What do you think?

Pages: 1 2

Index »
Community »
Debate and Serious Talk »
What do you think?

Poll

FOR VOTERS: Do negative ads help or hinder?

All negative ads are totally appropriate	13%	13% - 7
They should be used sparingly	11%	11% - 6
Only if they're not personal attacks	21%	21% - 11
Should never be used	46%	46% - 24
Undecided	7%	7% - 4
Total: 52

2006-10-27 12:20:09

IRONCHEF: Member; +385|6748|Northern California

I absolutely hate ALL negative ads. They are not trustworthy, they mock our political system, they hurt, and they blind.

However, there was a time when I used them to evaluate candidates (before the "information age" -aka Internet) more than learning about them from newspapers or other media. At first, I took the ads with complete trust, then I started considering that while they're probably correct, it's out of context and probably only partially true. Then I started just not caring because I was more interested in seeing what a politician offers of him/herself. Now I'm aware of fact checking and how such arguing is shameful and usually riddled with lies.

Since I want to make my vote as carefully as I can, I am angered by seeing all the negative ads going on and I purposefully ignore them comfortably without letting them effect my studying where applicable.

How do you feel about political ads in general?

Do the negative ads piss you off? Do they inform you? Do they simply create unresolved questions? Do you like them?

Sorry for adding my obvious bias to this, but this poll is not to help me decide but to stimulate conversation..and possibly debate. Have at it!

Oh, here's a good read up discussing negative ads right now! While this article is mostly picking on GOP ads, it makes mention of DEM ads. The comparison would be equal, but the GOP are incumbents and the ones on the political defensive..for good reason 16% approval rating.

**EDIT** I'm an idiot and voted for using ads ALWAYS instead of NEVER. So just subtract from the top and put it on the bottom.. lol

Last edited by IRONCHEF (2006-10-27 12:30:29)

2006-10-27 12:26:41

deeznutz1245: Connecticut: our chimps are stealin yo' faces.; +483|6750|Connecticut

Both parties annoy the shit out of me every september, october and november there are elections. I hate them all........I am Deeznutz1245 and I approve this message!!

Malloy must go

2006-10-27 12:40:58

Fancy_Pollux: Connoisseur of Fine Wine; +1,306|6903

Both. Negative ads can "enlighten" voters to both sides of the argument as well as the credibility of those running for office. This means that a negative ad, when truthful, could make you question your view on an issue you may have been set on. When a negative ad is simply mindless slander, it could make you question the credibility of the ad's target, or even the party that created the ad. Positive ads work the same way, just with a different target.

2006-10-27 12:52:59

SysTray: "Generous mods" < Thats right Systray !; +180|7078|Delaware

Negative ads show just what it means to be a politician. Slandering your opponent to gain votes instead of telling what you specifically will do to better the state/country is what politicians do.

Heaven forbid we should say anything about what we are going to do better than the last person, instead of pointing out our opponents faults.

Negative ads for the lose.

EDIT: I forgot to answer the question: They Hinder

Last edited by SysTray (2006-10-27 12:59:23)

2006-10-27 13:04:01

cpt.fass1: The Cap'n Can Make it Hap'n; +329|6953|NJ

I'm undecided on this. I think the negative ads discredit the party putting them out, but I do enjoy some of them. To tell you the truth I really can't think of any postive ads as of late, this election just seems to be one big smeer campaign..

2006-10-27 13:04:34

IRONCHEF: Member; +385|6748|Northern California

Good points..from pollux and systray.

I think perhaps the ability to portray corrections candidate A will make by showing deficiencies from the incumbent or candidate B "can" be done, but when you're throwing down millions of dollars, it seems they just don't want any ambiguity in their message..they simply can't say:

"While the treasurer, Phil Angelides has corrected some budgetary misallocations made by Schwarzenegger, respectively, and the results have been fantastic!"

Instead, you'd hear:

"While groping 3 female lobbyists sent as a gift from the White House..where George Bush works and calls Arnold all the time for new torture methods, Phil Angelides corrected concealed budgetary kick backs to the Indian Casinos and to the prostitution industry from which Arnold's mother is employed!"

2006-10-27 13:07:30

Cbass: Kick His Ass!; +371|6951|Howell, Mi USA

Im not even registered to vote because i don't give a shit.

But i don't think negative adds make a diffrence, it's just one person talking crap about another. In the end either one is as good as they seem.

https://bf3s.com/sigs/bb53a522780eff5b30ba3252d44932cc2f5b8c4f.png

2006-10-27 13:09:05

SysTray: "Generous mods" < Thats right Systray !; +180|7078|Delaware

Exactly!

Although today I did hear some positive campaigning for state Attourney General. Beau Biden went through a short list of what he's done in his short Legal career.

Although it wasn't actually him, it was some generic voice...

2006-10-27 13:13:30

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6858|132 and Bush

Only if they're not personal attacks.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2006-10-27 13:14:40

IRONCHEF: Member; +385|6748|Northern California

Yep, I'm voting for Arnold for governor because from what I've gathered, he's right and Angelides is wrong. AND because Arnold has been much less vigorous against Angelides who has done almost NO positive ads...he keeps pinning Arnold to Bush (as is the common democrat tactic), and saying other rude BS. What really helped me was watching them do a debate this week. Arnold and Phil both could not follow the debate platform rules shamelessly self promoting themselves instead of answering voter questions (shows how much they care about voters or debates). But in watching that, Phil just kept making ridiculous attacks, out of context rhetoric and other crap..no wonder he's trailing by 12%. It's sad if you're the state's party (CA = DEM), and you're losing to friggen Arnold. it shows that ANYONE can be a governor. I could do as good as Arnold! lol

Anyway..spamming here.

2006-10-27 13:57:50

The_Shipbuilder: Stay the corpse; +261|6758|Los Angeles

IRONCHEF wrote:
Yep, I'm voting for Arnold for governor because from what I've gathered, he's right and Angelides is wrong. AND because Arnold has been much less vigorous against Angelides who has done almost NO positive ads...he keeps pinning Arnold to Bush (as is the common democrat tactic), and saying other rude BS. What really helped me was watching them do a debate this week. Arnold and Phil both could not follow the debate platform rules shamelessly self promoting themselves instead of answering voter questions (shows how much they care about voters or debates). But in watching that, Phil just kept making ridiculous attacks, out of context rhetoric and other crap..no wonder he's trailing by 12%. It's sad if you're the state's party (CA = DEM), and you're losing to friggen Arnold. it shows that ANYONE can be a governor. I could do as good as Arnold! lol

Anyway..spamming here.

Chef, have you seen this? Can you take it and let me know your results?

I haven't seen any ads (thanks Tivo) and I missed the debate.

2006-10-27 14:32:48

liquix: Member; +51|6711|Peoples Republic of Portland

My dad could beat up your dad.

2006-10-27 14:34:30

Miller: IT'S MILLER TIME!; +271|7013|United States of America

liquix wrote:
My dad could beat up your dad.

Why do you post worthless shit in most every thread now?

2006-10-27 15:21:55

jonsimon: Member; +224|6752

All political ads suck, they're always lies and shades of the truth meant to decieve you.

2006-10-27 15:39:32

IRONCHEF: Member; +385|6748|Northern California

jonsimon wrote:
All political ads suck, they're always lies and shades of the truth meant to decieve you.

Word. And I agree further because if I have to fact check all claims made in ads (or assume total ignorance), they are just a big headache.

In brazil, I knew a local governador municipal who along with his 50 or so fellow candidates had 30 second time allotments to air their self-promotion ads on a local, government paid channel that everyone had access to. Be nice if campaign finance reform actually happened limiting politicians to this form of advertisement.

2006-10-27 16:12:16

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,053|7029|PNW

I don't know why so many people voted against them entirely. When they're not just personal attacks, negative ads are no different than "statement against/rebuttal of statement for/against" columns found in voters' pamphlets.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-10-27 16:12:47)

2006-10-27 16:24:49

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6932|Canberra, AUS

If you have to stoop to dirt-digging, it means that you yourself do not have any good ideas/plans and don't deserve to be in office.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2006-10-27 16:41:16

IRONCHEF: Member; +385|6748|Northern California

Exactly. ANd it's easy to see that they value tearing down as opposed to building up. What then will happen if they get elected after a sleazy campaign where we never got to hear what they would bring to the office?

Voting for someone or against someone else..that's what it boils down to. And its obvious that americans are trained to pick whoever won the mud slinging match..but i think, and I hope that trend is going away. But after reading the OP article, it's hard to see the light at the end of this tunnel.

2006-10-27 16:51:04

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6662|North Carolina

Negative ads are a double-edged sword. On the one hand, they can successfully assassinate an opponent's image. On the other hand, if you spend too much time using them, people remember your opponent but forget who you are.

2006-10-27 16:56:58

oug: Calmer than you are.; +380|6776|Πάϊ

Negative ads mean you have nothing to say for yourself as a candidate. The message that is put forth is like: I'm a worthless asshole but vote for me because that guy is more of a worthless asshole than I am.

It's the clearest indication that the candidate who uses them is absolutely no good and that under no sircumstances should anyone vote for him/her.

_ƒ³

2006-10-27 17:03:01

Doctor Strangelove: Real Battlefield Veterinarian.; +1,758|6725

If they attack poor policies than yes but if they attack a person's personal life then no.

Last edited by doctastrangelove1964 (2006-10-27 17:03:32)

2006-10-28 07:42:43

Stingray24: Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy; +1,060|6702|The Land of Scott Walker

doctastrangelove1964 wrote:
If they attack poor policies than yes but if they attack a person's personal life then no.

I agree with the Dr. and at the same time I get tired of seeing them on TV and hearing them on the radio. Just tell us what you stand for, what you're against and why and let the voters decide. The problem is the truth has become so muddy on what most candidates actually think.

Last edited by Stingray24 (2006-10-28 07:45:24)

2006-10-28 07:48:00

Stingray24: Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy; +1,060|6702|The Land of Scott Walker

Cbass wrote:
Im not even registered to vote because i don't give a shit.

But i don't think negative adds make a diffrence, it's just one person talking crap about another. In the end either one is as good as they seem.

You should register, a good citizen votes. If you choose not to, you have no voice.

2006-10-28 07:53:48

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6786|Global Command

It brings up negative campaigning.
The Dems in America will fail until they run on what they are going to do, not on George Bush. The reason they only are running on a anti-Bush platform and not broadcasting what they are about?

Dems agenda;
raise taxes, abandon the Middle East to Pol Pot style killing fields, fund abortions, amnesty for illegal aliens, socialized medicine, confiscation of firearms and subservience to the united nations.

If those were my goals I'd probably be embarrassed too.

2006-10-28 08:21:44

Stingray24: Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy; +1,060|6702|The Land of Scott Walker

ATG wrote:
Dems agenda;
raise taxes, abandon the Middle East to Pol Pot style killing fields, fund abortions, amnesty for illegal aliens, socialized medicine, confiscation of firearms and subservience to the united nations.

If those were my goals I'd probably be embarrassed too.

Spot on, those are the exact reasons I don't vote Democrat. +1

Pages: 1 2

Index »
Community »
Debate and Serious Talk »
What do you think?

Board footer

Jump to

BF2S Forums What do you think?

Poll

IRONCHEF wrote:

liquix wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

doctastrangelove1964 wrote:

Cbass wrote:

ATG wrote:

Board footer