According to a Wesleyan University study og 900,000 media airings in 2010, "...Democrats are using personal attack ads at a much higher rate than Republicans and at a much higher rate than Democdrats in 2008..."
The study is subtitled "...Dem Strategy Likely Driven by Desire to Draw Attention Away From the Policy Environment"
If you're just another headline-only reading Conk, this may give you a hard on. However,........
I don't believe it and would like to see wider research. Here's why - I'd like to see studies on the "nastiness" of political ads. In this, no matter the number of ads, theirs are considerably more personal, intrusive and smothered in hate than those of Progressives.
Re: Dems More Likely to Attack Personally
Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 6:55 am
by 89Hen
Cap'n Cat wrote:
If you're just another headline-only reading Conk, this may give you a hard on. However,........
I don't believe it
Well then, it must not be true.
Re: Dems More Likely to Attack Personally
Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 7:00 am
by Gil Dobie
89Hen wrote:
Cap'n Cat wrote:
If you're just another headline-only reading Conk, this may give you a hard on. However,........
I don't believe it
Well then, it must not be true.
Forgive him hen, he's a donk zombie.
[youtube][/youtube]
Re: Dems More Likely to Attack Personally
Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 7:01 am
by GannonFan
Cap'n Cat wrote:
If you're just another headline-only reading Conk, this may give you a hard on. However,........
I don't believe it and would like to see wider research. Here's why - I'd like to see studies on the "nastiness" of political ads. In this, no matter the number of ads, theirs are considerably more personal, intrusive and smothered in hate than those of Progressives.
Come on Cat, sometimes it is what it is. I wouldn't doubt that historically, the party that is going to be on the losing end tends to get more personal and more desperate as the inevitable election loss looms. I'm sure the GOP was the party more likely to attack late in the run-up to the '06 and the '08 elections. When a loss gets closer to reality, the more deperate people become. Dems aren't any different from the GOP in that respect.
Re: Dems More Likely to Attack Personally
Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 7:15 am
by Cap'n Cat
GannonFan wrote:
Cap'n Cat wrote:
If you're just another headline-only reading Conk, this may give you a hard on. However,........
I don't believe it and would like to see wider research. Here's why - I'd like to see studies on the "nastiness" of political ads. In this, no matter the number of ads, theirs are considerably more personal, intrusive and smothered in hate than those of Progressives.
Come on Cat, sometimes it is what it is. I wouldn't doubt that historically, the party that is going to be on the losing end tends to get more personal and more desperate as the inevitable election loss looms. I'm sure the GOP was the party more likely to attack late in the run-up to the '06 and the '08 elections. When a loss gets closer to reality, the more deperate people become. Dems aren't any different from the GOP in that respect.
I'm not disputing numbers of ads, Ganny, I'm calling out the ferocity of the ads. Conks are demonstrated Neanderthals when it comes to this, no matter what the year. The Conks haven't let off Obama since he was elected - insulting billboards, radio ads, television. Very few, if any, Dems went that far with Bush. It's simple ConkHate.
Re: Dems More Likely to Attack Personally
Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 7:19 am
by 89Hen
Cap'n Cat wrote:I'm not disputing numbers of ads, Ganny, I'm calling out the ferocity of the ads. Conks are demonstrated Neanderthals when it comes to this, no matter what the year. The Conks haven't let off Obama since he was elected - insulting billboards, radio ads, television. Very few, if any, Dems went that far with Bush. It's simple ConkHate.
Holy shit, how big are the blinders you wear? You didn't see people all over the place with hate stickers on their Subaru's about W's last day, A village in Texas is missing it's idiot, Meet the Fuckers, Not MY president, etc... I had NEVER seen such a blatant disrespect for the office in my years.
Re: Dems More Likely to Attack Personally
Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 7:26 am
by Cap'n Cat
89Hen wrote:
Cap'n Cat wrote:I'm not disputing numbers of ads, Ganny, I'm calling out the ferocity of the ads. Conks are demonstrated Neanderthals when it comes to this, no matter what the year. The Conks haven't let off Obama since he was elected - insulting billboards, radio ads, television. Very few, if any, Dems went that far with Bush. It's simple ConkHate.
Holy shit, how big are the blinders you wear? You didn't see people all over the place with hate stickers on their Subaru's about W's last day, A village in Texas is missing it's idiot, Meet the Fuckers, Not MY president, etc... I had NEVER seen such a blatant disrespect for the office in my years.
NOTHING like what's happened to Obama, Hen, and you know it.
Re: Dems More Likely to Attack Personally
Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 7:27 am
by travelinman67
89Hen wrote:
Cap'n Cat wrote:I'm not disputing numbers of ads, Ganny, I'm calling out the ferocity of the ads. Conks are demonstrated Neanderthals when it comes to this, no matter what the year. The Conks haven't let off Obama since he was elected - insulting billboards, radio ads, television. Very few, if any, Dems went that far with Bush. It's simple ConkHate.
Holy shit, how big are the blinders you wear? You didn't see people all over the place with hate stickers on their Subaru's about W's last day, A village in Texas is missing it's idiot, Meet the Fuckers, Not MY president, etc... I had NEVER seen such a blatant disrespect for the office in my years.
Big difference, Hen. W was a genuine moron, compared to Obama, who's simply a socialist whose mission is to destroy American capitalism, productivity, free market, and oppress entrepreneurial spirit.
How could anyone hate that?
Re: Dems More Likely to Attack Personally
Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 7:28 am
by 89Hen
Cap'n Cat wrote:NOTHING like what's happened to Obama, Hen, and you know it.
It is very different. You're referring to very fringe groups, I'm referring to Joe Democrat.
Re: Dems More Likely to Attack Personally
Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 7:50 am
by Cap'n Cat
travelinman67 wrote:
89Hen wrote:
Holy shit, how big are the blinders you wear? You didn't see people all over the place with hate stickers on their Subaru's about W's last day, A village in Texas is missing it's idiot, Meet the Fuckers, Not MY president, etc... I had NEVER seen such a blatant disrespect for the office in my years.
Big difference, Hen. W was a genuine moron, compared to Obama, who's simply a socialist whose mission is to destroy American capitalism, productivity, free market, and oppress entrepreneurial spirit.
How could anyone hate that?
Generalizations get you nowhere, T.
Re: Dems More Likely to Attack Personally
Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 7:51 am
by Cap'n Cat
89Hen wrote:
Cap'n Cat wrote:NOTHING like what's happened to Obama, Hen, and you know it.
It is very different. You're referring to very fringe groups, I'm referring to Joe Democrat.
Respect your thinking, but we disagree.
Re: Dems More Likely to Attack Personally
Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 7:52 am
by grizzaholic
Cap'n Cat wrote:
travelinman67 wrote:
Big difference, Hen. W was a genuine moron, compared to Obama, who's simply a socialist whose mission is to destroy American capitalism, productivity, free market, and oppress entrepreneurial spirit.
How could anyone hate that?
Generalizations get you nowhere, T.
Pot...have you met Kettle?
Re: Dems More Likely to Attack Personally
Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 7:53 am
by Gil Dobie
89Hen wrote:
Cap'n Cat wrote:NOTHING like what's happened to Obama, Hen, and you know it.
It is very different. You're referring to very fringe groups, I'm referring to Joe Democrat.
Some of the Hilary Supporters were also responsible for Obama bashing.
Re: Dems More Likely to Attack Personally
Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 8:00 am
by travelinman67
grizzaholic wrote:
Cap'n Cat wrote:
Generalizations get you nowhere, T.
Pot...have you met Kettle?
Cap's criticism holds no water. Everyone here knows I can provide specifics until the cows come home...
...but don't need to in this case. Only a fool would dispute Obama's policies and regulatory actions are wholly anti-business.
Oh, wait, "...only a fool..."
Re: Dems More Likely to Attack Personally
Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 8:03 am
by Cap'n Cat
travelinman67 wrote:
grizzaholic wrote:
Pot...have you met Kettle?
Cap's criticism holds no water. Everyone here knows I can provide specifics until the cows come home...
...but don't need to in this case. Only a fool would dispute Obama's policies and regulatory actions are wholly anti-business.
Oh, wait, "...only a fool..."
You can't provide shit but specualtion, conjecture, opinion and rumor, Dorf. Typical ConkHate crap you've been posting for ages.
Re: Dems More Likely to Attack Personally
Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 8:04 am
by Cap'n Cat
grizzaholic wrote:
Cap'n Cat wrote:
Generalizations get you nowhere, T.
Pot...have you met Kettle?
We're all pots and kettles, Jethro.
Re: Dems More Likely to Attack Personally
Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 8:06 am
by grizzaholic
Cap'n Cat wrote:
grizzaholic wrote:
Pot...have you met Kettle?
We're all pots and kettles, Jethro.
Ok
Re: Dems More Likely to Attack Personally
Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 8:18 am
by Cap'n Cat
Hey, I can't keep up with you guys today. You're too smart and I have an infection in my wrist that is KILLING ME. I surrender for one day to your Conk majesty, wisdom and elan.
Re: Dems More Likely to Attack Personally
Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 8:53 am
by kalm
"A village in Texas is missing it's idiot"
Re: Dems More Likely to Attack Personally
Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 7:55 pm
by native
Gil Dobie wrote:
89Hen wrote:
Well then, it must not be true.
Forgive him hen, he's a donk zombie.
[youtube][/youtube]
Re: Dems More Likely to Attack Personally
Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 8:04 pm
by SeattleGriz
Finally my CS.Com history paid off the other night.
Commented on a gals Facebook post in which it was a photo of Bush, in which he was saying, "I screwed you all over, but thanks for blaming the black guy".
Was joking around when I posted that black guy was a racist term.
The lone lib came out of the woodwork to proceed and spew venom about Republicans and GDub.
Well, it didn't take me long to point out that Mr Caring was still carrying a grudge against a man who was President over 2 years ago. Not to mention, I ripped him a new one on the mortgage crisis and what really happened.
Thank you CS.Com for honing my skills and making me the man I am today.
Fucking lib folded like a pussy.
Re: Dems More Likely to Attack Personally
Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 11:54 pm
by CID1990
Not sure why it should be a surprise that people who are supposedly more ruled by emotion and empathy would have a higher incidence of personal attacks.
Vulgarity and hyperbole are the refuge of those who cannot make a substantive argument.
Re: Dems More Likely to Attack Personally
Posted: Sat Oct 30, 2010 5:35 am
by Cap'n Cat
SeattleGriz wrote:Finally my CS.Com history paid off the other night.
Commented on a gals Facebook post in which it was a photo of Bush, in which he was saying, "I screwed you all over, but thanks for blaming the black guy".
Was joking around when I posted that black guy was a racist term.
The lone lib came out of the woodwork to proceed and spew venom about Republicans and GDub.
Well, it didn't take me long to point out that Mr Caring was still carrying a grudge against a man who was President over 2 years ago. Not to mention, I ripped him a new one on the mortgage crisis and what really happened.
Thank you CS.Com for honing my skills and making me the man I am today.
Fucking lib folded like a pussy.
What, you want a medal, Seattle?
"Und I reeped zee libural just as Herr Rush commanded me."
Re: Dems More Likely to Attack Personally
Posted: Sat Oct 30, 2010 6:23 am
by TheDancinMonarch
CID1990 wrote:Not sure why it should be a surprise that people who are supposedly more ruled by emotion and empathy would have a higher incidence of personal attacks.
Vulgarity and hyperbole are the refuge of those who cannot make a substantive argument.