Holy crap, campaign attack ads

[FlashLackey]

The ads are not targeted at the typical Democrat, who no matter what will vote Democrat and will go to the election, same with typical Republican voters. The ads are targeted at the large portion of swing voters who voted for Bush or a Republican candidate and who is not even really convinced to vote for Democrats but wants to teach Republicans a lecture. These voters now become insecure and end up saying "O well, politics is a dirty business. I better keep my hands clean. No matter what I vote for they are all the same. I don't go voting. May be it even rains or is cold."
When people are apolitical Republicans win. That is why they are interested in keeping the large population stupid.

prove it. thats all im asking. otherwise we're writing childrens fantasy books here.

[when senate democrats criticize the administrations decisions, they're doing something good. when republican organizations criticize democrats running for election, they're keeping the large population stupid. is that what you're saying?]

[Frets]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...ws/persuaders/

[Loyal Rogue]

[when senate democrats criticize the administrations decisions, they're doing something good. when republican organizations criticize democrats running for election, they're keeping the large population stupid. is that what you're saying?]

No.
I think that's something of a distortion while avoiding the basic premise.

If I'm not mistaken, what CI is referring to is based on the fact that when there is more voter turnout, democractic candidates usually win.
Like me, I'm sure you've come across a number of people who are disgusted by how dirty politics can get and would rather stay away than to try and choose between two guys they perceive as both being slimy.
Therefor, one tactic for republican success is to surpress total voter turnout.
As he stated, there's not much that's going to discourage the truly partisan voters on either end of the spectrum, but if the majority of swing voters don't show up at the polls it takes away the democratic edge and then makes it more of a run between who's more effective at energizing their "base".
When it comes to that, I think we can all agree that the repubs are much better organized than the dems.
What's that old joke?
"I'm not a member of any organized polictical party... I'm a democrat."

(Although most of the political analysis I've heard in the last few months has been focused on how republican voters are expected to be discouraged and stay home this election due to the laundry list of scandals that have been exposed lately. It'll be interesting to see what the exit polls show this time around, eh?)

Btw, if you can find it, I'd be interested to see a current breakdown of total registered voter affiliation in the US.
I Googled but couldn't nail the right search terms.

As for proving anything... I'm not sure it's possible anymore... any and every source that can be used can also be argued to be biased one way or another by anyone.
When even ABC, aka "The Liberal Media", is airing fraudumentaries on Clinton and 9/11 and is even engaging in their own form of political censorship by refusing to run commercials for The Dixie Chick's movie then who can you trust anymore...?

[FlashLackey]

I dont know. I think that your point is different than the one CI made. I think its pretty clear that his point is that critical Republican campaign ads are designed to keep the "large population stupid" and discourage voter turn-out.

It amazes me how people can be so convinced they are right about something that they're willing to accept such bad arguments in their favor. Campaign ads are put together by various groups and are tailored for specific regions, political climates and other circumstances. The organizations that fund and produce them are often times supporters of a candidate but not being run, managed or told what to do by the candidate, let alone some giant conspiracy network encouraging "mass discouragement" efforts.

The idea that, by criticizing their opponent in the medium of the age, Republicans are trying to discourage voting in general is absurd. Pointing out the reasons why your candidate is better suited and change is needed because of the other guys mistakes is as old as politics itself.

If anything is causing the large population to be stupid about politics, it's a decline of journalistic standards brought on by crap internet articles.

(back to your point, LR. I'm not sure what the historical pattern of turnout vs. party victories are in elections. but, turnout in 2004 was the same as in 1992 and the Republicans won. i dont believe its true that larger turnout helps Democrats. i do believe that Democrats often rely on over-sampled polls and become flabbergasted when the real numbers add up. i think its happening again this year.)

[hurricaneone]

Positive, 'I did this, so vote for me' ads only illicit a 'Well you should have done that anyway, that's what I'm paying you for' response from most viewers. Not the best return for your money.

Tarring your opponent with the 'crook' or 'idiot' brush makes sense both in the message and at voting as the elctorate hate corruption (fat cats getting rich at their expense) and won't tolerate fools - well, there are exceptions to this one, obviously.

[gerbick]

I personally don't get why the shock though. It's nothing major... it's like the fist fights at the Japanese or British Parliament. It happens. The politicians are largely people I'd really never trust anyway - spending millions of dollars campaigning for a job that pays thousands... I've said it in the past. It doesn't make sense - and above all, they tend to not truly know what's going on at a local level as is the case with the local government here and in places I've travelled in the past.

Shrug. Dunno. Maybe this is one of those "US under a microscope" moments that really doesn't affect me for a lot of reasons. I've seen bar-room brawls in Parliaments where I thought that they should have been ashamed, and people reacted like it was just another Tuesday Night Fight instead.

[swampy]

factcheck.org is on it already, but I doubt many people who vote will bother to get the facts.

Study after study shows that no matter how much people say they dislike negative campaigning it works.

that's because positove campaigning means actually having to think about polices

[gerbick]

that's because positove campaigning means actually having to think about polices

Can't have that.

[Loyal Rogue]

Campaign ads are put together by various groups and are tailored for specific regions, political climates and other circumstances. The organizations that fund and produce them are often times supporters of a candidate but not being run, managed or told what to do by the candidate, let alone some giant conspiracy network encouraging "mass discouragement" efforts.

What evidence leads you to believe that???
If you really believe that the republican party isn't extremely organized and interconnected between their right-wing "universities", strategy think-tanks, 527's, and political leaders then you are either deluding yourself or you haven't been paying attention...

The organizations that fund and produce those ads do not operate in a vacuum.
In most cases they are simply ways for political leaders to skirt campaign finance laws via a separate entity and/or to create deniable plausibility when it comes to the really vile mud-slinging.
Let's not forget that we're talking about an organization that has created the largest comprehensive "Voter Vault" database in history that targets potential voters down to their CVS purchases and magazine subscriptions, and let's not forget that this is the same organization that coined the term, "Talking Points Memo" and is able to get every party leader and every rightwing media pundit repeating in lockstep the same exact spin within 24hrs, and let's not forget this is the same organization that had no ethical or lawful problem with paying for fake news stories and propaganda against their own citizens to further their own political agenda, and finally let's not forget the images from the last election of democratic precincts that were so shorted on voting machines that it created 8-10 hour waiting lines... if that's not voter surpression, I don't know what is...

If ayone really believes that promoting a simple and basic strategy of voter surpression is beyond the abilities of the republican organization, or beneath their ethical limits, or that they are too naive to be able to think of it on their own, then to repeat, they are either deluding themselves or they haven't been paying attention... or perhaps they're only interest is in pushing a particular political agenda... hmmmm.

If anything is causing the large population to be stupid about politics, it's a decline of journalistic standards brought on by crap internet articles.

I partially agree with you on that statement, but I wouldn't blame it on "crap internet articles".
Instead, I would blame the decline on the loss of diversity in the media.
Once the government paved the way for a small handful of big corporations to own and control all of the media outlets, and once they killed the fairness doctrine of equal time on the public airwaves, they opened the door to unchecked bias in the information and education of the public at large.

(back to your point, LR. I'm not sure what the historical pattern of turnout vs. party victories are in elections. but, turnout in 2004 was the same as in 1992 and the Republicans won. i dont believe its true that larger turnout helps Democrats. i do believe that Democrats often rely on over-sampled polls and become flabbergasted when the real numbers add up. i think its happening again this year.)

Perhaps we're talking about two different animals here.
I was not referring to "over-sampled polls" which are taken ahead of time from people who could change their minds or not show up at the polls.
I was instead referring to "Exit Polls" which are only taken from voters who have just voted and are so accurate that they are used by our government and watchdog groups to discover election fraud in third world countries, and which have never been "wrong" in American election history... except during the last election where republican-owned voting machines delivered the republican win exactly as the voting machine maker's CEO guaranteed at a republican fundraiser before the election... hmmmm.

In all seriousness, those of us here have a better understanding of computers than most and it would be extremely ridiculious for us to equate "real" numbers with the numbers tallied on machines that have little to no security, have been proven to be hackable within 60 seconds, are sent home with pollworkers before the election, have built-in code that allows vote totals to be flipped, has built-in code "bugs" that during the last election caused vote totals to be counted backwards (in heavily democratic precints) after a "limit" was reached, and were manufactured by a company who's CEO was so publicly outspoken in his partisanship that he guaranteed they would deliver a republican win.
Given those circumstances can you honestly say you would be comfortable voting on those machines if you knew they were owned and manufactured by extreme democratic partisans?

[Ultima Designs]

Just FYI, as a staffer from the biggest Senate race in the country -- there are a lot of media consultants in the industry who would disagree with the findings posted from the University of Virginia.

And the notion that more voter turnout results in a Democratic win is false. The 2004 election marks this best. The record turnout in 2004 resulted in big gains across the board from Republicans - more governorships, more state legislator majorities, an increased majority in both the House and Senate, and a Republican Presidency. It's my job to work in this area, and the question anymore is: how can we best get our voters out on Election Day? They can be Republicans, Democrats, or Independents - so long as they support our candidate. And the fact is, the Republican get out the vote effort is just far superior to the Democratic one. That's why the Republcan Party was so successful in 2004.

[TallGuyLittleCar]

What evidence leads you to believe that???
If you really believe that the republican party isn't extremely organized and interconnected between their right-wing "universities", strategy think-tanks, 527's, and political leaders then you are either deluding yourself or you haven't been paying attention...

members of kerry's campaign also worked for move-on.org. It goes both ways, which is why i'm voting independent... even for a chick that is affiliated with the green party.

[Loyal Rogue]

That's why the Republcan Party was so successful in 2004.

Yes, that combined with an unprecedented level of election fraud proved to be extremely successful for the republican party in 2004.
No arguement from me.

[Ultima Designs]

Look, if you buy into that, that's fine, good for you. Not worth arguing about it here...it never goes anywhere, anyway.

[cancerinform]

Just FYI, as a staffer from the biggest Senate race in the country -- there are a lot of media consultants in the industry who would disagree with the findings posted from the University of Virginia.

And the notion that more voter turnout results in a Democratic win is false. The 2004 election marks this best. The record turnout in 2004 resulted in big gains across the board from Republicans - more governorships, more state legislator majorities, an increased majority in both the House and Senate, and a Republican Presidency.

But now its different. Many particularly independent, even Republican voters are so turned off by Republican policy and by all the recent money and sex scandals that they would not vote republican. So the strategy is to discourage them from voting at all.

Regarding some negative ads from republicans are just fakes, for example the NY scandal where somebody by mistake dialed an XXX rated number, because the actual number to dial was so similar. It costed the taxpayer $1.15.

[Loyal Rogue]

In reality it has nothing to do with "buying into" anything.
There were far too many discrepancies in the last election to be ignored and the main indicator of election fraud that is used around the world, failed in the 2004 U.S. elections.
It just amazes me that any red-blooded American couldn't care less whether our elections are honest so long as their party got into power or stayed in power.
I would think that anyone who seriously doubted that it happened would be the most interested in a full investigation to prove otherwise... yet the party in power has done everything it can to block any investigation.

[Ultima Designs]

Look, I'm not sure where you're getting that information, but I can tell you with 100% certainty because I am doing exactly the kind of voter-outreach work that you describe there is no effort being conducted by any major campaign, any Republican State Committee, or the Republican National Committee to discourage anyone from voting. Quite the opposite, in fact, is true.

[TallGuyLittleCar]

In reality it has nothing to do with "buying into" anything.
There were far too many discrepancies in the last election to be ignored and the main indicator of election fraud that is used around the world, failed in the 2004 U.S. elections.
It just amazes me that any red-blooded American couldn't care less whether our elections are honest so long as their party got into power or stayed in power.
I would think that anyone who seriously doubted that it happened would be the most interested in a full investigation to prove otherwise... yet the party in power has done everything it can to block any investigation.

gee I wonder why the dems through in the towel so early, the must be in on it considering the legal resources they have to contest elections.

[cancerinform]

"You're going to see more of this sensational, off-the-wall stuff," Iyengar said. "If you get people disgusted, they might withdraw from politics, and that's the real goal these days."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...aignads28.html

[Ultima Designs]

Interesting, but political pundits say a lot of things. Doesn't make them true.

[cancerinform]

Interesting, but political pundits say a lot of things. Doesn't make them true.

I definitely agree to that

However, I am just telling what I read and hear at various places. I cannot give any proof for that, that is also true.

We will see after Nov 7. This thread will stay warm.