PDA

View Full Version : Negative Campaigning...It Was Bound To Happen



Rogue
10/6/2008, 07:04 PM
Until now I've been impressed that the official campaigns have been pretty decent toward their opponents. Besides some email "whisper" campaigns about both guys being the debbil and some harsh words on Fox and MSNBC, it was mostly civil. Even with these two disastrous whack-jobs as running mates. Actually that was where most of the vitriol was focused.

Until today. 10/6/2008. Now Obama is running "skinny but tough." Both sides are launching "guilt by association" smears, and I just saw an NRA ad by the NRA titled "Defeat Obama" basically saying he wants to take away Bubba's guns. Until Palin was on board, the NRA wouldn't endorse either of the guys at the top of the tickets because of their anemic gun-rights voting records.

Obama's trying to take the high road saying he will respond in-kind to negative campaigning.

I don't blame the parties or the campaigns. There is a reason they do it. Because it works. The sad commentary is like a mirror looking back at me. I've never bought the "lesser of 2 evils" voter strategy and finally think that either choice will be fine for the country. I wish they had better running mates just in case. And I wish that the negative attacks weren't so effective.

In the end, I believe the guy with the most money will win if he can overcome being black. Because it's a huge issue here in the Dirty South.
I heard on the radio this morning some folks all around southern Appalachia that sounded like West Virginia after the primaries. They won't vote for a black man.

So, I reluctantly arrive at this conclusion:
We're not so civilized after all.

Curly Bill
10/6/2008, 07:09 PM
So, I reluctantly arrive at this conclusion:
We're not so civilized after all.

You've just now come to this conclusion? Where have you been living all these many years? Mars? :P

....of course I don't see voting for Brack as being civilized, I see it as being lunacy, unless of course one is on the public dole and all that.

Frozen Sooner
10/6/2008, 07:14 PM
<------Lesser of two evils?

Jerk
10/6/2008, 07:16 PM
Your conclusion, Rogue, is that if Obama loses, it's because we're all a bunch of racists?

BTW- I hope you have everything "gun related" that you need. I do. When the ban comes, it won't affect me because I have an armory and enough high caps to last a life time. My dad is buying a sh*t ton of ammo, and we can also reload. I may not be able to shoot as much, but that's it. The people who will be denied their second amendment rights are those who currently haven't stocked up. If you think Obama plus a democrat congress won't pass new guns laws then i have a bridge to sell you. My only hope is that there are enough blue dogs to stop it.

Rogue
10/6/2008, 07:24 PM
No, I don't think if he doesn't win it's just because of racism.
I think that's the wild card that is throwing off all the polling.
It's the popular explanation as to why Hillary won states where BO had big statistical poll leads.

I'm saying JM can't win a negative-campaign race because he's way out-financed. Another big variable is the funding for the moveon and swiftboat type groups. McCain may not be in as much $$ trouble as it seems.

Mebbe polls just aren't very reliable? This has been proven many times, yet they are probably the best predictive tool we have.

At this point, unless JM pulls Bin Laden out of his briefcase or BO shoots himself in the foot, the momentum is clearly in BO's favor.

Frozen Sooner
10/6/2008, 07:31 PM
It's the popular explanation as to why Hillary won states where BO had big statistical poll leads.

Which states were those? The Obama camp's poll numbers were remarkably solid. They lost exactly one primary that they expected to win (Indiana, and that was within a few hundred votes) and won exactly one primary they expected to lose (can't remember off the top of my head which one it was.)

Curly Bill
10/6/2008, 07:32 PM
Which states were those? The Obama camp's poll numbers were remarkably solid. They lost exactly one primary that they expected to win (Indiana, and that was within a few hundred votes) and won exactly one primary they expected to lose (can't remember off the top of my head which one it was.)

I'm going to request that you stop posting in this thread.

Frozen Sooner
10/6/2008, 07:33 PM
I'm just sayin'...:D

Curly Bill
10/6/2008, 07:37 PM
I'm just sayin'...:D

I'm gonna try and work that in at least once per day. Seemed like a good place to do it. :P :D

Rogue
10/6/2008, 07:41 PM
New Hampshire (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jan/09/barackobama.usa1)


Pennsylvania, although he wasn't ahead in polls (http://www.slate.com/id/2198397/)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Five percent surely understates the reality. In the Pennsylvania primary, one in six white voters told exit pollsters race was a factor in his or her decision. Seventy-five percent of those people voted for Clinton. You can do the math: 12 percent of the Pennsylvania primary electorate acknowledged that it didn't vote for Barack Obama in part because he is African-American. And that's what Democrats in a Northeastern(ish) state admit openly. The responses in Ohio and even New Jersey were dispiritingly similar.

lexsooner
10/6/2008, 07:48 PM
Until now I've been impressed that the official campaigns have been pretty decent toward their opponents. Besides some email "whisper" campaigns about both guys being the debbil and some harsh words on Fox and MSNBC, it was mostly civil. Even with these two disastrous whack-jobs as running mates. Actually that was where most of the vitriol was focused.

Until today. 10/6/2008. Now Obama is running "skinny but tough." Both sides are launching "guilt by association" smears, and I just saw an NRA ad by the NRA titled "Defeat Obama" basically saying he wants to take away Bubba's guns. Until Palin was on board, the NRA wouldn't endorse either of the guys at the top of the tickets because of their anemic gun-rights voting records.

Obama's trying to take the high road saying he will respond in-kind to negative campaigning.

I don't blame the parties or the campaigns. There is a reason they do it. Because it works. The sad commentary is like a mirror looking back at me. I've never bought the "lesser of 2 evils" voter strategy and finally think that either choice will be fine for the country. I wish they had better running mates just in case. And I wish that the negative attacks weren't so effective.

In the end, I believe the guy with the most money will win if he can overcome being black. Because it's a huge issue here in the Dirty South.
I heard on the radio this morning some folks all around southern Appalachia that sounded like West Virginia after the primaries. They won't vote for a black man.

So, I reluctantly arrive at this conclusion:
We're not so civilized after all.

Well said, Rogue. The same problem for Obama exists in Kentucky. I know people who have admitted they will not vote for Obama because he is African-American. This is coming from folks whose families are stauch Democrats. Let's face it, race is very much an issue today, especially in Southern states.

I doubt the "Bradley effect" will come to fruition on Nov. 4. Obama ran pretty much as the polls predicted during the primaries. The actual votes figures were within 1-3 percentage points (above) of the polls during the primaries, so there was no evidence of it. There are frankly way too many variables to factor in - vote against Obama because of race while in the booth; vote for him to prove you are not racist; vote for indies as a protest; underestimating newly registered voters, etc. These largely even out.

The negative campaigning irritates me to no end. We are at a crucial time period in our history, and then I have to hear about Weatherman terrorist ties and the Keating Five. I feel it. The power base in this world is shifting and not in our favor. We are still the only superpower in the world, but how long can this last if we are a bunch of debtors whose economy was almost ruined by greedy financiers on Wall Street? The world's power base and commerce and financial centers are moving to Asia, and nobody is talking about it. I want to hear the candidates talk about the economy and our place in the world and what we as Americans can do to keep our position in it, not stupid mud-slinging ads meant to work on persons with IQs of around 80. I'm am so freakin tired of it.

Frozen Sooner
10/6/2008, 07:52 PM
New Hampshire (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jan/09/barackobama.usa1)


Pennsylvania, although he wasn't ahead in polls (http://www.slate.com/id/2198397/)

Well, like you said-I don't know that any poll every showed Obama with a lead in Pennsylvania.

I know that the Obama people did not expect a win in New Hampshire.

The article you linked in fact discounts the probability of the so-called "Bradley Effect" and cites that Obama received roughly the amount of support the polls predicted in New Hampshire.

Curly Bill
10/6/2008, 07:52 PM
White people not voting for Brack because he's black would trouble me a lot more if 99% of African-Americans weren't voting for him.

Veritas
10/6/2008, 07:58 PM
The negative campaigning irritates me to no end. We are at a crucial time period in our history, and then I have to hear about Weatherman terrorist ties and the Keating Five. I feel it. The power base in this world is shifting and not in our favor. We are still the only superpower in the world, but how long can this last if we are a bunch of debtors whose economy was almost ruined by greedy financiers on Wall Street? The world's power base and commerce and financial centers are moving to Asia, and nobody is talking about it. I want to hear the candidates talk about the economy and our place in the world and what we as Americans can do to keep our position in it, not stupid mud-slinging ads meant to work on persons with IQs of around 80. I'm am so freakin tired of it.
Well said, Lex. I believe we stand at a crossroads, and we're talking about who used to hang out with whom. Retarded.

Chuck Bao
10/6/2008, 10:32 PM
I DO NOT WANT TO WASTE MY TIME POSTING ABOUT POLITICS!

I've tried to remind myself not to open political threads, especially those started from our esteemed cut and paste artists.

But, I still do and I hate myself for that. I hate myself even more for posting in any of them because all of those Obama haters are not going to change their minds.

I am afraid of the negative attacks in the last month of the campaign.

Does anyone else wonder if our cut and paste negative ads posters would be happy if there was no opposition, in sort of a trolling for a response sort of way?

Soonerus
10/6/2008, 10:34 PM
What did you expect with all of the lying ???

Sooner_Havok
10/6/2008, 11:20 PM
There is a solution to our little problem.

USCMichigander
10/6/2008, 11:27 PM
Your conclusion, Rogue, is that if Obama loses, it's because we're all a bunch of racists?

BTW- I hope you have everything "gun related" that you need. I do. When the ban comes, it won't affect me because I have an armory and enough high caps to last a life time. My dad is buying a sh*t ton of ammo, and we can also reload. I may not be able to shoot as much, but that's it. The people who will be denied their second amendment rights are those who currently haven't stocked up. If you think Obama plus a democrat congress won't pass new guns laws then i have a bridge to sell you. My only hope is that there are enough blue dogs to stop it.

They will just be on the streets - unregulated and far more dangerous. While I'd prefer a country where there isn't one gun used for any purpose, banning guns is an inefficient way to stop crime. Guns will be sold by gangs, strengthening those gangs while the amount of people who buy guns will be relatively unchanged. Gun control is a loony idea on every level imaginable, period.

Okla-homey
10/7/2008, 05:22 AM
Let's say you own a huge company. Let's say that company is facing some pretty stiff challenges from your competition and some serious internal problems of its own.

Let's say that your current President and CEO is retiring and you need a new one. I ask you, would you and your board of directors consider hiring a guy to replace him who lacked any substantive business or managerial experience but instead had a reputation for being smart, well-spoken and cool?

Rogue
10/7/2008, 05:35 AM
Let's say you own a huge company. Let's say that company is facing some pretty stiff challenges from your competition and some serious internal problems of its own.

Let's say that your current President and CEO is retiring and you need a new one. I ask you, would you and your board of directors consider hiring a guy to replace him who lacked any substantive business or managerial experience but instead had a reputation for being smart, well-spoken and cool?

Good question. Srsly.

Depends. How successful have they been? IOW, I think plain old "experience" is overrated and that success breeds success in the business world. Give me the guy who has the Midas touch with little experience over the guy who has years of mediocre results.

Not that this fits the 2 guys at the top of the ticket very well, but that's how I'd handle your analogy.

The guy in the office now has lots of managerial experience. And it's all bad. I wouldn't hire him to run my lawnmower.

Scott D
10/7/2008, 11:19 AM
Let's say you own a huge company. Let's say that company is facing some pretty stiff challenges from your competition and some serious internal problems of its own.

Let's say that your current President and CEO is retiring and you need a new one. I ask you, would you and your board of directors consider hiring a guy to replace him who lacked any substantive business or managerial experience but instead had a reputation for being smart, well-spoken and cool?

either one of them is very capable of bankrupting your company.