Are Negative Political Ads Effective?
SodaHead News
2012/05/04 13:00:00
|
|
|||||
|
502 votes
|
|
57% | |||
|
384 votes
|
|
43% | |||
Presidential campaigns are brutal enough without all the smearing, but alas, negative ads are an integral part of politics. But is it all that effective? It must be doing something, because according to the Wesleyan Media Project, negativity in campaign ads has skyrocketed this season. A new study shows nearly 70% of political ads this year have been negative, compared to 9.1% during the 2008 election -- an increase of more than 750%.
At the same time, the survey reveals funding from political action committees (PACs and SuperPACs) has gone up even more -- 1,100% over the last election season. SuperPACs, made infamous by comedian Stephen Colbert during his pseudo-candidacy last year, allow unlimited funding from anonymous contributors. That might explain the vast increase in negativity. On the other hand, it indicates that negative campaigning might not be as practical as it seems. What do you think? Do negative campaign ads do the job?
At the same time, the survey reveals funding from political action committees (PACs and SuperPACs) has gone up even more -- 1,100% over the last election season. SuperPACs, made infamous by comedian Stephen Colbert during his pseudo-candidacy last year, allow unlimited funding from anonymous contributors. That might explain the vast increase in negativity. On the other hand, it indicates that negative campaigning might not be as practical as it seems. What do you think? Do negative campaign ads do the job?
Top Opinion
-
Tasine 2012/05/04 14:34:00No
+14Depends on who they are directed to. Negative ads work exclusively for the left - their constituents religiously believe anything their party tells them even when it is a glaring lie. Most Republican voters don't need any ads to advise them how to vote. I will not watch anybody's ad. I see them as insults to my intelligence.
Ron Paul 2012.
The pattern is as follows:
- find the strong point of your opponent
- cast doubt or shame upon that strong point
Alternate method:
- Take your own weakest point and make it stick to your opponent
- The truth doesn't matter just saying BS is enough to muddy the water
Then should the other side respond they look weak and reactionary.
It is full of politicians... doesn't that sort of negate any chance/hope?
I like Dr. Paul's politics, but I do not like politicians in general.
I want to see what everyone has to say!
What is this with "moderating" people's responses?
I thought the whole point of a discussion forum is to discuss openly & freely. It's bad enough when someone's fragile little feelings get hurt or they don't want to see anything that might be contrary to their opinion/belief & they block anyone who disagrees with them. But when we aren't even allowed to see the responses someone makes to a question, it's downright wrong!!
Sorry, Bruce, this isn't really meant for you, but I need to voice my opinion... & let's see if it's "moderated."
I think what we need now more than ever in this country is unity without attack, and that covers a lot of ground.
Candidates should focus on the achievements they are proud of and tell us what they plan to do to help fix America, and do it without attacking the other candidate's failures. This goes for both parties.
Attack ads--to me show a lack of imagination, confidence, and little boys who don't know what else to do but run the other guy down. BOTH PARTIES. And while we're on the subject, get the money out of campaigns. It's like buying votes. No, it IS buying votes. And all they do is spend the campaign money on sucky ads that turn people off.
Absolutely right.
Very well put.
I hate the divisive tone that our politicians, the so-called "news" networks & the pundants take. I believe that anyone who intentionally divides our people is unpatriotic & needs to be put in check. By spreading hatred for our fellow countrymen/women we only weaken ourselves as a people, as a nation.
Remember: Divided we fall.