BADvertising

[Hilarity N. Suze]

Okay, semiannual semiliterate rant about negative ads.

Has somebody done some kind of study? Do these things actually work? Because over and over we get this scenario:

"Ken Buck has done this horrible thing. And Ken Buck has done that horrible thing. And Ken Buck has voted for this completely irresponsible bill. Ken Buck. Ken Buck. Ken Buck."

Presumably, this ad was posted by an opponent of Ken Buck, but they have cleverly disguised it as The Party for Righteousness and Fulfillment, or something like that.

Now...I have worked in advertising, and I have worked for a political consultant, and in both cases the clear message was: Get the product name out there. Say the product name. Say the product name at least three times, possibly more. In political advertising the product name is the candidate's name. NOT THE OPPONENT'S NAME.

Whoever is Ken Buck's opponent, I don't know. I think Ken Buck is a Republican, so I'm guessing his opponent is a Democrat, and maybe there's a Libertarian or Green party person in there somewhere, too. But whatever...I don't know THE NAME.

They are doing this completely wrong, therefore I think they are stupid. They sure don't make Ken Buck sound very good, but frankly--they sound worse. Whoever the fuck they are. (No wonder they don't want to leave a name.)

And also, Colorado had a state Do Not Call list before there was a national one, and some very large majority of Colorado phone-owners signed up for it. A large...majority. That is, most of us. Do not want. Unsolicited phone calls.

So, the politicians are exempt. Most of us don't want them to be, but they are.

You would think a good strategy here would be, hey, they don't want unsolicited phone calls, so don't call them. Especially don't call using an automated message.

Hmm, this strategy also seems to have escaped them.

I am on the Do Not Call list. When I get an automated call, the person on whose behalf that call is made automatically goes on my Do Not Vote For list.

This seems so obvious; don't annoy the people you want to vote for you; at least pretend you understand their preferences and concerns! I guess it isn't that obvious.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Hilarity N. Suze

Has somebody done some kind of study? Do these things actually work?

I'll see if I can find an article or study, but my understanding is that yes, they work a little bit: if you campaign negatively, it hurts you, and it hurts your opponent a little more.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Marley23

I'll see if I can find an article or study, but my understanding is that yes, they work a little bit: if you campaign negatively, it hurts you, and it hurts your opponent a little more.

Marley23 thinks negative campaigning works.

Marley23 doesn't think much of the mature judgment of the American people.

Marley23: Wrong for the SDMB, wrong for America!

[Bill Door]

The idea of negative advertising is not to get people to vote for your candidate, it's to get your opponent's voters to stay home. Does it work? Look at voter turnout.

[BigT]

Originally Posted by Bill Door

The idea of negative advertising is not to get people to vote for your candidate, it's to get your opponent's voters to stay home. Does it work? Look at voter turnout.

Why would it accomplish that? I honestly can't think of a reason why you would not vote because you heard something bad about your candidate. If anything, if I knew it were untrue, I'd think I'd need to vote to counter someone who believed it.

[Jas09]

Originally Posted by BigT

Why would it accomplish that? I honestly can't think of a reason why you would not vote because you heard something bad about your candidate. If anything, if I knew it were untrue, I'd think I'd need to vote to counter someone who believed it.

Because the default position for a large portion of the population is to *not* vote. If there is an appealing candidate, or an issue or issues they felt strongly about, then they will vote. However, if you can sow doubt or mistrust, or even just convince them that both candidates suck, they will stay home.

One of the reasons the Dems are in for significant losses this fall is because massive amounts of typical non-voters that came out to vote for Obama (and then voted for other down-ticket Dems) are not nearly as likely to come out to vote for Robin Carnahan (for example).

Another way they can work is to cause a campaign to spend cycles responding to allegations, or worse, airing response ads instead of getting out the message they want. How much time did the Kerry campaign have to spend responding to Swift-Boat allegations, for example?

[NDP]

[quote=Jas09;12992922]

Originally Posted by BigT

Another way they can work is to cause a campaign to spend cycles responding to allegations, or worse, airing response ads instead of getting out the message they want. How much time did the Kerry campaign have to spend responding to Swift-Boat allegations, for example?

I'm afraid the Swift Boat allegations were a lose-lose situation for Kerry. On one hand, if you address them, you give them far more substance than it deserves. On the other hand, if you ignore them, they get constantly repeated in the media so that they get traction with the public. At the time, I actually agreed with the former approach because I naively thought that prospective voters would see that the whole preposterous "Kerry faked getting his medals" Swift-Boat story fell apart with the application of simple logic. Unfortunately, with regard to a too-large section of the American voting public, I was proven dead wrong.

[Frank]

Originally Posted by Hilarity N. Suze

Now...I have worked in advertising, and I have worked for a political consultant, and in both cases the clear message was: Get the product name out there. Say the product name. Say the product name at least three times, possibly more. In political advertising the product name is the candidate's name. NOT THE OPPONENT'S NAME.

The product is to create the impression that the Opponent sucks. BrainGlutton pretty much nailed it.

Whoever is Ken Buck's opponent, I don't know. I think Ken Buck is a Republican, so I'm guessing his opponent is a Democrat, and maybe there's a Libertarian or Green party person in there somewhere, too. But whatever...I don't know THE NAME.

I'm Michael Bennet, and I approve this ad. (You don't know the name of a Senator from your own state? Seriously?)

Sadly, negative advertising works. That's been demonstrated in election after election.

[gonzomax]

http://www.insidepolitics.org/ps111/independentads.html The one that mainstreamed it was the Bush I ,Willie Horton ads. Bush was way behind and after running the horrible ads, he caught up and passed Dukakis. Many news stations carried the ad as a news item ,giving it a lot more time than it merited. Since then dishonest ads have been the mainstay of American politics.
The swiftboaters had no interest in truthful ads. They wanted Bush to win and carry the narrative in the military argument ,even though he avoided the draft. It seemed to work well.
Thanks to the Supremes, we will be buried by those things in elections of the today and the future.

[Giles]

Originally Posted by gonzomax

Thanks to the Supremes, we will be buried by those things in elections of the today and the future.

Don't blame the Supremes: blame:
(1) The First Amendment; and
(2) The stupid voters that are influenced by negative ads.

[gonzomax]

Originally Posted by Giles

Don't blame the Supremes: blame:
(1) The First Amendment; and
(2) The stupid voters that are influenced by negative ads.

Corporations are not people.

[Giles]

Originally Posted by gonzomax

Corporations are not people.

True. And the First Amendment does mention "people" once. So, Congress can make laws abridging the right of corporations "peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." However, the part of the First Amendment about "freedom of speech [and] of the press" does not mention "people", so corporations have freedom of speech and of the press just as people do.

[hopesperson]

Originally Posted by gonzomax

http://www.insidepolitics.org/ps111/independentads.html The one that mainstreamed it was the Bush I ,Willie Horton ads. snip

To be clear, are you actually asserting that "mainstream" use of negative campaign techniques originated with George HW Bush?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Hilarity N. Suze

...I am on the Do Not Call list. When I get an automated call, the person on whose behalf that call is made automatically goes on my Do Not Vote For list...

So you'd make a decision that could determine the future of your country, possibly the physical security of you, your children, and grandchildren, based on whether or not a candidate's campaign made a robo-call? If you received a robo-call from every candidate, would you just stay home?

Note that I also dislike robo-calls, but I don't base my vote on them. I base it on issues.

[KidScruffy]

Originally Posted by davidm

So you'd make a decision that could determine the future of your country, possibly the physical security of you, your children, and grandchildren, based on whether or not a candidate's campaign made a robo-call? If you received a robo-call from every candidate, would you just stay home?

Note that I also dislike robo-calls, but I don't base my vote on them. I base it on issues.

I vote similar to Hilarity N. Suze with regard to negative campaign ads. I vote against the first candidate who airs a dirty ad. This should mean that the candidate who airs fewer (or no) negative ads will more likely get my vote, because I'll probably see an opponent's negative ad first. But since everyone engages equally in negative ads, what it really means is my vote comes down entirely to chance...

[Hilarity N. Suze]

Originally Posted by davidm

So you'd make a decision that could determine the future of your country, possibly the physical security of you, your children, and grandchildren, based on whether or not a candidate's campaign made a robo-call? If you received a robo-call from every candidate, would you just stay home?

Note that I also dislike robo-calls, but I don't base my vote on them. I base it on issues.

Note that I said I had worked for politicians. Both sides of the aisle. They are pretty similar, really. No one person can do that much damage (or good, but it's easier to do damage).

I've never gotten a robo-call from every candidate. And I'm not really a one-issue person. But it's something that could sway me if I'm teetering.

[Hilarity N. Suze]

Originally Posted by Frank

I'm Michael Bennet, and I approve this ad. (You don't know the name of a Senator from your own state? Seriously?)

Oh, Michael Bennet. I sure didn't hear him say he approved those ads. Sure I know his name; I get emails from him all the time! If he approved those ads, he's a weenie.

[Wheelz]

Though most negative ads are indeed dirty and dishonest, I think there is an argument to be made in favor of negative campaigning, in the name of informing the public.

In Nevada, Republican nominee Sharron Angle -- among other things and in no particular order:
-- Belives that Social Security should be phased out.
-- Thinks that gay people should not be allowed to adopt children.
-- Has stated that public school teachers should have the right to "publicly acknowledge the Creator."
-- Once denounced water fluoridation as a "Communist plot to poison Americans."
-- Advocates eliminating the EPA.

There's plenty more, from Scientology ties, to suggesting a return to prohibition, to opposing abortion for teenage victims of rape and incest.
And Harry Reid is actually in danger of losing to this person.

I don't live in Nevada and don't know what the ads have been like, but Reid would have to be a complete fool to not use Angle's lunacy against her. Of course, if there's a way for a Democrat to screw up an election, they'll find it.

[Giles]

Originally Posted by Wheelz

Though most negative ads are indeed dirty and dishonest, I think there is an argument to be made in favor of negative campaigning, in the name of informing the public.

In Nevada, Republican nominee Sharron Angle -- among other things and in no particular order:
-- Belives that Social Security should be phased out.
-- Thinks that gay people should not be allowed to adopt children.
-- Has stated that public school teachers should have the right to "publicly acknowledge the Creator."
-- Once denounced water fluoridation as a "Communist plot to poison Americans."
-- Advocates eliminating the EPA.

But those are all positions on matters of public policy. That's not the sort of negative advertising that's harmful to political debate.

[gonzomax]

Originally Posted by hopesperson

To be clear, are you actually asserting that "mainstream" use of negative campaign techniques originated with George HW Bush?

Our early politicians did some very negative campaigning, but there was not the ability for national distribution like there is now. The Willie Horton ad worked so well that it has been a template for the future dirty and misleading ads.
The ad with a little girl counting daisies while a nuclear mushroom appeared in the background was effective against Goldwater. That predated it.
The Horton ad seemed to have immediate effects. It worked better than they could have dreamed. The Repubs were behind before that ad. Goldwater was never close.