Pardon me for stating the obvious, but it seems like virtually EVERY campaign ad is negative this time around. I'm not sure I've seen a single spot that actually highlights the accomplishments of the campaigner during the last month or so. Every one of them goes something like this:

 

(Insert name here) did/did not (insert offense here) (X) number of times. He/she needs to go/needs to be stopped.

 

It gets worse every election cycle. Both sides do it; I guess the school of thought now is that positive messages don't change minds, only negative ones.

I heard someone talking about this and they were saying that the negativity of today's elections is much milder than it has been in the distant past. That must have been awful.

Actually I wanted to post a comment on this subject in it's own thread but will do it here.

 

Geoff Davis is being blasted for voting himself a raise after only 6 months on the job. My understanding is that if you want to give a raise to federal judges, workers, etc, that Congress is included in that figure. If that is correct, I get tired of the opponent giving only half of the information in the attempt to make their opponent look one way in which he is not. I am wrong on how that is figured?

 

Also, I commend Bradley Vaughn and Jay Delaney for their positive campaign. They are running for a Judge positioin here in Harrison, Pendleton County. I have read nothing but why you should vote for them and their accomplishments rather than any mention of their opponents.

There are a few exceptions (such as the above mentioned in post 3), but I am of the opinion there is only negative campaigning because they have nothing positive to say even about there own agendas... which is sad.

There are a few exceptions (such as the above mentioned in post 3), but I am of the opinion there is only negative campaigning because they have nothing positive to say even about there own agendas... which is sad.

Much easier to pull someone down to a level than raise yourself up to a higher standard.

:thumb:

Much easier to pull someone down to a level than raise yourself up to a higher standard.

There are a few exceptions (such as the above mentioned in post 3), but I am of the opinion there is only negative campaigning because they have nothing positive to say even about there own agendas... which is sad.

 

 

Well said bugatti...

I have found myself watching less tv and not listening to the radio during this time because of these ads.

It's like watching a bunch of children fight over a toy....what is sad is the children could actually resolve their issues unlike most politicians!!!

I would love to line up EVERYONE of these candidates in a line, walk past each one of them and give them each a nice tap across the head!!

Well said bugatti...

I have found myself watching less tv and not listening to the radio during this time because of these ads.

It's like watching a bunch of children fight over a toy....what is sad is the children could actually resolve their issues unlike most politicians!!!

I would love to line up EVERYONE of these candidates in a line, walk past each one of them and give them each a nice tap across the head!!

One word.......TASER!!!!!

I heard someone talking about this and they were saying that the negativity of today's elections is much milder than it has been in the distant past. That must have been awful.

 

 

Here's a website I found that talks about some on different levels.

 

http://www.reason.com/0611/fe.dm.the.shtml

 

 

These don't even include the 1828 campaign where Quincy Adams' backers portrayed Andrew Jackson's wife as a "[adulteress]" because they had been married illegally before the divorce was final from her previous marriage. After Jackson won the presidency his wife died of a heart attack I believe, making him bitter for life towards his enemies.

One word.......TASER!!!!!

 

 

:ylsuper: :ylsuper: :ylsuper: :ylsuper: :ylsuper: :ylsuper:

In addition to limiting campaign spending, it should be against the law for any political ad to contain the name or likeness of the advertising candidates opponent. As already mentioned, it is too easy for a candidate to only share part of the story in an ad.

Here's a website I found that talks about some on different levels.

 

http://www.reason.com/0611/fe.dm.the.shtml

 

 

These don't even include the 1828 campaign where Quincy Adams' backers portrayed Andrew Jackson's wife as a "[adulteress]" because they had been married illegally before the divorce was final from her previous marriage. After Jackson won the presidency his wife died of a heart attack I believe, making him bitter for life towards his enemies.

That is an interesting little read.

Let me put in another plug for lawyers:

 

You see very little negative campaigning for judicial positions because there is an ethical rule that forbids judicial candidates from making comment upon political issues or matters likely to come before them.

 

Now, last year, the U.S. Supreme Court held that that ethical rule was unenforceable and violated the 1st Amendment.

 

Despite this, most judicial candidates seem to be engaging in "gentleman's agreements" not to make campaigns negative. The only exception appears to be the John Roach and Mary Noble campaign.

A candidate in a local judicial race came around handing out flyers last weekend. The flyer was the transcript of a disciplinary order against his opponent. It went into the trash along with his chances for my vote. Tell me what you can do, not what your opponent has done.

I've heard so many TV campaign ads this year... And they do absolutely nothing other than bash the opponent.

 

I know everything Ken Lucas is for and against, but I don't even think I know his opponent's name? When you mention your opponent more in your ads than you mention yourself and your beliefs, it's a setup for disaster.