Negative advertising

[Zahnada]

Well, the only connection this topic has to scouting is that I'm a scouter and I'm interested in all of your opinions.

 

With that said, what are your thoughts about negative political advertising? Since we're heading into the election cycle, things will start heating up even more. "Kerry flip-flops on issues" "Bush didn't serve in Vietnam" "Kerry will raise taxes and increase spending" "Bush cares nothing for the environment" and so forth...

 

Do negative ads strengthen your support of your particular party? Do they make you not want to participate in the political process? Do you wish they would just go away? Do they impact your voting behavior?

 

It just seems as if most major elections focus more on attacking opponents than self promoting. Of course, if that's the case, it must be working.

[OldGreyEagle]

I do not like negative ads. It weakens the candidate in my eyes to attack the opponent. I want to know why the candidate is qualified for the job. I dont want to know why the opponent sucks. I am more interested in what the candidate wants to do than see the opposition run down. When all you can do is say bad things about your opponent, I figure you have nothing good to say about yourself.

[Bob White]

It may seem that negative political ads are something new but they aren't. In 1796 John Adams distributed flyers claiming Thomas Jefferson was everything from a drunkard to impotent and threw gambling and adultery in for good measure.

 

Tasteles and appalling without a doubt,

negative ads have been around for a long, long, time and for only one reason. They work.

 

Oh, by the way, Adams won.

 

Why do they continue? Because there is a certain portion of the population that is swayed by them, and it is that population that determines the outcome of elections.

 

Ads will change after people change.

 

(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[Fat Old Guy]

I would say that it all depends on the type of information being diseminated.

 

For candidate A to say, "My opponent voted against welfare reform" is one thing. For that candidate to say, "my opponent is reported to oggled girls at the beach 15 years ago" is another.

 

 

[Zahnada]

I wonder what kind of negative ads were used between Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr. That was a real nasty election.

 

The Democratic primaries were really interesting though. There were plenty of negative ads, but they weren't aimed at each other. All the ads were aimed against President Bush. The arguments being, "I'm the best candidate to get rid of Bush." Which is an interesting self-promoting while still being negative approach.

 

I've read that the success of negative ads isn't to convince people which way to vote. The ads actually convince people not to vote. The amount of strong Democrats is about equal to the strong Republicans. Each election is decided by the swing voters. The ads make the swing voters think, "Both candidates are losers. I'm not going to take responsibility by voting!"

 

Of course the trick is to make sure that of the remaining people, more of them support you.

 

But I agree with OGE. I find the ads distasteful and I really lose respect for the sender. Imagine if troop elections could use negative advertising. "Just last year, James proposed to raise the cost of food purchases on outings from $5 to $7 per scout. And now he favors having scouts pay for their own merit badges. Do you want this boy running your troop? Vote Alex for SPL."

[dsteele]

I'm either a moron or have a pretty darned good mental filtering system. When a political ad comes on for my candidate, I think, oh, it's an ad for so-and-so. and don't really pay attention to the ad.

 

When an ad comes on for the opposition candidate, I think, it's an ad for The so-and-so. and don't really pay attention to the ad.

 

It's a happy little life I lead.

 

Unc.

[Proud Eagle]

I think many of us here are probably not the fence sitters, but rather the more entrenched supporters of various policies, positions, parties, and candidates. Usually the well informed voter that takes time to find out a bit about the issue, and actually is able to decide what position they prefer, is able to make a decision independent of very much advertising. Unfortunately, many don't bother to find out about the issues on their own, so all they hear is how candidate X slept with so and so and candidate Y stole money from a real estate venture, and candidate Z is un-American because he hates children, the homeless, the environment, minorities, the old, and the disabled because he won't raise everyone's taxes to infinity to pay for unlimited government benefits and programs for everybody that decides getting someone else's money for free is a pretty good system.

 

Its too bad their isn't some magical fool proof system to screen out the apathetic and the tragically uninformed at the voting booth. Of coarse everyone gets stuck with some vote they are uncertain about at some point in time, but it would be nice is people made a bit more of an effort. What I really can't stand is people that just go in and vote a straight ticket without even bothering to know what the issues and candidates are. The fact that the family has been voting for the same party for three generations isn't really a good reason to keep voting that way.

[dsteele]

I have to respectfully disagree, slightly, about the party thinking.

 

I have never quite had the guts to check the straight ticket box. I look at each candidate on an individual basis, but 95% of the time they're all in the same party. There have been a few local exceptions. When in doubt, I vote for a member of the party I prefer.

 

But there's a reason I prefer one party over the other. I like the general party philosophy. Candidates running on that parties ticket (either party's ticket) lean toward the basic same philosophy and I vote for the philosophy rather than the person.

 

I don't think that's uninformed voting. It may not be the best method, but at least you know the party.

 

Unc.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

I wonder why Bob White didn't mention the negative press against Jefferson claiming he was an atheist.

[NJCubScouter]

Politics was pretty rough and tumble in the 18th and 19th century. One of my favorite stories is from the 1884 presidential campaign, when it was alleged (correctly, according to most historians) that Democratic candidate Grover Cleveland, a bachelor at the time, had nevertheless fathered a child. Some Republicans were heard to chant, "Ma, Ma, where's my Pa?" After Cleveland won the election, some Democrats turned the chant around: "Ma, Ma, where's my Pa? Gone to the White House, ha ha ha!" It would be interesting to see what today's mass-media 24-hour news cycle would do with that.

 

I agree with Bob about why negative advertising contnues: Sometimes, it works. Then again, sometimes it doesn't. I am not sure if the campaign of 1800 included any personal attacks, but I do know that in that year's rematch between Adams and Jefferson, Jefferson won.

 

I also think "negative advertising" has much more impact today, with the mass media and 24-hour news.

[Big_Dog]

I think that, sadly, the real downer about negative campainging is the loss of respect for the office being run for. It seems today we have little or no respect for these folks after they get into office and that tarnishes the office as well. I find myself thinking about real issues that are being discussed as just a ploy for politicians to get re-elected. That's sad, but I don't feel many of our leaders are worried about me, the middle-class working American...

 

BD

[berkshirescouter]

Its interesting that if the same negative advertising tactics were used for products the companies would be up on charges of consumer fraud. Too bad we can't charge the politicians with the same crime.

[scoutldr]

I don't mind vigorous campaigning as much as I do apathy. We just had City Council and School Board elections. Most of the incumbents were re-elected because they ran unopposed. Needless to say, voter turnout was very low, and we're looking at 4 more years of the status quo. Very sad, indeed.

[Bob White]

Merlyn,

Truth be told I didn't mention it because I didn't know it. The article I read on the subject only mentioned the points I put in my post.

 

However, if it will make you feel better personally you are welcome to say that a covert group of masked liars in scout uniforms, dropped from Christian financed stealth helicopters, forced me to omit the word athiest, by bribing me with illegally obtained government grants.

 

Feel better? I do.

[Laurie]

Bob, that's funny--thanks for the laugh!

 

The question about negative ads: I don't care for negative ads. They tend to make me consider voting against the person who is negative rather than for him/her. I don't mind comparisons or one saying how they will do better than another, but the personal insults, the put downs, the "dirt"--that turns me off from the person saying it.