy]

Redneck, a question you did not answer in your attack is why I should vote for the other guy. I have been very disappointed by the current president in quite a few areas, but why is the other guy any better? Can you answer these questions? Do you now see the problem the OP brought up?

There is no real reason to support any of the leading candidates. I would prefer to vote for Ron Paul but he has no chance. Since 1988 my support has been behind the lessor of two evils. Obama is a hard core Marxist socialist who wants to be a dictator. Could Romney be worse? I don't think so. I see Obama using pages from Saul Alinsky and Karl Marx's writings. All my life, i was taught to watch for the commies. There is no disputing that the Marxist Communist are in control of the US government.

Daddy Bush, Bill Clinton and Baby Bush even pushed the socialist agenda as well but Obama takes the cake.

Obama wants rich people to pay their fair share but refuses to define what that fair share is

[Alexandra]

RDB you just proved my point there is no reason you support the conservitive angle besides the lies you've been told your whole life and that is my main point Americans have stopped thinking when it comes to voting we shouldn't settle for who sounds like the less evil person we should vote for who make the best proposals and who seems most likely to follow through on them but no instead we have degraded to basically and elementray school playground with politican calling one another names to sound like the cooler kid.

[redneck diaper boy]

RDB you just proved my point there is no reason you support the conservitive angle besides the lies you've been told your whole life and that is my main point Americans have stopped thinking when it comes to voting we shouldn't settle for who sounds like the less evil person we should vote for who make the best proposals and who seems most likely to follow through on them but no instead we have degraded to basically and elementray school playground with politican calling one another names to sound like the cooler kid.

When I was in Grammar School, one of my history teachers opened his class by bashing the late great Senator Joseph McCarthy. Now that I look at Hollywood and know the McCarthy was right by branding them as being Communist.During the Cold war there were commies everywhere.

[sarah_ab]

the commies are coming the commies are coming!!! quick run!!! get your guns!!!! those darned commies they are going to ruin everything!!!!

leilin- nice idea there for a commercial want a job? i cant pay but you get to make awesome commercials like that....

[Diapered Jason]

When I was in Grammar School, one of my history teachers opened his class by bashing the late great Senator Joseph McCarthy. Now that I look at Hollywood and know the McCarthy was right by branding them as being Communist.During the Cold war there were commies everywhere.

OK then??? Do you have any positive ideas? You listed some of the problems, what do you think would be a great solution to our 'communist' and economic problems? Why would Ron Paul make a great candidate for president?

[Bonsai]

The same thing happended massively in Italian politcs in the last two years before the fall of our former premier Silvio Berlusconi. Basically, both sides were having inner stains and nobody cared to say (not even to do) what was necessary at the moment to avoid to end up like Greece.

So "politics" was just about sexual scandals, processes, personal favours done by eminent people and so on.

Now we have a bypartisan "technical government" that is efficiently dealing with the economical problems. The people in charge did not change so much. What changed was just the setting and the power balance.

I know very little about your campaign, so I cannot comment it in the merit.

However, as a general rule, the difficult part in politics isn't about having the right ideas or being able to sell them. Keeping hands (and mind and funds) free to act when necessary and - mostly - to be able to act efficiently and timely is what makes the difference.

[Dirty Diaper/Maxipad Lover]

I'm seeing this more in the republican ads but now I'm also seeing this in Obama's ads as well and its really annoying me to no end, mudslinging. Why is this so effective, why are people so easily taken in by this type of campaigning. I wish there was a candidate who didn't just say the other guy sucks so vote for me and instead told people why they would make a good candidate. I mean is that really so hard a thing to do not use slander and libel to beat your opponet its a disgrace to the basis of American politics if you ask me.

Alexandra, the answer to your first question is very short and simple: negative advertising works. As much as I hate mudslinging, and hate to admit that it works, the sadder truth is really the answer to your second question--negative advertising works because lazy/ignorant/stupid people who can't or won't comprehend more then 2 seconds of a 30 second soundbyte unfortunately make up a large portion of this country's population. Candidates who try to run positive campaigns are frequently pounded by negative advertising from their opponents--over time the negative advertising begins to eclipse the positive advertising, and the candidate running the negative ads takes the lead in the polls. The candidate who tried to run a "clean" campaign with positive advertising now has to run negative advertising to gain back the voters that they lost to the other candidates negative ads. At the national level, President Obama has tried to run a mostly positive campaign, but he's being pounded by negative advertising, so he's unfortunately been reduced to slinging mud as well. It's not always the Republicans who are the agressors though--at the local level, I've seen Democrats do the exact same thing with Republicans in the same position as President Obama.

Negative advertising is a powerful weapon--like all other powerful weapons though, it can do more harm to the person using it then the person it's aimed at if it's not handled properly. Mitt Romney and his Super PAC ran what was analogous to nuclear warfare in the form of negative advertising against Newt Gingrich, which is why Newt Gingrich was reduced to irrelevence almost as quickly as he had begun to beat Mitt Romney in the polls. As much as I dislike Rick Santorum, his campaign was at least able to learn from what happened to Newt Gingrich, and to prepare a response for Mitt Romney. When Rick Santorum began to beat Mitt Romney, Romney's campaign began to bombard Santorum with negative advertising. Rick Santorum was prepared for this though--first he condemned Romney's negative tactics, and that worked for about a week or so-- then Mitt Romney increased his negative ads though, and Rick Santorum's poll numbers suffered. Rick Santorum responded to Romney's negative ads with his own negative ad that was called "Rombo," portraying Romney as a Rambo character shooting mud at Rick Santorum--Rick Santorum's poll numbers improved after this ran. Rick Santorum's attack on President Kennedy's stance on religion really hurt his poll numbers though, and that combined with Romney's negative adds pretty much did him in as a candidate. Had Santorum kept his negative ads focused on Mitt Romney, he could have possibly beaten him as the likely nominee if he'd remained positive elsewhere.

There was a local election around here a few years ago where the Democrat ran a negative ad campaign that was just as disgusting as what Mitt Romney's been doing. The Republican in the local campaign continued to run positive ads well into the summer, avoiding negative ads along the way. After being covered in mud, the Republican finally began running an occasional negative ad, which was really a positive ad disguised as a negative ad--the Democrat made his ad campaign louder and more negative. Finally, in the last week of October, the Republican fired off a very quick series of intensly negative ads while continuing to run positive ads about himself--he won the election, and went on to win re-election multiple times, often trying to stick to positive ads when possible. Part of the reason he won though was that he timed his negative advertising very well. He basically played "rope-a-dope" with his opponent--I don't think I ever saw one positive ad from the Democrat during the race--everything was an attack on the Republican and he just took it. His few, but well timed negative ads near the end of the election proved that he was willing to throw a punch when needed, but not to be the aggressor in the race. The same has been true in other races, and will likely be true in the Presidential race. If Mitt Romney comes across as the aggressor in the Presidential Election, President Obama has a better chance of winning re-electon. The opposite is also true--if President Obama comes across as the aggressor, Mitt Romney has a better chance of winning the election.

Why is it so effective, because people are so mesmerized by scandal, especially if sex is involved. It is same reason the Hollywood tabloids are so popular and numerous. We like hearing about Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky or John Edwards and his mistress, or even more recently, the secret service and the prostitute. The media picks these stories, because they get better ratings, not because there is not so much news going. There is so much going on right now besides the secret service scandal. It is no coincidence a campaign ad would do the same and not focus on the real issues.

While I agree with most of your post Diapered Jason, the last sentence is actually incorrect. Statisically, negative ads actually contain more information then positive ads do. The reason for this is that negative ads have to explain why "Candidate X is a blockhead who should never be allowed to operate a blanket, let alone run for or hold public office." Positive ads just have to make people feel good about the candidate, and most tend to avoid a candidates record, or specifics on that record, because those could potentially do more harm than good for a candidate. A positive ad might have a line like "I voted to cut taxes for the middle class," with no mention of any statisitics about those tax cuts or what the taxes would have gone to. A negative ad would take the same statistic and say something like "As X, Candidate Y voted to eliminate funding for college grants by 45%." The form of advertising is terrible, but it actually says something about Candidate Y's record with a statistic, and often a cited source.

Look at the posts in this forum. Mudslinging appeals implicitly to the lowest common denominator and people who can't process anything more complex than a bumper sticker statement in their political decisions. Sadly, these people seem to be a majority, in my experience, and the loudest ones. Furthermore, they're worse in groups and it doesn't seem to be something which is exclusive to any political leaning. For every drooling, sexist, racist, bigoted moron who goes on talking about Obama's birth certificate or callling him a Marxist or calling Sandra Fluke the C-word, there's somebody equally idiotic concentrating on calling Gingrich fat or making fun of Romney for being Mormon or calling Bush a Fascist, rather than actually addressing the content of their statements or their actions.

This is also true, and it's unfortunately why negative ads work. It would be nice if for one election season, nobody paid any attention to ads featuring the creepy music, the black & white photos, and the gloom and doom voice over guy. Unfortunately, something tells me that this election season won't be the one where that happens.

[Leilin]

This is also true, and it's unfortunately why negative ads work. It would be nice if for one election season, nobody paid any attention to ads featuring the creepy music, the black & white photos, and the gloom and doom voice over guy. Unfortunately, something tells me that this election season won't be the one where that happens.

Truth.

[Horndog]

People vote based on fear, and fear works.

[Diapered Jason]

While I agree with most of your post Diapered Jason, the last sentence is actually incorrect. Statisically, negative ads actually contain more information then positive ads do. The reason for this is that negative ads have to explain why "Candidate X is a blockhead who should never be allowed to operate a blanket, let alone run for or hold public office." Positive ads just have to make people feel good about the candidate, and most tend to avoid a candidates record, or specifics on that record, because those could potentially do more harm than good for a candidate. A positive ad might have a line like "I voted to cut taxes for the middle class," with no mention of any statisitics about those tax cuts or what the taxes would have gone to. A negative ad would take the same statistic and say something like "As X, Candidate Y voted to eliminate funding for college grants by 45%." The form of advertising is terrible, but it actually says something about Candidate Y's record with a statistic, and often a cited source.

I need only cite the most recent attack ad against Obama to prove my last sentence correct when it comes to national politics (state political ads in my state are very different). They tried calling him a celebrity before and failed, so I do not know why they are trying it again. The statistic is not that important, because people are not going to remember statistics. As such, I rarely see any mudslinging campaign ads with an actual statistic, because that is not the focus. Remember, your standard attack ad now is something like Obama eats dog or Mitt Romney is the biggest phony ever or too extreme. Also, it is not just about the ads, but what the candidates say on a daily basis. Yesterday, Romney took issue with how Obama is politicizing the death of Osama Bin Laden (If you look at what was said, you will see how stupid the whole argument is regarding the politicization of Osama's death). Somehow though, these things seem to be what the media talks about most, which only makes this arguments seem legitimate or true. In fact, the object of using a negative campaign ad is to throw the political opponent off message, so they cannot get their message across to the public but rather have to answer questions about how you slept with this person or whatever. It is all manipulation. How else do you explain someone like Sarah Palin making it as far as she did in politics? Obviously, it did not prove to be a winning strategy though, because at least some substance is necessary. It seems this year, the Republicans are going back to the Karl Rove campaign tactics where you make the other candidates strengths into weaknesses, and if that fails, take credit for those strengths. Only this time, there is more money, much more money.

Here, you guys may enjoy reading this.

http://www.webster.e...NALKARLROVE.pdf

[redneck diaper boy]

OK then??? Do you have any positive ideas? You listed some of the problems, what do you think would be a great solution to our 'communist' and economic problems? Why would Ron Paul make a great candidate for president?

Ron Paul would support the elimination of the Federal Reserve Bank. Most people don't know it but the Federal Reserve is a privately owned corporation. It is a federal as Federal Express. Ironically the Federal Reserve Act and the IRS came about in 1913. JFK was looking at returning to the gold standard and look what happened to JFK.

For the last 100 years, the progressives have had us moving toward socialism. Socialism is a stepping stone to Marxism.

There are too many people, that want to use the government to confiscate part of other peoples lives to acomplish their own political agenda. I am saying Republicans and or Democrats are both responsible for America's problems. It is the progressive branch of both parties that created problems. The biggest offenders happened to be Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndyn Johnson, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush (both of them) Bill Clinton and Obama.

The government needs to get away from social issues. Prior to LBJ's Great Society, there weren't people starving in the street. People had access to healthcare. Charitable organizations like the Red Cross, the Catholic Church and others took care of social issues.

[sarah_ab]

you know i've been raised for most of my life to believe that everyone who is muslim is a terrorist - i've met many many muslims who are in no way a terrorist, and love this country.

I was also raised to believe that people without a college education are somehow inferior to those with a college education - yet i've met many people who do not have a college education, including my boyfriend and they are no way inferior to myself simply because of my education status.

I was also raised with the idea that people from hte south are all backwards inbreds - yet i've met many people form souther states who are no such thing.

I was raised to believe faster tahn light travel is impossible - yet they have already had two expiriments to prove this wrong.

I was raised to believe lots of things that are not true.

Just because you were raised to believe something doesn't mean its true.

McCarthy was a fearmonger who prayed on people's intrinisic fears to gain power. Many politicians, religious leaders and others due the same thing. How to certain managers in business' have so much power? by praying on people's fear - fear of being fired, fear of being demoted etc... to make them conform.

[Alexandra]

Ron Paul would support the elimination of the Federal Reserve Bank. Most people don't know it but the Federal Reserve is a privately owned corporation. It is a federal as Federal Express. Ironically the Federal Reserve Act and the IRS came about in 1913. JFK was looking at returning to the gold standard and look what happened to JFK.

For the last 100 years, the progressives have had us moving toward socialism. Socialism is a stepping stone to Marxism.

There are too many people, that want to use the government to confiscate part of other peoples lives to acomplish their own political agenda. I am saying Republicans and or Democrats are both responsible for America's problems. It is the progressive branch of both parties that created problems. The biggest offenders happened to be Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndyn Johnson, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush (both of them) Bill Clinton and Obama.

The government needs to get away from social issues. Prior to LBJ's Great Society, there weren't people starving in the street. People had access to healthcare. Charitable organizations like the Red Cross, the Catholic Church and others took care of social issues.

ok first of all the president does not have the power to shut down the reserves end of story done, two I love how you list some of the best and worst presidents in this list, three yes their were people starving the street queit a bit actually the 1920s had one of the worst economic class divisions in our history just because you grew up in some white subburb and didn't see the poor doesn't mean they didn't exist, fourth our country was created by progressives they are called the founding fathers look them up, and finially this still has nothing to do with campaigning techinques