• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do negative campaign ads work with YOU?

Are negative campaign ads effective with YOU?

  • Yes. Negative campaign ads can cause me to vote against the candidate negatively portrayed

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No. Negative campaign ads cannot cause me to vote against the candidate portrayed.

    Votes: 10 55.6%
  • I vote against the candidate running negative campaign ads.

    Votes: 2 11.1%
  • I am only affected by negative campaign ads if they are comeplely honest.

    Votes: 6 33.3%

  • Total voters
    18

Smeagol

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 14, 2012
Messages
4,147
Reaction score
1,694
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Maybe I'm different but negative campaign ads bother me. Many are based in half truths and deception and in those cases I'm actually offended concluding the candidate running them thinks I'm too stupid to spot dishonesty when directed at me. I realize there are strong supporters of any candidate or party and I understand those people cheer the negative campaign ads bashing their guy's opponents but I thought ads were designed to persuade undecided voters or get people to change their minds.

There's a local ad running right now attempting to unseat an incumbent. The incumbent promised to not raise taxes. The ad claims he broke his pledge because taxes went up. Truth: the candidate did not raise taxes. They were based on property values and because property values went up, so did property taxes. If the cost of gas goes up, so will the embedded gas tax. This doesn't mean the government "raised" gas taxes.
 
Maybe I'm different but negative campaign ads bother me. Many are based in half truths and deception and in those cases I'm actually offended concluding the candidate running them thinks I'm too stupid to spot dishonesty when directed at me. I realize there are strong supporters of any candidate or party and I understand those people cheer the negative campaign ads bashing their guy's opponents but I thought ads were designed to persuade undecided voters or get people to change their minds.

There's a local ad running right now attempting to unseat an incumbent. The incumbent promised to not raise taxes. The ad claims he broke his pledge because taxes went up. Truth: the candidate did not raise taxes. They were based on property values and because property values went up, so did property taxes. If the cost of gas goes up, so will the embedded gas tax. This doesn't mean the government "raised" gas taxes.

It gins up the bases really, but no they don't sway any minds I wouldn't figure.
 
It gins up the bases really, but no they don't sway any minds I wouldn't figure.

I would have to disagree. From what I understand, the literature demonstrates that negative advertising is more effective at swaying the undecided.

I think that those who are here are less likely to be swayed simply because they are less likely to be undecided. If it comes out that "my guy" cheated on a test in college, for example, I'm more likely to try to blow it off than someone who is actually wondering "huh, I think these guys are equal but which one can I trust".
 
I would have to disagree. From what I understand, the literature demonstrates that negative advertising is more effective at swaying the undecided.

I think that those who are here are less likely to be swayed simply because they are less likely to be undecided. If it comes out that "my guy" cheated on a test in college, for example, I'm more likely to try to blow it off than someone who is actually wondering "huh, I think these guys are equal but which one can I trust".

I'd be curious to see that literature, as all the polling I've seen is that most people don't like them. For example:

Most Say Negative Campaign Ads Have Negative Effect on Voting - Rasmussen
Negative Campaigning Disliked by Most Americans - Gallup
78 percent of Americans frustrated by negative campaigns, poll finds - Yahoo
Do Negative Political Ads Work? - Scientific America
 

Campaigns at all levels spend $millions on negative campaigning, so it does work. They are no dummies and they have million dollar experts to check to see if it's working.
 
I prefer a candidate presenting him/herself with complete honesty (lol), instead of elevating him/herself by smearing others.
 
Campaigns at all levels spend $millions on negative campaigning, so it does work. They are no dummies and they have million dollar experts to check to see if it's working.

It could simply be a situation where there too afraid to risk any change. Besides, I'm sure the other side of the campaign is running their own negative ads and it didn't exactly help them did it?
 
It could simply be a situation where there too afraid to risk any change. Besides, I'm sure the other side of the campaign is running their own negative ads and it didn't exactly help them did it?

I think overall it works, but it has to be somewhat true. Total lies don't work I think.
 
I think overall it works, but it has to be somewhat true. Total lies don't work I think.

But the lies is why I don't think these ads do work. Whenever someone sees these ads, they generally don't believe them anyways, which is why they wouldn't work. There a few rare exceptions, like in Kentucky, after the woman made the gaffe at the debate and it was put into an ad. That I do think hurt. But someone standing up saying "Politician X will destroy America" doesn't work but everyone is skeptical anyways.
 
But the lies is why I don't think these ads do work. Whenever someone sees these ads, they generally don't believe them anyways, which is why they wouldn't work. There a few rare exceptions, like in Kentucky, after the woman made the gaffe at the debate and it was put into an ad. That I do think hurt. But someone standing up saying "Politician X will destroy America" doesn't work but everyone is skeptical anyways.

I think they have campaign experts that have figured out they serve a purpose and work. How well, we can debate forever. But that fact that they exist, and have been used for hundred years proves they work. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson used them.
 
Maybe I'm different but negative campaign ads bother me. Many are based in half truths and deception and in those cases I'm actually offended concluding the candidate running them thinks I'm too stupid to spot dishonesty when directed at me. I realize there are strong supporters of any candidate or party and I understand those people cheer the negative campaign ads bashing their guy's opponents but I thought ads were designed to persuade undecided voters or get people to change their minds.

There's a local ad running right now attempting to unseat an incumbent. The incumbent promised to not raise taxes. The ad claims he broke his pledge because taxes went up. Truth: the candidate did not raise taxes. They were based on property values and because property values went up, so did property taxes. If the cost of gas goes up, so will the embedded gas tax. This doesn't mean the government "raised" gas taxes.
I detest half-truths and lies-by-omission more so than outright lies, and there have been times that I have been completely turned off to a candidate for running a single ad like that.

Someone made the point that most people here tend to be already decided, and for the most part I think that's true. But I think they (negative ads) still affect us more than we are aware or are willing to admit. At the very least, they plant a seed of doubt.
 
I think they have campaign experts that have figured out they serve a purpose and work. How well, we can debate forever. But that fact that they exist, and have been used for hundred years proves they work. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson used them.

That's the thing, marketing is pretty refined. If they didn't work they wouldn't be used.
 
Maybe I'm different but negative campaign ads bother me. Many are based in half truths and deception and in those cases I'm actually offended concluding the candidate running them thinks I'm too stupid to spot dishonesty when directed at me. I realize there are strong supporters of any candidate or party and I understand those people cheer the negative campaign ads bashing their guy's opponents but I thought ads were designed to persuade undecided voters or get people to change their minds.

There's a local ad running right now attempting to unseat an incumbent. The incumbent promised to not raise taxes. The ad claims he broke his pledge because taxes went up. Truth: the candidate did not raise taxes. They were based on property values and because property values went up, so did property taxes. If the cost of gas goes up, so will the embedded gas tax. This doesn't mean the government "raised" gas taxes.

No they don't sway me personally, and never have. Part of the reason for that is because I'm a senior manager in very high end sales. I never won a deal by disparaging my competition, nor do I allow my team to do it. We win because of our merits and what we bring to the table. That's the same reason I vote for candidates - because of what they bring, not because of how bad the other guy is.
 
I think they have campaign experts that have figured out they serve a purpose and work. How well, we can debate forever. But that fact that they exist, and have been used for hundred years proves they work. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson used them.

John Adams and Thomas Jefferson never had to deal with the internet, 24 hour news media, or an apathetic society though.
 
John Adams and Thomas Jefferson never had to deal with the internet, 24 hour news media, or an apathetic society though.

They still did it though. :mrgreen: Actually most citizens were reasonabley educated and middle class for the time.
 
They still did it though. :mrgreen: Actually most citizens were reasonabley educated and middle class for the time.

But my point is that what worked for them in the early 1800's, wouldn't fly in the 21st Century because out culture and technology has evolved so far since then. Plus, as I recall, there negative ads weren't so much saying "this guy supports gun control" and more "he's a guy that sleeps with witches and eats babies" sorts of ****.
 
But my point is that what worked for them in the early 1800's, wouldn't fly in the 21st Century because out culture and technology has evolved so far since then. Plus, as I recall, there negative ads weren't so much saying "this guy supports gun control" and more "he's a guy that sleeps with witches and eats babies" sorts of ****.

Whatever. :peace
 
But my point is that what worked for them in the early 1800's, wouldn't fly in the 21st Century because out culture and technology has evolved so far since then. Plus, as I recall, there negative ads weren't so much saying "this guy supports gun control" and more "he's a guy that sleeps with witches and eats babies" sorts of ****.
Have we? I think basic human nature hasn't changed much, if at all. The individual message would change with the times, and the delivery system would certainly change, but people are still basically the same.
 
Have we? I think basic human nature hasn't changed much, if at all. The individual message would change with the times, and the delivery system would certainly change, but people are still basically the same.

Sure we change. If you want to see an example, well think about this: in 2004, Bush retook the white house at least partially because of the nationwide movement for the Defense of Marriage Act. Today, only ten years after that, our nation has shifted the opposite direction to such a degree that SSM now seems inevitable with 37 states already allowing it. A shift of that scale is unprecedented in politics, as it often takes generations to see real movement on issues.
 
Sure we change. If you want to see an example, well think about this: in 2004, Bush retook the white house at least partially because of the nationwide movement for the Defense of Marriage Act. Today, only ten years after that, our nation has shifted the opposite direction to such a degree that SSM now seems inevitable with 37 states already allowing it. A shift of that scale is unprecedented in politics, as it often takes generations to see real movement on issues.

We're not talking the same thing. You're talking individual issues. The premise of the thread is general, sometimes subconscious, gullibility and/or skepticism.
 
With me the effect of negative ads is inversely proportional to the level of the race.

With a president, for instance, you're looking at a multi-billion dollar election cycle that involves both the candidates spending tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars getting their/name/message/brand out there, the parties spending hundreds of millions more to back their guy, PACs running ads both pro and con, the Commission on Presidential Debates doing their thing, and media of all sorts spending hundreds of millions, if not billions more, drilling down in to the candidates to find what's really there.

Plus you're generally looking at folks who have long careers in politics or industry and accessible records which are demonstrative of the policy positions they take and the politics they employ and personal histories that help you get a feel for the candidates' character.

I don't want or need negative campaign ads in such a case and to the small extent that I'm exposed to them the charges they make are usually pretty easy to substantiate or debunk.

Where I think negative ads probably have more of an effect is all the way down the government ladder at the municipal level.

If Candidate A sends me a glossy brochure explaining how Candidate B has been involved in, say, an effort to grant additional local land use to a mining company that does a lot of blasting in town and has been offering them a 20 year tax abatement on the use of that land in order to bring a half dozen more jobs in to the community, I'd probably actually take notice of something like that and consider it when casting my vote.

I don't like the blasting that currently goes on and I don't think our community needs six new jobs which, effectively, would be paid for by the current citizens of the town through deferred tax revenue through a point in time well past the point where I expect I will have sold my current home in this community and moved elsewhere.

So a bug has been planted in my head that sort of turns me off to Candidate B but the race is at such a low level and the candidates are, relatively speaking, so unknown and so campaign-fund-poor that it's unlikely I'll ever hear a rebuttal from Candidate B or have access through research to the kind of information I'd need to debunk the claims on my own.

In the case of a president/Senator/governor negative ads are a waste but in a municipal election they could be a game changer.
 
Maybe I'm different but negative campaign ads bother me. Many are based in half truths and deception and in those cases I'm actually offended concluding the candidate running them thinks I'm too stupid to spot dishonesty when directed at me. I realize there are strong supporters of any candidate or party and I understand those people cheer the negative campaign ads bashing their guy's opponents but I thought ads were designed to persuade undecided voters or get people to change their minds.

There's a local ad running right now attempting to unseat an incumbent. The incumbent promised to not raise taxes. The ad claims he broke his pledge because taxes went up. Truth: the candidate did not raise taxes. They were based on property values and because property values went up, so did property taxes. If the cost of gas goes up, so will the embedded gas tax. This doesn't mean the government "raised" gas taxes.

I suspect that not many people who are members and frequent posters here on DP are in any way influenced by negative campaign ads or any campaign ads for that matter. Most of us are pretty up to date and daily consumers of politics and policy, and have a general ideological foundation, so we have a fairly solid basis for our views and aren't much swayed by the games. That, unfortunately, is not true of the vast majority of the public, voting public or not. The majority of people have little interest in politics, politicians, and even policy unless it knocks them over the head and affects them in their daily lives. As such, when they get to the point where they might pay attention, say in late September or October of the election year, they are susceptible to blatant lies and misrepresentations of candidates and their positions. It's why negative ads are very effective and aren't ever going away.
 
We're not talking the same thing. You're talking individual issues. The premise of the thread is general, sometimes subconscious, gullibility and/or skepticism.

Fair point, what I was trying to convey though is how much quicker our society is on picking up on things. To be honest, I think most political ads nowadays just fall in the background of the "noise" that is being generated by the flood of information that is being churned out daily. Honestly, most people see these ads and just numb to them.
 
Fair point, what I was trying to convey though is how much quicker our society is on picking up on things. To be honest, I think most political ads nowadays just fall in the background of the "noise" that is being generated by the flood of information that is being churned out daily. Honestly, most people see these ads and just numb to them.
In that respect I agree. Today information travels faster and the science or art behind it has more impact.
 
Do negative campaign ads work with YOU?

i hate them, and they make me want to stay home on election day. if i were a candidate, i would actively and vocally distance myself from them, and i would ask the asshole superpacs not to run them. if they continued to run them anyway, i would keep publicly asking them not to.
 
Back
Top Bottom