• 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!

"I'm Joe Schmoe and I approve this message"

Do you believe candidates have nothing to do with negative ads?

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No

    Votes: 15 100.0%

  • Total voters
    15

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,576
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
"I'm Joe Schmoe and I approve this message"

Ok, but about when Joe Schmoe doesn't approve the ad? What about when it's a fiercely negative ad with a disclaimer at the end that says something like, "This as is produced by 'People Against the Other Guy' and is not reviewed or approved by any candidate"?

Do you believe that?

I do not. Call my cynical, but I believe that even the most negative ads are pretty much always reviewed and/or approved by the candidate that is opposite the one being slammed. The one they want to look good in comparison. I know the history behind this point in political campaign evolution, but IMO nothing has changed. It's still candidates running negative ads, but now with plausible deniability to cover their arses.

And really, unless the candidate comes out and specifically disavows the ad, AND seeks to correct it, they've given complicit approval, anyway.
 
I've volunteered with enough campaigns here in NH that I know for a fact the candidates most certainly do know about, and approve of, the ads that are attack ads on the other guy. It's a "wink wink I know what you're doing but I'll stay out of it" mentality. It's BS all around, on both sides.
 
Nor do I believe there's no "collaboration" between campaigns and PACs, etc.
 
Of course they approve them.
Joe Schmoe admits to having approved the ad, made by "Citizens for a Better Tomorrow" or perhaps "People who love warm puppies". The real money hides behind these made up names, however.
 
I've never understood why we haven't seen attack ads done by people, in the name of other candidates, to make those candidates look bad. As long as we allow "independent groups" to do ads, why hasn't anyone tried making an ad, attacking another candidate, calling them all kinds of racist, sexist or whatever names, then flashing a picture of the person you really want to destroy, as though they were pushing them for election and saying "brought to you by the Committee for Stupid Racist Jerks".

Come on, tell me they haven't already thought of this.
 
I've never understood why we haven't seen attack ads done by people, in the name of other candidates, to make those candidates look bad. As long as we allow "independent groups" to do ads, why hasn't anyone tried making an ad, attacking another candidate, calling them all kinds of racist, sexist or whatever names, then flashing a picture of the person you really want to destroy, as though they were pushing them for election and saying "brought to you by the Committee for Stupid Racist Jerks".

Come on, tell me they haven't already thought of this.

Because it wouldn't be allowed on TV.
 
Because it wouldn't be allowed on TV.

Why not? Maybe not as blatant as I described, but why couldn't independent groups go out and smear a candidate while pretending to support that candidate?
 
"I'm Joe Schmoe and I approve this message"

Ok, but about when Joe Schmoe doesn't approve the ad? What about when it's a fiercely negative ad with a disclaimer at the end that says something like, "This as is produced by 'People Against the Other Guy' and is not reviewed or approved by any candidate"?

Do you believe that?

I do not. Call my cynical, but I believe that even the most negative ads are pretty much always reviewed and/or approved by the candidate that is opposite the one being slammed. The one they want to look good in comparison. I know the history behind this point in political campaign evolution, but IMO nothing has changed. It's still candidates running negative ads, but now with plausible deniability to cover their arses.

And really, unless the candidate comes out and specifically disavows the ad, AND seeks to correct it, they've given complicit approval, anyway.

Perhaps the candidate himself may not coordinate anything, but you know the wink, wink, nudge, nudge I am going to do this for you has been passed.
 
Perhaps the candidate himself may not coordinate anything, but you know the wink, wink, nudge, nudge I am going to do this for you has been passed.
"let us handle it, you keep your hands clean".
 
I've never understood why we haven't seen attack ads done by people, in the name of other candidates, to make those candidates look bad. As long as we allow "independent groups" to do ads, why hasn't anyone tried making an ad, attacking another candidate, calling them all kinds of racist, sexist or whatever names, then flashing a picture of the person you really want to destroy, as though they were pushing them for election and saying "brought to you by the Committee for Stupid Racist Jerks".

Come on, tell me they haven't already thought of this.

It's most likely been done already. Why not? Every other dirty trick in thebook has been pulled. All's fair in love and war, and political campaigns are war.
 
Back
Top Bottom