Could a candidate win without the misleading negative ads?

JohnStOnge · Post by **JohnStOnge** » Wed Jan 25, 2012 6:57 pm

I really wonder. I just watched a segment on the negative ads Gingrich and Romney are running against each other in Florida. Could a candidate ever win without doing that kind of stuff while the other person is doing it?

I don't think so. And I wonder what that says about us. We say we don't like it. But it obviously works. And a candidate that doesn't do it probably has no shot.

mainejeff · Post by **mainejeff** » Wed Jan 25, 2012 7:04 pm

I would agree with you on the Republican side.

JohnStOnge · Post by **JohnStOnge** » Wed Jan 25, 2012 7:13 pm

I would agree with you on the Republican side.

I can't believe you think that sort of thing is limited to one major party.

Skjellyfetti · Post by **Skjellyfetti** » Wed Jan 25, 2012 7:34 pm

Would you support more regulations on Super PACs?

JohnStOnge · Post by **JohnStOnge** » Thu Jan 26, 2012 6:24 pm

Skjellyfetti wrote:Would you support more regulations on Super PACs?

No. I guess maybe we could look at libel liability or something. But the problem, to me, isn't the approach. It's the fact that enough of the American People are influenced by it to make it effective. As soon as an ad like that comes on you know...or should know...that it's not giving an accurate perspective. But it sure looks like they work. You see polls change dramatically in association with them.

Post by **kalm** » Fri Jan 27, 2012 8:31 am

[youtube][/youtube]

Post by **Ivytalk** » Fri Jan 27, 2012 8:53 am

Why outlaw negative ads? I wouldn't dream of depriving TTBF of his livelihood.

Post by **SeattleGriz** » Fri Jan 27, 2012 9:34 am

No. Too many people are undecided, meaning they don't know shit about the candidates. They vote for whoever has the least effective negative adds against them.

Post by **TwinTownBisonFan** » Fri Jan 27, 2012 8:22 pm

Ivytalk wrote:Why outlaw negative ads? I wouldn't dream of depriving TTBF of his livelihood.

I don't work the ad side of the game.

Post by **TwinTownBisonFan** » Fri Jan 27, 2012 8:38 pm

JohnStOnge wrote:I really wonder. I just watched a segment on the negative ads Gingrich and Romney are running against each other in Florida. Could a candidate ever win without doing that kind of stuff while the other person is doing it?

I don't think so. And I wonder what that says about us. We say we don't like it. But it obviously works. And a candidate that doesn't do it probably has no shot.

Negative works. More than that - it works well.

You actually CAN win without it... it's doable... it's just hard - especially if your opponent goes negative.

There are consequences to going negative - your own negatives ALWAYS go up - so the hit has to be strong enough to justify the blowback.

Campaigns are careful - in the beginning of the race, you do your "oppo book" on your opponent - you find the damning evidence - then you go to the field with a poll - you test various messages with your target voters - "would you be more or less likely to vote for candidate x if you knew fact y"? kind of stuff. You analyze the polling data - find the hit that works best - and when the time is right... boom.

Campaigns get in trouble with these two ways... one - when you shoot your wad and fire your best bullet too soon. two - waiting too long and letting your opponent define the race - then your attack falls flat because it's outside the narrative

blueballs · Post by **blueballs** » Sat Jan 28, 2012 7:50 am

Nice post TTBF, that's some good stuff!!!

The TV ads here in central FL have been brutal on pretty much every channel over the past few days. My mailbox is full every day with negative postcards from super PACS. Gingrich's PAC is "Winning Our Future" (which is a slight variation of one of his books which was magnificient- "Winning the Future") and Romney's is "Restore Our Future." My wife is madder than a hornet at both Gingrich AND Romney for this tripe and I just shake my head at the foolishness of it all.

What is funny is that my opinion of Santorum has gone way up simply because he hasn't gone down the road of trashing the guys in his own party... nothing he did but everything he hasn't done.

I'm from the Reagan school of thought on this... don't trash the guys in your own party. The big picture goal is to evict the idiots currently in the white house, not hand him a default victory by trashing one another.

Post by **Ibanez** » Sat Jan 28, 2012 10:50 am

blueballs wrote:Nice post TTBF, that's some good stuff!!!

The TV ads here in central FL have been brutal on pretty much every channel over the past few days. My mailbox is full every day with negative postcards from super PACS. Gingrich's PAC is "Winning Our Future" (which is a slight variation of one of his books which was magnificient- "Winning the Future") and Romney's is "Restore Our Future." My wife is madder than a hornet at both Gingrich AND Romney for this tripe and I just shake my head at the foolishness of it all.

What is funny is that my opinion of Santorum has gone way up simply because he hasn't gone down the road of trashing the guys in his own party... nothing he did but everything he hasn't done.

I'm from the Reagan school of thought on this... don't trash the guys in your own party. The big picture goal is to evict the idiots currently in the white house, not hand him a default victory by trashing one another.

yup. South Carolina was the same

Post by **Ivytalk** » Sat Jan 28, 2012 11:11 am

blueballs wrote:Nice post TTBF, that's some good stuff!!!

The TV ads here in central FL have been brutal on pretty much every channel over the past few days. My mailbox is full every day with negative postcards from super PACS. Gingrich's PAC is "Winning Our Future" (which is a slight variation of one of his books which was magnificient- "Winning the Future") and Romney's is "Restore Our Future." My wife is madder than a hornet at both Gingrich AND Romney for this tripe and I just shake my head at the foolishness of it all.

What is funny is that my opinion of Santorum has gone way up simply because he hasn't gone down the road of trashing the guys in his own party... nothing he did but everything he hasn't done.

I'm from the Reagan school of thought on this... don't trash the guys in your own party. The big picture goal is to evict the idiots currently in the white house, not hand him a default victory by trashing one another.

And, knowing Mrs. Blueballs, I wouldn't want to get on her bad side!

Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums