Seeing it’s getting closer to the (US) time to vote, I’ve already seen much campaigning. Sadly, I’ve seen some negative campaigning.
Why can’t two groups competing for an office realize that negative campaigning only hurts themselves (especially when they have a commercial that points out that the other person made negative comments, I mean really, isn’t this a little bit hypocritical?) because everyone knows it’s exagerated or taken out of context just due to who is putting the commercial out.
It just looks bad when it gets into a mudslinging match…
I really don’t see why anybody would resort to it.
Any other thoughts on it (or really bad examples of it?)?
The worst I’ve ever seen was the Senate race between Wyche Fowler and Paul Coverdell of Georgia back in '92, I think. They were resorting to tactics like attacking the military records of each other’s fathers. It was disgusting.
I gotta admit, though, I’m like the “democracy geek” on The Onion a few weeks back (can’t find the link). I vote in primaries; I vote for Sheriff and all the Court Clerks and all of them.
Negative campaigning must work, or candidates would not do it. (I recall having read some journal articles which concluded something like negative campaigning works, but voters despise it. I’m still trying to find cites.) Surely negative campaigning does not make voters run out and vote for the opponent of the person running the negative campaign, or else everyone would run happy cheerful campaigns, one would think.
Actually, there is a negative campaign running currently in my state that weeps bloody body-fluid tears that a candidate would (gasp) (please, make your women and children leave the room) think that saving a few species from extinction and following the gutted federal wetland preservation regulations was more important than the timber industry.
And, though I had never heard of this evil enemy of civilization before this commercial, I have now made it my mission to vote early and often for him.
I fear, however, that I am in the minority in this state…
I almost wish we’d get some negative campaigning around here. It would at least be a change from the candidates just tooling around in vans with 500W loudspeakers cranked up to 11 endlessly reciting their name and party.
I decided to check out one of these guys during the last election when he held a rally in front of my apartment. After listening for 30 minutes, I was able to gather the following:
His name is Terada somethingorother (it was last year).
He is 33 years old.
He is running for office.
He is a member of the Democratic Party of Japan.
He is happy to meet us.
His name is Terada somethingorother.
He is running for office.
He is happy to meet us.
He is 33 years old.
He is a member of the Democratic Party of Japan.
He is a member of the Democratic Party of Japan.
He is running for office.
His name is Terada somethingorother
He is happy to meet us.
His flier said essentially the same thing. Four pages without mentioning a single, solitary issue.
Oh well, I suppose it’s better than the real negative campaigns that crop up every now and then. Several years ago, current Tokyo Gov. Shintaro Ishihara was running for parliament. His opponent’s grandparents were from Korea, so Ishihara had his goons cover the guy’s posters with racial slurs accusing him of being a North Korean spy.
I dislike negative campaigning so much I finally got fed up a few years ago and called on particularly egregious fellow at home and told him he’d lost my vote. As I said over in GD, if all two candidates can do is tell me why I shouldn’t vote for the other guy, I can see why people don’t bother to vote at all. As for me, democracy geek that I am, I’ll gather as much information as I can, then hold my nose and vote.
I don’t mind negative campaigning. Especially if all ‘positive’ campaigning is going to be is “I’ll help schools. I’ll protect the environment. I’ll make everybody rich.” That’s just pointless, in my opinion. Being in the middle of a very interesting campaign here, between Kathleen Kennedy Townsend and Bob Ehrlich, the negative stuff is much more engaging. The main problem I see with negative ads is that they can be very misleading, or very distorting. I realize it’s up to the candidate being smeared to ‘set the record straight’, but I think there’s a difference between negative campaigning and fraudulent campaigning. That crosses the line.
I am probably in the minority in this but I enjoy negative campaigning. I find it very entertaining. The black and white slow motion footage, the somber voice saying how sad it is that the other candidate has started negative ads, the solemn instructions to call so and so and ask him why he wants to poison our water and close down the public schools. I enjoy it all. I even liked the hairdresser one in Montana, though I did think the flyer with drag queen on the front was over the line.
I think the positive, I’ll fight for you and here’s pictures of me with minorities, ads are just so boring.
I do find it disturbing that anyone would base their vote on a TV ad whether positive or negative, though.
I would imagine if it didn’t have an impact, they wouldn’t do it. Usually they’ll get really nasty as a last hope when they are already losing an election, so thats why it appears to hurt them.
