Study - 70% of 2012 campaign ads negative, only 9% were in 2008

David

unread,

May 3, 2012, 5:06:20 PM5/3/12

to

http://mediaproject.wesleyan.edu/2012/05/02/jump-in-negativity/

RichA

unread,

May 3, 2012, 5:10:08 PM5/3/12

to

On May 3, 5:06 pm, David <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://mediaproject.wesleyan.edu/2012/05/02/jump-in-negativity/

Romney shouldn't be overtly negative, he should be condescending, make
it look like Obama has been a disaster, but it's not his fault,
because he is SO out of his depth.

Obveeus

unread,

May 3, 2012, 5:57:22 PM5/3/12

to

"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> http://mediaproject.wesleyan.edu/2012/05/02/jump-in-negativity/

There are two simple reasons for all the negative campaigning:

1. The number of ads that are not made (or endorsed) by any candidate is
increasing and the Special Interest Groups that make them have very little
reason to be civil since their 'income' is based upon their outrageousness.

2. In 2008 there were both Republicans and Democrats running for the
Presidential office. In 2012 the race to this point has been almost
entirely about just the Republicans. Since the Republicans are specialists
in negativity...

wolfagain

unread,

May 3, 2012, 6:23:22 PM5/3/12

to

Romney should say something nice about Obama...hmm?...like he's the
best Negro President we have ever had!...that would work.

David Johnston

unread,

May 3, 2012, 6:47:55 PM5/3/12

to

No, there's another reason. Nobody seriously believes that any
candidate can make things significantly better so the key to winning is
to convince the public that the other guy will make things way worse.

Steve Newport

unread,

May 3, 2012, 8:57:06 PM5/3/12

to

From: Obv...@aol.com (Obveeus)

Since the Republicans are specialists in negativity...

--------------------------------------
SN: Start by tuning them out here.

*********************************

Steve Newport

unread,

May 3, 2012, 8:59:47 PM5/3/12

to

From: Da...@block.net (David Johnston)

the key to winning is to convince the public that the other guy will
make things way worse.

------------------------------------
SN: Or the other political party. Forget Romney. Obama should just run
against The Republicans.

*********************************

Ubiquitous

unread,

May 3, 2012, 9:50:14 PM5/3/12

to

In article <jnuv02$vv$1...@dont-email.me>, Obv...@aol.com wrote:

>Republicans are specialists in negativity...

TROLL-O-METER

5* 6* *7
4* *8
3* *9
2* *10
1* | *stuporous
0* -*- *catatonic
* |\ *comatose
* \ *clinical death
* \ *biological death
* _\/ *demonic apparition
* * *damned for all eternity

Remysun

unread,

May 4, 2012, 1:23:05 AM5/4/12

to

On May 3, 6:47 pm, David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:

> No, there's another reason. Nobody seriously believes that any
> candidate can make things significantly better so the key to winning is
> to convince the public that the other guy will make things way worse.

Or that the status quo will only continue to get worse.

We need an election campaign law to outlaw the maligning of any
candidate, subject to the approval of any candidate mentioned, or
whose image is displayed in the ad. That will prevent the release of
anything that could be libel or slander, which is crucial in the time-
sensitive frame within which an election is run. It's ridiculous that
some ads are so negative that a candidate won't put a stamp of
approval on it.

So make it that a candidate has to approve any time his name is
mentioned in a campaign ad. That will put a stop to the negativity. Or
maybe, if negative ads are so much more effective, it will force the
parties to work with each other, trading what they'll allow to be used
against each other. If they actually did that, it'd be the first
bipartisan work they've done in years.

Steve Newport

unread,

May 4, 2012, 2:47:18 PM5/4/12

to

Obv...@aol.com wrote:
Republicans are specialists in negativity...

----------------------------------------------
SN: Look at the lies they told about John Kerry.

*********************************