[matmat]

well?

[inquiry]

It;s much like in this forum.

It is ok (and not negative) to attack a person's bidding ideas, but not the person. In otherwords, it seems ok to say "3♥ as a strong raise is total crap", but not, Joe Blow choice to bid a forcing 3♥ shows he crazy as hell.

So, to put this in campaign terms. It is ok to say "John McCain's health plan will tax health benefits for the first time in history" is ok, it is "attacking" the McCain's plan. But, "Obama is a socialist" or as a Rep from Michigan said, "Obama is un-American", that is not. One might want to try that "Obama's plan is socialist", as an attack on his plan. McCain tries this with with his Obama said he wants to "spread the wealth around". Note my appropriate use of the quote here, John uses "air quotes" with his fingers when saying it. This is getting close. The ad with words from Joe Biden trying to frighten people about Obama would also fall very squarely into the negative range.

The ad with McCain quoted as saying he doesn't know much about the economy and that he would pick a VP candidate who did, and then points out that he picked Pallin, would fall in a grey area. It is all true, but I would rather the attack be on McCain's plan, rather than the people. Problem is, I think it is hard to figure out McCain's plan, and truth be told, neither could probably effectively carry out their plans fully in the current environment.

BTW, I have voted, I think all of us who can vote in the US election should vote.

[han]

inquiry, on Oct 30 2008, 12:55 PM, said:

BTW, I have voted, I think all of us who can vote in the US election should vote.

Strongly disagree.

[kfay]

han, on Oct 30 2008, 01:16 PM, said:

inquiry, on Oct 30 2008, 12:55 PM, said:

BTW, I have voted, I think all of us who can vote in the US election should vote.

Strongly disagree.

LOL.

[kenberg]

"Negative campaign" is probably a phrase too loaded with innuendo to be useful. In theory, I suppose it means that the campaign emphasizes the shortcomings of an opponent rather than the stellar qualities of the person that the campaign supports. But this definition leaves a lot of room. It's fair enough to point to an opponent's inexperience or to his past actions that might give a person second thoughts about voting for him. This is, technically, negative but I would not say that it is unfair. What probably is usually meant by negative campaigning involves descriptions about an opponent's actions or views that are distorted, or the use of emotional symbols intended to get voters to see an opponent in a way that is false. Probably the most famous example is the Willie Horton commercial that surely was intended to send the message that if Michael Dukakis was elected president the result would be that fierce looking black men would be roaming the streets raping our white women. Even if people, upon reflection, would say that they did not believe this to be true the underlying emotional message was very effective. Of course Dukakis in a tank didn't help either and they did that to themselves.

I would call "Joe the Plumber" negative campaigning although it also seems highly ineffective. The idea was to give folks the idea that good old Joe will be paying a lot more taxes if Obama becomes president and good old Joe is just a working stiff like you and me hoping to get ahead. However, Joe, in his current job with his current wages, would fare better under Obama's tax plan than under McCain's. If good old Joe someday and somehow comes to own a business and manages to make better than a quarter mil per, then, strictly on the basis of taxes, he might want to go with McCain. But that's a lot of ifs. Basically Joe's question amounts to: Senator Obama, if I somehow become rich will you tax me more than McCain would tax me? The answer is yes, but this answer is to a very different question than the one Joe is given credit for asking.

[RichMor]

Back in 1968, Dick Nixon and his buddy Pat Buchanan wanted to win a presidential election. They decided that their best chance was to:
1. get people angry and upset about dirty hippie war protesters, pointy-headed professors and other 'un American' scum
2. imply that the scum supported Hubert Humphrey
3. hope that the people would vote for Dick Nixon because they hated the scum

This was the genesis of negative campaigning. Dick & Co did not say a bad word about HHH. Dick & Co said lots of bland positive things about how much they loved America and all good Americans.

Spiro ran around saying bad things about the 'media elite' and others who did not love America and Dick Nixon with equal fervor.

Fast forward 40 years and what do we see ? About the same thing.

Old John talks about his love of country and its good people. Sarah has taken the role of Spiro Agnew. She doesn't tell us who the good people are - if you are one you know it - but she does tell us who the bad people are.

Maybe enough voters will get on the 'hate train' and vote for Old John.

Hope not.

[matmat]

I asked this because of an article I was reading a day or so ago, about McCain pointing out that Obama is running just as negative a campaign as he himself is. It could be that my senses are biased, or that the ads ran in California are much different than the ads elsewhere, but that didn't seem true to me, and though both ad campaigns were negative, one was so on a much more personal level.

I feel there are three (at least) different levels of negative attacks.

1) my opponents policy on X is bad
2) my opponent does not have the qualifications/education/smarts/whatever to do Y
3) my opponent is a piece crud, a low-life sub-human with ingrown toenails, a hump, and terrible halitosis.

[hrothgar]

matmat, on Oct 31 2008, 01:15 AM, said:

I asked this because of an article I was reading a day or so ago, about McCain pointing out that Obama is running just as negative a campaign as he himself is. It could be that my senses are biased, or that the ads ran in California are much different than the ads elsewhere, but that didn't seem true to me, and though both ad campaigns were negative, one was so on a much more personal level.

I feel there are three (at least) different levels of negative attacks.

1) my opponents policy on X is bad
2) my opponent does not have the qualifications/education/smarts/whatever to do Y
3) my opponent is a piece crud, a low-life sub-human with ingrown toenails, a hump, and terrible halitosis.

Obama has been outspending McCain by a considerable margin. Two or even three to one in many media markets.

Most analysts state that McCains campaign has (essentially) degenerated into 100% negative ads. In contrast, Obama is runnning a mixture of positive and negative ads.

However, the absolute number of negative ads that Obama is running may actually be as high (or higher) than the number that McCain is running.

[luke warm]

i pretty much agree with ben, except for this part, "The ad with words from Joe Biden trying to frighten people about Obama would also fall very squarely into the negative range."

why isn't it okay to quote others whose words tell a perceived truth? for example, i'd see nothing wrong with obamba quoting W if he said, "mccain will appoint strict constructionist, conservative judges to the bench if elected"