|
We have been talking about Big Dig Baker’s negative campaign tactics and how we have the power to stop them. His campaign uses negative ads and robocalls because traditional thinking says they work. With the Deval Patrick campaign we can send a very clear message. THEY DO NOT WORK ANYMORE!!!
|
|||||||||||
|
How can we do that? Simple. Identify 10 supporters for the Patrick Murray Campaign by the end of July.
|
|||||||||||
|
Deval Patrick and Tim Murray are committed to the grassroots of this campaign. The Governor has made this pledge to us: “Everyone who identifies 10 new supporters in the last 10 days of July will be invited to an exclusive organizer party at my home. It is the least I can do for you all, who are taking time out of your busy schedules to help our campaign.”
|
|||||||||||
|
So let’s get to work!
|
<
p>Is that positive campaigning?
Why, yes, that was his responsibility – if the shoe fits, John…
I used to think talking about yourself was positive but talking about the other guy was negative. Lying is just lying.
<
p>From WIKI…
<
p>
…”referring to negative aspects of an opponent” – they are outright lies and fabrications, as has been shown many times on this forum. Calling him Big Dig Baker, OTOH, is accurate and truthful, he was responsible for the financing plan for the Big Dig. Is it negative? By the WIKI definition, I guess it is, because it accentuates a negative aspect of Baker’s candidacy – but at least it’s truthful.
But in my mind, speaking about the other guy is negative while talking about what “you” can do is positive.
<
p>And using that guideline, I think it’s funny to start a post about “Ending negative campaigns” while you do some of it within the post itself (truthful or not).
“Big Dig Baker” is a passing reference in this diary, whereas the RGA ads, being entirely about either Patrick or Cahill and not a word about their own candidate, are negative. Personally I don’t like them. Our side doesn’t do them that often and part of the reason I became a Democrat is that the GOP generally goes negative first. The occasional exception (Deeds in VA last year and Hodes in NH this year) generally doesn’t work well for Democrats.
I have to ask. Are you drinking the cool aid again?
<
p>
Typically you see more of these PACs on the right funding negative ads than the left. Think of Club for Growth, Freedom Works, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, etc etc.
Neither side has cornered the market on virtue. And I don’t care where the ad came from it was a negative ad.
Notice I DID refer to the Republican Governors Association above and not the Baker campaign – credit (or blame as the case may be) where such is due. Although RGA IS an official party organ. While neither side is completely innocent the two sides are nowhere close to balanced in this regard either. BTW I should buy Kool-Aid stock for you as a gift since you seem to like it so much; it would be nice if you debated occasionally rather than throwing mud at a perfectly fine beverage:)
<
p>Actually Kool Aid is for children.
There have been several cycles where I have counted ads on websites and TV and have compared the number of positive, comparative, and negative ads of each side. I did this just to make sure it wasn’t simply a feeling I had and it amazed me how often Democratic ads talked about Democratic candidates while Republican ads talked about (wait for it) Democratic candidates. This is my own research so I have no other source on this. Kool-Aid may be for children, but it would be nice if you grew up!
Do you always change the topic when caught making an error or misstatement?
Martha could have used this advice.
<
p>Oh, and I second JohnD’s comment.
Large parts of public opinion hates controversy. They want everyone to agree. They want bipartisanship. They want an “end to the bickering”.
<
p>But that’s a wish not for this world: conservatives and liberals have very different values. We have sharp differences on policy. We’re going to disagree. A lot.
<
p>Given that, negative campaigns aren’t going away.
<
p>Instead, what’s worrying about Baker’s campaign is its breeziness with the truth, its appeal to commonly held misconceptions.
Drawing distinctions is part of campaigning. Illustrating them is necessary for candidates to ‘make their case’. Sometimes distinctions involve not what one does ‘right’, but also what the other guy does ‘wrong’. Call that negative if you want I suppose. For my part, the ‘negative campaigning’ I’m sick of isn’t the drawing of distinctions but rather the attempt to do so in ways that stretch the truth of draw distinctions that are less than intelligent. Locally, for example, I find the distinction that Chris Doherty ‘prosecuted criminals’ while Eileen Donahue ‘defended them’ to be a less than intelligent distinction. Sure it’s a distinction, but not one that matters since a reasonable defense is something everyone is entitled to. Distinctions that call Muslims who had a mosque near ground zero and want a new one ‘jihadists’ is an outright lie, which I like even less. Buchanan explaining to conservatives in NH that George H. W. Bush raised taxes where he wouldn’t isn’t ‘negative’ to me (however misguided). Similarly, explaining that Cahill has a history with the financing issues of the Big Dig isn’t particularly negative… neither is pointing out Patrick’s issues with charter schools. As long as you aren’t actually distorting the truth, I don’t see a problem. Being negative in a deliberately dishonest way,… yeah that’s negative campaigning in my book.
My understanding is that negative campaigning can be very effective, but very difficult to do successfully. Too hard, too forceful or unfair and it backfires. To me it’s usually a turn off, as are “scare tactic” campaigns, on either side.