**ATTENTION DU** There is nothing wrong with negative campaigning!!

Before I went to bed last night I posted the fact that there's nothing wrong with negative campaigning. I noticed today, when I signed on to DU, that a contingent of morons had attacked me because their ignorance has precluded them from understanding what negative campaigning actually is.

Yes, I know -- somewhere along the line you got the idea that the phrase negative campaigning refers to campaign strategies which are generally distasteful, or even beyond the pale.

Well, listen for a moment because you people haven't a clue what you're talking about. Allow me to explain:

Positive campaigning is when a candidate highlights his or her positives.

Negative campaigning is when a candidate highlights his or her opponent's negatives.

The positive and negative adjectives have nothing to do with the truthfulness or tastefulness of the strategies. A positive strategy can be just as distasteful as a negative strategy.

Not only is there nothing wrong with negative campaigning, but it is a necessary and productive part of any campaign.

Thank you for allowing me to teach you.

I think Hillary's been doing a lot of that.

In the realm of political science?

negative statements about the other candidate that are false.

into the White House.


We do not need to give McCain weapons to use against our own.

But traditionally Democrats do NOT run the kind of Rovian negative campaign Hillary is running.

If I wanted to be a Republican, I wouldnt be a registered Democrat.

We're having a special election Saturday for Hastert's old seat. You should see the fliers I get daily. Talk about negative. I also got a call today saying the Liberal Democratic candidate (Bill Foster) would raise my taxes $3900. TV ads are totally negative too. It's fun to laugh at them.

We're voting on Saturday for IL14 as well :)
I'm hoping there will be a lot of crying over spilled milk that night ;)

And Fear Mongering is okay?

There's nothing wrong with pointing out differences... It's making shit up and also HOW you go about it that matter.

Gay baiting is ok. Is that clear now?
How one goes about winning the votes of gay hating bigots is an issue to me. How candidates talk about each other, frankly I could care less. I like myself better than my competition too. But when it comes to how they talk about me and my family, that matters. On that scale Obama loses.
Oh, and the McClurkin events while vicious and pandering, were actually postive campaigning, as Obama was saying with those events 'I'm a big Christian and I am like you'. Funny isn't it?

What's good for the gander is good for the goose ...

he's been doing it.

but, yeah, if he wants to win, he will have to slime back.

Prepare to hear a lot of stuff (true or not) about Huma Abedin... and Norman Hsu, and... well, I won't get into the whole list (I even feel a little dirty just mentioning the names).

American voters, apparently, react positively to the politics of fear and smear.

They don't intend to be "mischaracterized" and that they plan to counter that "in our own way." I hope he doesn't resort to downright sliming, but he needs to be more aggressive (as John Edwards apparently urged him to do earlier in the campaign).

The determinant is to which candidate the lies are applied.

Not in the regular election

One hurts republicans
The other hurts fellow Democrats

So it makes a BIG difference

Or are you saying that candidates should either never mention the opponent's name or only speak highly (or neutrally) of the opponent?

Oh, maybe they shouldn't say anything at all?

I don't get it.

That select the best candidate, with out leaving them damaged goods.

What Hillary has done is hurt Obama, who will be the eventual winner. That's bad for the party.

But that's not what this thread is about.

Uh yeah I think the two terms are pretty self explanatory. Let me teach you... Obama's entire campaign is about voting for someone not against someone. Positive= vote for / Negative= vote against. That is what people are responding to consistently. Hillary would have done MUCH better had she not gone negative. Some how she perceived that her positives were not as powerful as Obama's negatives. Now instead of needing a double digit win in Texas she needs a double digit lead in every state.

We have our negative his name is John McCain.

Your welcome.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Everybody else has. Obama has. Quite a bit.

Now, when he discusses it, he says he was against it. Presumably he's stayed against it and the war--that's the likely assumption to be made.

But the only reason to discuss the IWR is to mention that somebody else was ... also either for or against it? No. It's discussed because in so doing he points out that HRC voted for the IWR. Voting for the IWR showed bad judgment, it was a mistake, and she needs to not just evince regret, she needs to actually apologize--if she did, that would make her damaged goods. This is also negative campaigning, and of a calibre that's not hard to miss.

It's also negative campaigning when HRC undermines BO's campaign: Yes, he says he was against it, but he hedges and says he doesn't know what he'd done given additional information. He's voted for funding for it. This is against the Iraq War? Well, yes and no. He truly is the change he wants to be, as often as he wants to be it.

To repeat: The only reason to bring up the IWR is to show that BO is better--not just good, but better, in terms of character, morality, judgment. Therein lies the negative campaigning, because he needs to show that he's better than someone, that his supporters are better than some other "someones" in general and some other "someone" in particular, and that entails showing that that someone is worse, is inferior. It doesn't "probably entail". It's an entailment.

Look, you can't be against something when the repukes do it, only to flip around and say "It's just politics" when YOUR candidate does it.

It's really very simple.

and your comeback is content free.

I don't understand why people do this.

There is negative campaigning that is reasonable.

ie - in the general election - there will be likely be ads that ask McCain to disclose information on meetings he had with lobbyists - listing many running his campaign.

This is a negative ad (and the candidate running better have disclosed her/his info). It is valid - no lies and it is making an important point.

What would be swiftboating is to do the above and make untrue charges in it making say connections to Cunningham (I'm assuming here they don't exist - if they do, this is a bad example.)

I'm just explaining what negative campaigning is.

Dear Editor (Missoulian)

Hillary needs to come clean with the voters.

For over a year, she has refused to release her 1995 and 1996 tax returns. Hillary often says candidates need to be vetted, yet she snubs the voters and refuses to let us vet her.

Hillary isn't hiding any illegal scams or lobbiest income - To the best of my knowledge.

But why is she hiding anything from the voters of Montana?

Shame on you Hillary!

(my name)
Demoractic Party member and voter

to release her tax returns is negative campaigning.

You're the first to understand. Congratulations.

For instance, the "unity ticket" folks drive me up a wall.

For them it comes down to their personal feelings about the candidates or about the desire to get along with other candidates supporters by being nice.

They seem to zero concept of the importance of

A: Having a message
and
B: Not mangling your own message

for implying that the opposition party's candidate is more qualified than your fellow dem opponent?

Is that an example of "negative campaigning" as you define it? Do you think there's nothing wrong with that?

To say that your candidate's opponent is less qualified is negative campaigning.

That's the whole thing right there.

:hi:

Quite a leap there.

tell me why you think there is something wrong with it.

For instance, why is it wrong for one candidate to refer to another candidate's voting record?

This should be fascinating.

And whom do you support (I ask because I'm curious, now that it's been alleged by posters whom I know are not trolls that it's Obama's supporters who are more likely to be cruel and obnoxious)?

To answer your question, I think certain types of negative campaigning (using your definition) are legitimate (voting record, past lies / obfuscations, etc.)... but others are not (smear tactics, fearmongering, etc.)

(Please note my ability to avoid responding to you in kind.)

with Hillary endorsing McCain over Obama?

Of course I do, but since I know what negative campaigning is, I know that bringing that crap into the discussion is... well... snide.

How is that "SNIDE"?

What does your second sentence even mean?

"Of course I do, but since I know what negative campaigning is, I know that bringing that crap into the discussion is... well... snide."

When you say "Of course I do,..." that means you actually do have a problem with her saying that? (And I didn't use the loaded term 'endorsing', I'd like to point out.)

So... does that mean it's actually not negative campaigning, since you said you think there's nothing wrong with negative campaigning?

Your last sentence employs a silly fallacy; but nice try. As you know, my point is that there is nothing inherently wrong with negative campaigning. That doesn't mean there's nothing wrong with shooting your opponent.

I'm sorry, but I really fail to see your logic here.

The whole reason I asked the fucking question to begin with was to ascertain whether or not you considered that kind of shit "negative campaigning" or beyond the pale.

I see now I will not get a straight answer no matter how kindly I ask so just fuck it.



Thanks for being obnoxious and snide for no fucking reason, really. Hope you're enjoying yourself at least.

:puke:

The negative or positive determination has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with with the tastefulness of the campaigning. Again, NOTHING.

Why can't you understand something so simple?

Why can't you be less obnoxious?

to highlight a partial truth or create a rumor to play on a nuance.

The 3am ad, not negative.

"as far as I know" is negative campaigning.

Pointing out what you perceive as a problem with your opponents health care plan is not negative.

Pointing to a business deal like Rezko or Whitewater as a reason why people should not vote for your opponent is negative.

Thank you for allowing me to teach you.

Wasn't there ever a time in your life when you took a political science course, or even a simple course in politics?

I don't understand why people don't know this.

Negativity is about perception. It's not when you convince a person to vote for you, it's about when you convince a person to vote against the other person.

The truth is not on your side. Too bad you had to be dishonest about it.

There's another definition here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_campaigning

Read it.

told you that C A T spells cat?

of negative campaigning yet you still refuse to learn?

it's quiet obvious that I'm a hell of lot smarter than you.

Let me ask you a question; how many campaigns have you worked on where you were in charge of the message?

I'm kind of curious. My guess is zero since you don't really understand what negative campaigning is.

There's a difference between a negative ad and an attack ad. The 3am ad is what we call an attack ad, but it's not negative.

Mocking your opponent "as far as I know" is what is known as negative campaigning.

It's all about perception, and a real political science course would teach you that, but not PS101. Campaign communications is more along the lines of a 200 - 300 level course. Political Science 101 teaches you how the electoral numbers work when applied to an electoral map, the primary numbers, breakdown of using polls and applying them to specific parts of the country, how polling actually works, and why demographics influence elections. It would also go over stuff you would cover in American History: Civil Rights, Federalism, Civil Liberties, and the Judiciary.

I'm not offering an opinion here.

And I never said there wasn't a difference between a negative ad and an attack ad, but the fact that you would even bring up such a thing shows that you still have absolutely no idea what's going on here.

Again, I'm only trying to teach you something. There's no opinion involved. No spin. No tricks.

Do you understand?

reliable wiki is. It's like showing up to English class with a copy of the urban dictionary.

You think people are conspiring to fool you as to what negative campaining is?

Every political science class taught in the English language is plotting against you?

Ring a bell?

and take Hillary all the way down. :thumbsup:

Obama has no choice, now.

Hillary just guaranteed that this campaign is going to be swimming in the mud. She did so just to remain afloat, but not to pull out a big win.

GG, Hillary. You just single-handedly weakened the Democratic Party for the general election.

By campaigning to religious bigots and Republicans instead of Democrats. He won SC with his wedge fest designed to use gay people as living wedge issues.
If he had not produced slanders of my people by Republican operatives, I'd be voting for him. Now I'm voting against him.
Your candidate dug a hole of pandering and crawled in, mud wrestiling with McClurkin. The only way to fight a coward in a hole is to climb in and kick his minority baiting, self righteousness pretending ass. And I've felt this way since there were 8 or 9 candidates, for many months. He started the worst of the worst, and has yet to be equaled.

These are the words of my master:
Whosoever diggeth a pit
Shall fall in it.


It was ever thus.

adversely effect ANY candidate. This is a fact. Bringing them out in a primary only hurts the candidate's (any candidate) chances in the general.

How so?

simply bringing up what you feel is negative about your opponent. That is part of it and the part that is ok. The part of negative campaigning that is morally wrong is portraying a negative aspect of your opponent that is not based on facts.

The Wikipedia entry you're citing to some here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_campaigning#Notable_examples) notes many of these examples that are morally wrong and some one could say are just bringing up a negative. Some morally wrong:

"Black baby of John McCain" slur in the George W. Bush primary campaign
Attacks against John Kerry's Vietnam service record by some Navy Swift Boat veterans of the Vietnam War.

Both of these were just flat out lying and were wrong.

So one can say negative campaigning based on truth is acceptible, while negative campaigning that is flat out lying is wrong.

Your welcome for me taking the time to teach you. Normally I wouldn't spend time explaining the nuance of an issue to a freeperishly arrogant ass such as yourself.

Guess what... People already know that.

What they didn't understand is what negative campaigning actually is.

Now they know.