[Reposting from Amnesia Weekend… I don’t think this had any replies (or if it did, I lost them along with everything else), but if it did and I’ve overlooked someone, please feel free to add your opinions again. And I apologize for any inconvenience.]
How does this effect you, be it from within your party or the opposition? As a voter, are you swayed by any derogatory implications the other side makes? Why?
[ol]
[li]Does it make you dismiss the comments out-of-hand as “sour grapes”? [/li][li]Does it make you wonder if there are any small kernals of truth to be investigated further?[/li][li]Does it make you more fiercely cling to your own already decided notions?[/li][li]Does it make you do absolutely nothing because you weigh all the facts for yourself independently anyway?[/li][li]Does it make you do something else entirely or some combination of the above?[/li][/ol]
Finally, certainly elaborate on any, or all, of these questions as you see necessary.
Negative campaigning depresses me, especially when it’s unsubstantiated rumors. If the candidates want to talk about issues, I’m all ears. Name-calling and emotional manipulation make me turn off the tv. Mostly that means I become less involved in politics, because I can’t stand the slimy feel of it.
Unfortunately, most issues are more complicated than a 30-second commercial can encompass, so they don’t get covered in any real sense by the campaigns. Of course, I can’t say I haven’t been hooked by a negative ad or two. It shames me when I realize it, though.
It’s all data to me. Here’s how I try to deal with it. (And I emphasize “try” because I’m as human as everyone else.)
If it’s actually a fact, I treat it like any other fact. I overcome the disappointment I feel when it casts my candidate/party in a poor light.
If it’s misleading, not true, or a flat lie, I count that against the credibility of the source and anyone who bought into it and vectored it, taking all circumstances into account.
Just realized that I hadn’t answered my own poll. Sorry!
[ol]
[li]Does it make you dismiss the comments out-of-hand as “sour grapes”? [/li]I’m not sure. The tone is certainly off-putting no matter who it comes from, but I’m too much of a curious sort to just reject things unless they are patently ridiculous. We’re talking Elvis in space or something. Otherwise, one can’t be too sure if it’s regarding important (to you) issues.
[li]Does it make you wonder if there are any small kernals of truth to be investigated further?[/li]As stated above, it simply makes me curious to get at the truth. Wherever that leads me, so be it. However, if things turn out to be false (or their terminology degrading just for the sake of doing so), then as has been said, I weigh that off against what I know of the claim-maker.
[li]Does it make you more fiercely cling to your own already decided notions?[/li]No. Probably to a fault too, but I always consider being made uncomfortable a prerequisite to growth. So if I’m not constantly requestioning my stances on things, I’m doing something wrong.
[li]Does it make you do absolutely nothing because you weigh all the facts for yourself independently anyway?[/li]Already answered above. I never assume that I have the answers just because I’m me. As a matter of fact, I figure it’s more emblematic of me not knowing my ass from a hole in the groung.
[li]Does it make you do something else entirely or some combination of the above?[/li]Like I said, I’d just like to get at whatever truth is out there, partisianship aside, without all the extraneous bullshit that usually encumbers a political race of any kind. Silly as it is, my heart hurts from negative attacks (even on those I disagree with) unfounded in nothing but supposition. Hell, I’m not overly fond of them when grounded in fact, but at least then, you have a leg to stand on. Versus just sounding like a petulant child. Or rather, "Just the facts ma’am."
[/ol]
Thanks to those of y’all thus far for your time and consideration. I appreciate your answers here. Happy Election '08.
Negative campaigning makes my eyes roll farther and farther back into my head until I can no longer stand to listen to anything politics-related without vomiting. I have the same reaction to it regardless of which candidate it comes from(or even if it comes from no candidate at all).
It saddens me to say it, but the end result is that I just completely tune out everything both sides are saying. In the 12 years since I became able to vote, I have never done so enthusiastically. I have never been excited about a candidate. I have, in fact, never cast a vote for any reason other than a “lessor of two evils” thing.
Not necessarily. But I do tend to be skeptical of “facts” brought to light at convenient points in a campaign. So I do some research to determine accuracy.
Well, sure. See above.
Upon consideration, no - although I may be a bit defensive initially, depending on how outlandish I might think the claim is.
Given that I’m going to try to do my best to determine the accuracy of any information I might be considering in weighing my vote, doing nothing wouldn’t really be an option, unless I already knew the inaccuracy of the stated claim.
It will actually lower my opinion of the candidate, or at the very least the campaign manager. Partisan politics and machine-voting for a candidate simply because that candidate is a member of your party is a large part of what’s broken in the political system. I don’t buy that one candidate can ever be a better candidate than another simply by virtue of party affiliation, but that’s a big part of how people vote. It’s very depressing.
[ol]
[li]Does it make you wonder if there are any small kernals of truth to be investigated further?[/ol][/li][/QUOTE]
Negative campaigning turns me off because it is so utterly free of depth or content. Barack Obama is as popular as Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. Well, so what? Does that mean his policies will have a negative impact; or that he’ll be a bad president? It doesn’t mean anything. They attacked him for his inexperience, then selected Sarah Palin as McCain’s running mate. Have some principles, or consistency, or ideas, or something.
There are legitimate policy differences, and there can be honest differences of opinion on how those policies will play out. Fine. Debate those things. Tell me what you think will happen if we drill for oil, or don’t drill; if we lower taxes or leave them alone. And tell me why. Those things are fair game, if you make a case for them.
But trying to parse most political messages for small kernels of anything is only going to reveal muddled thinking.
Are we talking about negative campaigning in the sense of saying the other party and its politicians have done bad things in office, or in the sense of they’re bad people because of random stuff in their personal lives?
The second, I don’t see any point to, speaking as someone in politics; nobody in Canada cares about that sort of thing, and you’ll just irritate people. It’s for cocktail parties with fellow party hacks, that’s it.
The first? Well, if we’re not allowed to say why the present government ought to be replaced, what’s the point in an opposition party’s campaigning?
