What is negative campaign ads?

[Billnew]

I heard people talking on a radio show about what
they considered negative campaigning.

What in your oppinion is negative campaigning?

 

[Conspiracy Theory]

Playing the Hillary cackle...

 

[Billnew]

Playing the Hillary cackle...

If I had a Dr Pepper , would have spit it all over the room.

 

[trunks2k]

I generally consider a negative campaign ad to be an ad that attacks irrelevant points about the opposing candidate (be they personal attacks or what have you) or stretching the truth about somebody's voting record. It's even more of a negative ad when they use negative imagery (black and white) and scary sounding voice overs to imply how bad a candidate is.

 

[Conspiracy Theory]

If I had a Dr Pepper , would have spit it all over the room.

Hillary Clinton is laughing at you!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPcqy0pvdsI&NR=1

 

[Billnew]

I generally consider a negative campaign ad to be an ad that attacks irrelevant points about the opposing candidate (be they personal attacks or what have you) or stretching the truth about somebody's voting record. It's even more of a negative ad when they use negative imagery (black and white) and scary sounding voice overs to imply how bad a candidate is.

Stretching the truth is what politicians do best.
Stretch it their way or away from their opponent.

I do think some points called negitive ads, are really
a good application specific to a candidate. But the relevance must be included in the ad, or it is a negitive ad. Even if the relevance isn't observed by the viewers,
if reasonable, I would say it was an attempt at not being negative.

I don't know if "theatric editing"(scary voice and picture
modification) would be negative ads, IMO.
But I'll accept your opinion.
Like Morphing faces of someone not liked into the face of your opponent, Its just fluff, and if people decide on this type of ad, they aren't very inteligent.

 

[trunks2k]

Stretching the truth is what politicians do best.
Stretch it their way or away from their opponent.

Yes, but that doesn't make it right. I'm more referring to ads that say sometihng like:

*evil voice*
"Billy Joe-Bob voted twenty times for higher taxes! He doesn't care about lowering taxes"

When the ad is referring to the same bill that was voted down, and the bill was to lower taxes to an unreasonable level for the uber rich.

 

[Deadbolt]

Negative campaigning is when you show your opponent talking in slow motion in black and white next to a montage of underlined news clippings to the sound of dreary music and a gravelly voiced narrator. Then cut to you in living Technicolor™ to sound of upbeat elevator music (usually with an American flag in the background, but steelworkers or homeless children will do just as well)
Then finally "Vote (Your name here) in '08, Making a difference, because it's time for a change, because we care about our children's future!"

Jah, liek dat.

 

[TheReasoner]

All of the above. A political campaign should - unless an opponent is known to be corrupt - be about the candidate. Not his opposition. I find campaigns that focus on the opposition to be childish, not to mention very indicative of poor policies from the person behind the campaign.

If you a company or politican is sure of his own policies or products it seems like a diversion from flaws, insecurities or inferiorities in one's own product or policies.
Frankly, I don't tend to respect slander.

 

[Billnew]

I believe showing the difference between candidates is a good platform, but how far to go could be negitive.

Sample:
"My opponent's stance on education is x, I oppose that
direction because of this...." a good ad pointing out the difference between candidates.

"My opponet voted 10 times against school choice and allowing parents to choose who can teach your kids.
I support allowing you to decide who can teach your
kids best."
Can be a ploy to make the candidate look bad when they might have had good reason to vote against the bill.
Taking a definite issue stance for an opponent, and make your position clear. Not negitive.

The press seem to call lots of things negitive, but so far it seems we tend to think alike.

 

[utdbear]

Anything where Hillary talks is a negative campaign ad.

 

[TheReasoner]

Anything where Hillary talks is a negative campaign ad.

Why?
Because she doesn't vehemently oppose free abortion?

 

[Billnew]

Why?
Because she doesn't vehemently oppose free abortion?

I am guessing but could it be?

*evil voice*

I prefer Hillary to talk unscripted. Lets people see her real side.

 

[HumbleMan]

A negative campaign ad is one designed to bring attention to your opponents (alleged) shortcomings.

I don't care what you think of so and so, but I do care about what you say you are going to do. Tell me about yourself, and I'll investigate the others.

We just had a bad election time here in MS. Negative ads aired probably 7-8 times more than positive ones, and in most cases, the ads played fast and loose with the truth.