If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   In what some are calling the most shocking twist of the presidential campaign so far, political operatives are now considering running positive ads   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 22
    More: Silly, Political campaign staff, presidential campaign, Arab Uprisings  
•       •       •

372 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Jun 2012 at 9:58 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



22 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-06-19 10:02:33 AM  
When you over saturate your message with nothing but hyperbole, rhetoric, and false truths people will eventually see that you have no message at all. Perhaps it is wise to lay off of the black boogeyman strategy and focus on why Romney would be a good thing for the country...of course that would entail that he either #1 Admit to his liberal track record or #2 Have ANY political position that he can stick to other than "whatever obama did/didn't I would/wouldn't".
 
2012-06-19 10:03:54 AM  
Truly the endtimes are upon us.
 
2012-06-19 10:06:07 AM  
 
2012-06-19 10:08:19 AM  
I'm sure the feeling will pass
 
2012-06-19 10:09:07 AM  
I'm not actually sure positive ads will go over very well in the contemporary American sociopolitical climate. A positive campaign on either side would force its side to acknowledge that their opponents mean well, that they are sane, and that they think. Neither base will listen to that message right now: they'll just accuse their candidates of selling out.

In calmer times, positivity could work. But these are not calm times. So expect the strawmen and ad hominems to continue; they're all that either base is willing to listen to.
 
2012-06-19 10:10:00 AM  

thornhill: There are countless studies that have shown that negative ads are not only more effective than positive, but they're actually more truthful (because people are much more careful to accurately cite information in them). Campaigns wouldn't use them if they didn't work.


There are also studies that show that negative ads only "work" (move the poll numbers) when the race is within 5 points. Otherwise, you're either beating a dead horse (which voters see as "spiking the football", hurting the candidate) or the last act(s) of a desperate candidate.

So the CW should be: "Go negative when close, stay positive as a long-shot or sure thing."
 
2012-06-19 10:15:41 AM  
What they aren't saying is that the candidates are planning on making positive advertisements about each other. Seriously, can you imagine an Obama campaign touting the achievements of Romney? It would destroy the man's candidacy.
 
2012-06-19 10:27:09 AM  

thornhill: There are countless studies that have shown that negative ads are not only more effective than positive, but they're actually more truthful (because people are much more careful to accurately cite information in them). Campaigns wouldn't use them if they didn't work.


There's also the aspect of positive ads where they aren't usually successful arguments. It's effectively like arguing on the internet: a person who is going to vote against Obama because Obamacare puts government hands on their medicare isn't going to be swayed by a declaration that the PPACA is actually good legislation, and a detailed explanation why there's some very, very good things in the bill would take entirely too long for a commercial.

It's easier to call the other side dickbags and take things out of context. The people who haven't decided are usually on the fence because they dislike both candidates and can't decide who they dislike more. It's only sensible to try to say that voting for the other party will cause dire harm to the nation to sway these voters.

I would imagine that a not insignificant amount of voters voted for Obama in 2008 specifically to keep Palin the fark away from the white house.
 
2012-06-19 10:28:45 AM  
How about backhanded compliment ads, like "Mitt, this is a nice change of pace from your usual negative ads."
 
2012-06-19 10:30:32 AM  

ms_lara_croft: How about backhanded compliment ads, like "Mitt, this is a nice change of pace from your usual negative ads."


"Mitt managed to talk to a poor person for five whole minutes without being a condescending ass! Improvement!"
 
2012-06-19 10:36:31 AM  
"Mitt hasn't forcibly sheared a vaguely homosexual-appearing person for decades now. Good work, Mitt!"
 
2012-06-19 10:38:23 AM  

sprawl15: The people who haven't decided are usually on the fence because they dislike both candidates and can't decide who they dislike more. It's only sensible to try to say that voting for the other party will cause dire harm to the nation to sway these voters.


This. It's a lot more common to vote against the other team than to vote for your team.
 
2012-06-19 10:41:56 AM  

sprawl15: ms_lara_croft: How about backhanded compliment ads, like "Mitt, this is a nice change of pace from your usual negative ads."

"Mitt managed to talk to a poor person for five whole minutes without being a condescending ass! Improvement!"


"Mitt knew what the scanner in the checkout line was, unlike George H. W. Bush."

"Obama didn't break the economy as badly as experts predicted he would."

We could go on like this for hours... ;)
 
2012-06-19 10:43:40 AM  

sprawl15: It's only sensible to try to say that voting for the other party will cause dire harm to the nation to sway these voters.


This creates a particular dilemma in this election for me as a liberal, because:

1) We're going to hit the debt ceiling early next year.
2) Congress is pretty much guaranteed to remain in Republican control, because of the way redistricting's turned out, and which Senate seats are up.

If Romney wins, the debt ceiling increase will go through without a peep, and life goes on.

If Obama wins, it won't, and this time instead of can-kicking or trying to hand-wave a Grand Bargain, we'll just default. That will lead to a global financial implosion as we deprive the global financial system of its baseline safe asset. It would likely make 2008 look like a walk in the park.

Therefore, even though my policy preferences are more liberal than either of the two (which should lead me to vote Obama), the country will suffer less harm if Romney wins.

Oy.
 
2012-06-19 10:47:27 AM  

sprawl15: There's also the aspect of positive ads where they aren't usually successful arguments. It's effectively like arguing on the internet: a person who is going to vote against Obama because Obamacare puts government hands on their medicare isn't going to be swayed by a declaration that the PPACA is actually good legislation, and a detailed explanation why there's some very, very good things in the bill would take entirely too long for a commercial.


It's also simple strategy. Negative ads put your opponent on the defensive, even if you say something that's not entirely true. When you run a positive ad, your opponent always comes out and says that you're exaggeration, inflating, lying, etc. Then suddenly you're on the defensive having to backup everything you said in your positive ad.

So basically, when you go negative, the burden is on the other person to disprove you. When you go positive, you have the burden to prove that your claims are true.
 
2012-06-19 10:48:10 AM  

Nurglitch: What they aren't saying is that the candidates are planning on making positive advertisements about each other. Seriously, can you imagine an Obama campaign touting the achievements of Romney? It would destroy the man's candidacy.


I'm fully expecting Obama to praise Romney for his achievements in bringing health care to the poor and for laying the groundwork for "Obamacare" during the first debate.
 
2012-06-19 10:49:22 AM  

Gaseous Anomaly: sprawl15: It's only sensible to try to say that voting for the other party will cause dire harm to the nation to sway these voters.

This creates a particular dilemma in this election for me as a liberal, because:

1) We're going to hit the debt ceiling early next year.
2) Congress is pretty much guaranteed to remain in Republican control, because of the way redistricting's turned out, and which Senate seats are up.

If Romney wins, the debt ceiling increase will go through without a peep, and life goes on.

If Obama wins, it won't, and this time instead of can-kicking or trying to hand-wave a Grand Bargain, we'll just default. That will lead to a global financial implosion as we deprive the global financial system of its baseline safe asset. It would likely make 2008 look like a walk in the park.

Therefore, even though my policy preferences are more liberal than either of the two (which should lead me to vote Obama), the country will suffer less harm if Romney wins.


Oh, I doubt we will suffer less, just differently. You forget one important thing: Imploding the world costs the Republicans masters as well. Its one thing to hurt the US so you can earn money on foreign investments, but when you take down everyone, there will be no safe haven for your cash.
 
2012-06-19 10:49:33 AM  

thornhill: So basically, when you go negative, the burden is on the other person to disprove you. When you go positive, you have the burden to prove that your claims are true.


"I don't have the time to explain all the lies and falsehoods my opponent has said in his ads, but isn't it telling that instead of addressing the issues, and answering the questions my campaign has raised, he's just singing his own praises? I find that very telling."
 
2012-06-19 10:54:47 AM  

Iblis824: You forget one important thing: Imploding the world costs the Republicans masters as well. Its one thing to hurt the US so you can earn money on foreign investments, but when you take down everyone, there will be no safe haven for your cash.


I was counting on that during the last debt ceiling clusterfark, and they barely delivered. I'm unconvinced the money men have enough control over the Teabaggers at this point. (It sure doesn't seem like there's *less* derp now...)
 
2012-06-19 10:57:15 AM  

Nurglitch: What they aren't saying is that the candidates are planning on making positive advertisements about each other. Seriously, can you imagine an Obama campaign touting the achievements of Romney? It would destroy the man's candidacy.


I can't wait until they peice together clips from Romney that make it sound like he supports Obamacare and numerous other Obama policies. I honestly think that if Romney wasn't running against him that he'd actually vote for Obama (over the other clowns that were in the primary side show).
 
2012-06-19 11:03:19 AM  

Gaseous Anomaly: sprawl15: It's only sensible to try to say that voting for the other party will cause dire harm to the nation to sway these voters.

This creates a particular dilemma in this election for me as a liberal, because:

1) We're going to hit the debt ceiling early next year.
2) Congress is pretty much guaranteed to remain in Republican control, because of the way redistricting's turned out, and which Senate seats are up.

If Romney wins, the debt ceiling increase will go through without a peep, and life goes on.

If Obama wins, it won't, and this time instead of can-kicking or trying to hand-wave a Grand Bargain, we'll just default. That will lead to a global financial implosion as we deprive the global financial system of its baseline safe asset. It would likely make 2008 look like a walk in the park.

Therefore, even though my policy preferences are more liberal than either of the two (which should lead me to vote Obama), the country will suffer less harm if Romney wins.

Oy.


The GOP has done NOTHING but be obstructionist to Obama policies and pass penis goes where legislation. If Obama wins a second term they'll realize that he can't beat them in 2016 so they will pull their heads out of their asses so and cooperate. If the we do default public opinion will turn against them harshly becasue they are the ones making a big deal out of this for the sole purpose of tring to win the executive branch back. They are also on the losing battle of taxes and defense spending. If they stick to their guns on these issues and a default happens, look for a total democrat sweep on congress in 2014.
 
2012-06-19 11:23:02 AM  
Mitt Romney hasn't impersonated a police officer with Daddy helping him get a uniform for some time now. Good work, Mittens.
 
Displayed 22 of 22 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report