I’m no authority on what makes an ad negative, but I thought I knew it when I saw it. For example, I think the consensus would be that Mihos’ cartoon is a negative ad, right? Willie Horton? Swift Boat Veterans?
Because I have not actually seen any Healy ads, I’ll even step back from any assumptions about those and ask: How negative do you think the campaigns have been, and what behavior crosses the line between positive and negative?
Do you think Deval pointing out negative ads from the Healy camp constitutes “going negative”, even if you think he’s right? If that’s the case, how do you run a “positive” campaign without being a punching bag for the opposition, your hands tied to respond in any way?
It seems to me that assertions of negativity are for the campaigns to make, and not for the Globe to pass summary judgment on, when all they have is one campaigns word, and unless they employ some widely-held standard. Whether the Healy campaign believed Patrick would run a positive campaign or not, theyre prepared to cry negative at any opportunity. I think hes made an honest effort to stay positive, and if this ad is their first and best opportunity, its confirmation to me that hes accomplished that so far.
There are lots of folks out there who claim to be turned off by politics because of the negativity of politicians. But if no one stands up for the candidate whos honest, direct, and takes the high road — or even makes the effort in contrast to his/her opponent — then that becomes a losers game, and we shouldnt expect anything better than what we get.
I saw this Patrick ad, and I do consider it negative and disappointing. It emphasizes Healey’s faults more than his own assets.
<
p>
There is no indication that people — disgusted as they might be — resist the messages of the negative ads. So the answer to the question is that there probably is no way to be successful without your own negative ads, because they work. Although Deval might have been able to do it here because there are other ads against Healey.
<
p>
Maybe something worth trying would be ending an ad with a tagline like “Another POSITIVE ad from Deval Patrick”, but making no other mention of the opposition.
<
p>
I hope the Patrick campaign will return to the substance, candor and depth that got it this far.
<
p> – Dan
I can see this point. I think that when Patrick says “My opponent is part of the failed politics of Beacon Hill“, that was the negative part. If he didn’t say that, I don’t think you could call it a negative ad. I think that negative ads ads are ads that distort an opponent’s position.
<
p>
For example, let’s say that one candidate wants to raise the minimum wage, the other doesn’t. This would be two examples of negative ads:
<
p>
“My opponent wants to destroy small businesses by raising the minimum wage”.
<
p>
— or —
<
p>
“My opponent wants to keep working families mired in poverty by opposing an increase in the minimum wage”.
<
p>
It’s not negative to highlight the difference between the two positions, but a non-negative way to say it would be:
<
p>
“I favor increasing the minimum wage because I believe it will reward working-class people for the work they perform for us, and because studies show that minor increases in the minimum wage improve local economies. My opponent is opposed to an increase”.
<
p>
— or —
<
p>
“I do not favor increasing the minimum wage because I believe it will place undue burdens on local businesses, and will not have much of an impact on the poor working class person. My opponent wants to increase the minimum wage”.
<
p>
That said, I think that Kerry Healey’s campaigning has been exceedingly negative. Calling your opponent “soft on crime” is purely negative. Saying that “people who support your opponent want to repeal Proposition 2.5” is purely negative. Her supporters are doing everything they can to paint Patrick into a frame that people associate negative things with — how many times have you heard them utter “Dukakis”?
Is there a good term to distinguish accurate ads about your opponent from ads specifically about yourself?
<
p> – Dan
That’s a good question to ask, and I don’t know the answer. It seems like it should matter whether you are being accurate or not, not just whether you are being polite. I don’t think it should automatically mean you are being negative just because you mention you have an opponent, and point out differences in style, approach, philosophy, etc.
I’ve always thought that an ad was ‘negative’ when you use negative value terms: bad, wrong, mistake, stupid, etc.
<
p>
These are also value terms. What is ‘bad’ to one person is not always bad to the next. It depends on their values what is bad and good, right and wrong.
<
p>
For example, Healey is a republican. That is bad. It’s bad because of my values, which do not fit a typical republican view of what is good.
<
p>
If Patrick said “Healey wants to lower taxes, and that’s wrong” that is a negative statement.
<
p>
If Patrick said “Healey wants to lower taxes, and I don’t, because in her proposal, X and Y services will lose money, and I want to keep those services how they are because they help A and B.” is not a negative statement. No value terms, much more factual.
<
p>
It’s all in the language…
Your term might be ‘context’ since you are talking only about subject matter and not whether that subject matter is positive or negative.
In my opinion, this misframes the issue. Negative ads are not ipso facto bad. They’d better not be. Democrats need to run against the Iraqi occupation (in other parts of the country at least) and need to emphasize the need to provide oversight for an incompetent and overreaching administration. Try doing that “positively”.
<
p>
I think the problem is we have too much advertizing that’s trying to get viewers to say things of the sort “All I know is that X is for Y”. The phrase “All I know” usually introduces a resentment of some sort or other, and frees the speaker from the obligation to learn more about the issues or the race. That’s what leads to government by sound bite, i.e., where well-staged promises about Katrina or getting Bin Laden dead or alive can upstage rebuilding New Orleans or protecting chemical plants. “All I know is George Bush is tough. . .”
<
p>
Consider how much better our country would be with a Democratic Senate majority. Now think about how you would run Whitehouse’s campaign againt Senator Lincoln Chafee. Chafee’s a nice guy with good positions on lots of issues. A positive campaign would be ineffective — and bad for our country.
By the globe’s definition, mentioning your opponent is considered a ‘negative ad’
<
p>
Patrick should focus on his vision, the combo of credibility, achievements and diversity that Patrick/Murray bring, and a few specifics they want to effect in office. I think part of his primary victory surrounded the fact he didn’t address his opponents via ads.
<
p>
Meanwhile, the Globe is being overly conclusory and must be simply bored.
Neener neener neener! 😛