About Negative Advertising

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

Negative advertising can backfire in primaries.

Negative advertising does not backfire in general elections. Candidates who are behind are likelier to go negative, so most negative advertising is done by losers, but noting that negative candidates tend to lose confuses cause and effect. (Most NFL single game passing/receiving records were set in losses because when you’re behind you have to keep throwing long passes.)

The primary/general difference is that the pool of voters in a primary is, on average, favorably disposed to all the candidates, and primary voters sometimes have more than two options. (Gephardt’s negative ad war against Howard Dean in Iowa2004 benefited John Kerry and John Edwards, who were innocent bystanders.)

General elections are almost the opposite of primaries. Primaries are decided by voters choosing like-minded candidates they really like. General elections are decided by indifferent voters choosing what they perceive as the lesser of two evils.

Again… ALL competitive general elections are decided by a stratum of voters in the middle who don’t like either candidate.

A negative ad makes an in-play voter dislike both candidates. If you watch a negative ad against Obama and feel GOOD about it you are already a certain McCain voter, and visa versa. The people who complain the most about negative ads on either side are not persuadable voters.

When McCain runs an ad against Obama he is hoping to gain a McCain vote, but is happy to merely discourage someone from voting at all if she MIGHT vote for Obama.

The opinions of non-voters are IRRELEVANT.

The opinions of decided voters are IRRELEVANT.

Advertising is aimed at a narrow and unrepresentative slice of the electorate, and those folks do not vote out of pity. Almost nobody votes for A (in a general election) *because* B was so mean to A.

It has been written about 10,000 times here that certain tactics employed by Clinton in the primaries “did not work.” Nothing could be further from the truth. We are back to the illusion cited at the beginning—-the fact that losers go negative doesn’t mean going negative makes you lose or doesn't move numbers. Hillary initially thought she could win without pissing off anybody. Only when her position became hopeless (February) did she become sharply negative, and it worked well. She became hated (rather than merely disliked) by some folks who weren't planning to vote for her anyway, but her fortunes did improve. People need to remember that as of March 1st it was doubted that she would ever win another primary, let alone win most of them.

Also, it is folly to say a tactic doesn't work in the general because it didn't work in a primary. The primaries demonstrated, at most, that McCain's tack wouldn't prevail if everyone in America was a Democrat. Well, yeah...

(The Japanese Kamikazee pilots in WWII have been denigrated as a failed tactic because… well, because Japan lost the war. In actuality, had Japan adopted the Kamikazee in 1941 they would have won the war unless America followed suit. The Kamikazee was a major technological leap-frog, inventing the cruise missile a generation before its time, and Kamikazes did incredible damage to American ships in relative terms—compared to what the same plane could have done if the pilot survived. The Kamikazee was exactly the sort of ugly extreme desperation measure that works, but that no one adopts until they have already lost.)

Negativity doesn’t always win, but it always seems to move numbers.

It is one of life’s mysteries why some campaigns THINK they cannot go negative. If Walter Mondale had run ads saying, “Ronald Reagan is Senile and will blow up the world,” would Mondale have lost 50 states instead of only 49?

The $64,000 question is, of course, “How do you counter negative advertising?”

The answer is simple but not easy: be liked. If people’s impressions don’t match the ads then their impressions are decisive.

So no negative ad can really be countered in specific. Contradicted? Yes. Disproved? Sure. But the sound of the bell cannot be unrung.

It can, however, be drowned out.

McCain says, “Obama’s a light-weight.” Nobody thinks any actual voter on the fence accepts the ad as evidence, let alone as conclusive. Either way, it’s an opinion, not a fact. The idea is to prime people to assess future information through the “light-weight” lens.

Negative ads use narrow charges to raise broad questions, and answering the specific charges made in an ad is largely a waste of time.

It’s defensive and appears weak, and often has the opposite effect. In politics the act of rebutting charges legitimizes the charges. (As Lyndon Johnson famously said, “At least make the son of a bitch deny it.”)

In fact, lying about your opponent can be more effective than offering equally damaging truths. Your opponent is likelier to take the bait when it’s a lie, and that keeps the story going.

In tactical day-to-day terms negativity can be countered quite well by more negativity, but not on the other guy’s established playing field.

When McCain launches some shit, the tactical response should be to take him down hard on some UNRELATED matter, so you don’t reinforce the frame McCain is seeking to establish. (And don’t sound like a child in an “Is.”, “Is not” argument.)

McCain: You want to lose the Iraq War. (Framing the war in terms of winning and losing.)

Some politicians want to be right… win every trick. Kerry or Gore would demonstrate with precise logic that the charge is false and that their Iraq strategy is better for America. Unfortunately, that’s bad politics. After the third paragraph of explanation the persuadable voter starts to think there must be something to the charge… why else is it taking so long to explain?

McCain: You want to lose the Iraq War.

Obama: America deserves better than a politician implicated in the Keating five scandal.

McCain turns red in the face and screeches that he was exonerated… EXONERATED DAMMIT!

Now the question is why McCain is freaking over some scandal… seems to have touched a nerve. He must have something to hide.

That response has the benefit of changing the subject and being somewhat unfair. The evening news is then “What was the Keating five scandal?” instead of, “Does Obama want to lose the war?”

The thing is, there is no upside to leading the news with “Does Obama want to lose the war?” Even if the piece concludes that Obama doesn’t want to lose the war, there’s no benefit to it.

The question is not whether Obama CAN defend himself against the charge he wants to lose the war.

The question is, “Since this is what John McCain wants to talk about, why should I want to talk about it? Let’s talk about something McCain doesn’t want to talk about.”

The tactical back and forth is not about winning arguments, as Kerry and Gore seemed to think, but about programming the evening news.

And again, to understand the flow of this stuff it is vital to remember that all of this back-and-forth is irrelevant to anyone who already knows how she intends to vote. 80% of the electorate is now irrelevant to the entire campaign process.

And the remaining 20% cannot be persuaded by debate. They are all about intangibles, symbols and atmospherics.

They have no idea who is wining a debate on points, but they can sense who is on the defensive.

[Whisp]

1. awesome read. thank you. rec.

[danielet]

18. RACE RACE OR TRUTH ABOUT SCUMBAG MCCAIN

Dem "PolitPros" in 2004, as soon as they started to lament their preisential candidate's defeat, began to diefy Karl Rove. Why?

Because PolitPros, like Commissars in the old Soviet World, are amoral "victory-is-everything" types and, since Rove won, Rove is the new Politico Olympics God, whatever his means to victory!

Now these kind of low-lifes, having created Bill Clinton and GW Bush, are creating McCain aggressively and, those few in the Obama camp, sit bitting their fingernails wondering how do you defend their *BLACK* candidate in a race race?

YET THOSE IN MCCAIN'S CAMP WHO RELISH A RACE RACE AND THOSE IN THE OBAMA CAMP WHO FEAR ONE DO NOT TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THAT NOT TOO LONG AGO ALL THESE FAT, MIDDLEAGED, VIAGRA ADDICTED, WHITE BOOMERS WHO SEE THIS AS A RACE RACE, WOULD HAVE VOTED FOR GENERAL COLIN POWELL WITHOUT BATTING AN EYELASH. WHY? BECAUSE POWELL DIDN'T CARE ABOUT POLITPROS, HE SPOKE TO PEOPLE STRAIGHT....AND WHEN YOU SPEAK TO PEOPLE STRAIGHT, THEY DON'T NOTICE YOUR SKIN, ONLY YOUR EYES AND THE WORDS COMING OUT OF YOUR MOUTH.

OBAMA HAD THE SAME EFFECT AS POWELL ON SO MANY WHITES AND BLACKS THAT HE COULD BEAT HILLARY AND BILL'S RACE RACE. BUT AS HE RAN FOR THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN-- UNDER THE ADVICE OF THE POLITPROS-- HE BEGAN TO SOUND "WOBBLY."

THAT'S WHEN PEOPLE BEGAN TO NOTICE OBAMA'S SKIN COLOR!

BUT IT IS NOW TOO LATE? NO WAY!

Obama can save his favorable standing by sticking to the issues and hammering home on what must be CHANGED and expose what McCain had been a part of as a Republican.

THE REST OF US DEMS must be ready to expose McCain as a "scumbag"-- a good Republican term brought into the politics lexicon by a Republican Congressman, Dan Burton of Indiana. Now many of Burton's own fellow Republican Congressment are in or on their way to jail and many quit as Congressional influence peddling became more transparent because of rules the Dems brough to Congress since 2006 prove what we FORMER REPUBLICANS knew for years: that the Republican Party is a scumbag party and anyone who runs on its banner MUST be a scumbag.

But don't argue that case on mere rage, for you will then only be slandering McCain. INSTEAD TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT MCCAIN WHOSE WHOLE LIFE IS THAT OF AN IRRESPONSIBLE GREEDY HEDONIC FRAUD, covered by his father's name (sounds like Bush?)....MCCAIN IS A MAN WHO WOULD TAKE US FROM A "C" PRESIDENT TO A "D" PRESIDENT. BUSH HAD BRAGGED THAT HE IS LIVING PROOF THAT A "C" STUDENT CAN BECOME PRESIDENT....SO IS MCCAIN GOING TO UP-HIM-ONE BY PROVING THAT A "D" STUDENT CAN BE PRESIDENT?

So don't get tangled in the race issue. It is not a real issue. BUT THE CAMPAIGN WILL BECOME A RACE RACE ONLY IF OBAMA CAN'T PROVE THAT HE IS TEN-- REPEAT, TEN-- TIMES THE MAN MCCAIN IS AND THAT HIS PARTY IS HONEST AND PRINCIPLED, ESPECIALLY WHEN COMPARED TO THE BAND OF CROOKS THAT CALL THEMSELVES REPUBLICANS.

IT IS UP TO MCCAIN TO PROVE THAT HE-- THE REPUBLICAN STANDARD BEARER-- IS NOT A SCUMBAG LIKE THE LAST REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT AND THE PARTY THAT NOMINATED HIM. AND IT IS UP TO US DEMS-- EVERYONE OF US-- TO PROVE TO OUR FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS THAT MCCAIN IS EVERY BIT THE SCUMBAG THAT HE...AFTERALL, HIS SCUMBAG PARTY WOULD HAVE NEVER CHOSEN HIM....BUT WE MUST PROVE IT AS IF WE WERE IN COURT, ONLY WITH FACTS, TRUTH AND HONEST ARGUMENTS!

While McCain asks: WHAT HAS OBAMA EVER DONE? we can leave it to Obama to answer AND to argue for his policies. So long as Obama talks straight and honest-- the way that made him and Powell so popular despite both being black-- this will not be a race race...And then it will be up to us to prove that by electing McCain the American people are putting America into the hands of hidden forces and foreign interests....something that McCain would have no trouble doing, again, in his desire to die President of the USA.

Remember, the US Navy Admiralty refused McCain the promotion he craved because it did not deem him leadership material. So he switched to politics, thinking that would be an easier ride that he could fake more easily. ITS UP TO EACH AND EVERYONE OF YOU DEMS TO PROVE-- *ONLY THOUGH TRUTH*-- THAT MCCAIN IS STILL NOT LEADERSHIP MATERIAL. THAT'S WHY THE MCCAIN CAMPAIGN IS CAMPAIGNING SO DIRTY-- TO KEEP YOU ANSWERING THEIR STUPID CHARGES ABOUT OBAMA (TRYING TO MAKE THIS A RACE RACE THE REPUBLICANS CAN WIN) SO THAT YOU NEVER GET AROUND TO FOCUSSING ON MCCAIN'S PROVEN INABILITY TO LEAD, never mind to bring change as leader of the Scumbag Party!

So stop obeying the PolitPros and use your common sense to open the eyes of your friends and neighbors to why the McCain Republicans are trying to make this a race race.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

19. Spam... it's not just for breakfast anymore!

[danielet]

25. SPAM or SUBSTANCE?

Why don't you PPPPLLLLLEEEEEAAAASSSSEEEE deal with the substance. It is not spam but a message placed in one place originally and, after reading the thread, placed in another because it seemed just as appropriate there. I can't type so I try to make my point through re-post...That's not spam, I'm not trying to sell you anything, I'm SERIOUSLY shouting FIRE, FIRE, FIRE IN THE HOUSE....It's not spam if you fell "watch out" more than once, it is only a desperate loving desire to save you from becoming the victim of defeat.

[Occam Bandage]

27. No, it's spam.

[cliffordu]

28. Yep, spam, spam, spam, spam....

[ms liberty]

30. But I don't like Spam! n/t

[FrenchieCat]

2. Maybe we should be busier defending Obama,

instead of making this a spectator sport with analysis....while Obama fights the Republicans, McCain, the RW media, and the Corporate Pundits.

Did you know that one could write letters to the Editor via the Obama site these days?

As well as you write, we could use your skills to help us win the election. How about it?

[scarletwoman]

3. Excellent post! You've really laid out a very compelling case -- much appreciated & rec'd.

I especially love the bit about bringing up the Keating 5 scandal -- brilliant!

I think your analysis is spot on. I can only hope/wish someone in Obama's campaign reaches the same level of understanding.

Thank you for your exceptional post.

sw

[Political Heretic]

4. Negative ads DO backfire if they are done too early

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

6. In a general election? No such thing as too early.

Negative ads are meant to shape perceptions going forward. So it is never too early to define someone.

The thing is, if someone gets to define himself as a great guy then subsequent negative ads won't work.

(Comments refer to presidential elections. Local elections are different. More issue oriented, and more people actually know the folks involved.)

[Political Heretic]

8. I disagree.

People have short term memories. They are influenced greatly by the latest "wave" of media. Typically, a particular media campaign has a shelf-life of about two weeks before it needs to be almost completely refreshed from the ground up.

This doesn't have anything to do with differences between local elections, state elections, or national elections. This is sociology.

Obama has the money to dominate the media in the home stretch - McCain doesn't. McCain blowing his wad in July is TOO EARLY, and the best thing Obama can do about it is NOT get into a media buy spending war with McCain now, when he can absolutely outspend by three to one or more McCain when it matters.

These ads aren't about defining someone. Obama's already been defined. Your theorizing about the wrong stage in this process. One of the huge disadvantages to the McCain campaign was that the long primary, combined with the sheer charismatic power and eloquence of Obama means Obama has gotten to define himself. You hear the McCain campaign concede this almost daily... they have to accept Obama's definition as the change candidate and can only attack the kind of change he represents (or try to).

They can't shake his definition as an inspiring visionary, or charismatic and eloquent, their attempt to paint him as weak on foriegn affairs failed, and Obama has defined himself as a man more than equipped to work on the international stage, which is why the McCain campaign had to once again scramble to try to find some other attack tactic.

Everything the McCain campaign is doing is about late game attacks, not opponent defining attacks. The defining process, with some help from a media enamored with the impressiveness of his story and primary-underdog status, has already occurred.

McCain is running late game attack ads against a candidate who has won the definition race and he's running them too early because its all he's got left to try to keep this thing from turning into a blowout before he even makes it to the convention.

Meanwhile, Obama, who does not NEED to spend massive amounts of money defending against a campaign that looks so haphazard and disjointed this early, is raising ungodly sums of money - 100,000 donors YESTERDAY ALONE, 33,000 NEW donors.... and is poised to completely DOMINATE paid media post convention and through the home stretch... right about the time where McCain will be broke trying to compete.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

10. But defined to whom?

I agree that we are late stage for everyone in the country except for precisely the group that decides all contested elections.

I am only interested in the thin slice of persuadables, and I don't think either candidate is defined to that specific cohort.

And McCain's recent efforts strike me as broadly definitive stuff... they seem to rely on an almost metaphysical absence of information. Flat statements of identity. They are literally saying, "This person who you know little about is X, Y and Z" rather than playing on past actions or current positions.

The fact that Obama has 100% name recognition doesn't mean he isn't a cipher in character terms to those few voters who are potentially in play.

[kennetha]

11. Again spot on observation.

I actually think McCain's two "celebrity" ads are pretty effective. They are granting Obama's celebrity status and turning it against him quite effectively, by pretty directly stating that there really is nothing behind his celebrity except celebrity -- not a long history of accomplishment, not a record of make tough choices and decisions and living with the consequences, not any tests under fire ....

Now I'm not saying that he needs to have these things in order to be an effective president or to get elected. But I do think that McCain and his cohort are dong a pretty effective job of framing one their main issues about Obama for the persuadable and inattentive voters who will decide this thing.

[Political Heretic]

13. I disagree with that as well.

We are both talking about persuadable but McCains current strategy - if it can even be called that - fails on many levels with that very group.

First, it is a media strategy - because that's all McCain's got. He's a bumbling, fumbling idiot and a terrible campaigner in person. The best counter to a media character attack strategy is NOT a counter media attack strategy - its an outstanding ground game, which is EXACTLY WHAT OBAMA HAS IN SPADES!. Yes, you do ultimately have to respond to media with media, but about the time it really matters, when media buys really stick with the targets, Obama will be outspending McCain exponentially, and in all the time leading up to that, he'll be kicking McCains ass on the ground (which he is already doing).

People meet McCain on the campaign trail and get an uninspiring, bumbling, seemingly inept rambler. They meet Obama on the campaign trail and opinions after meeting him have always, always, always gone up dramatically since the very beginning of his primary run. Persudables walk away convinced that McCains hysterical grasping attack ads have no connection to the person they just met and listened to.

Then you combine that with one of the best ground teams EVER assembled, that literally outstaffs McCains campaign four to one - and you get a win.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

15. Gotcha. I don't disagree with any of that.

I am not suggesting McCain's current tack is likely to result in victory. Merely noting why it is effective within the limitations of what it is.

In broader campaign terms, McCain is crippled every way you look at it, and is probably going nowhere.

But he has dictated the terms of the news cycle all week, which is always a noteworthy accomplishment, even if it doesn't mesh with any larger strategy. That tactical method is all I was really thinking about.

[Political Heretic]

16. Gotcha as well.

:hi:

[KittyWampus]

22. you mention ground game and forget election fraud and voter purges. You forget that people vote

for the perceived winner.

[Political Heretic]

36. I haven't forgotten anything.

There's nothing I can do about election fraud. The potential for a stolen election doesn't change appropriate election strategy.

[GoesTo11]

35. The McCain strategy is to keep McCain out of view!

They just have ads with at most an old photo of McCain, an announcer, and lots of Obama. No speeches since his disaster the night Obama clinched the nomination. Appearances before crowds of 3 people at grocery stores. McCain could end up humiliated at the end of this race - if he does, it's his own fault.

[Political Heretic]

39. I know but that only works in the summer.... come fall, he can't hide.

And I agree.. it'll be a mess for him.

[KittyWampus]

21. McCain is barely spending money. The Mediawhores are airing his crap. You are WRONG

McCain is the devil we know and his negatives can go as high as whatever.

In the end, persuadable voters will vote for the devil they know and back away from the guy who appears weak.

Obama is presently losing to McCain in foreign policy and may possibly lose the election to McCain in foreign policy.

Obama had a chance to nail McCain for politicizing the troops. By NOT demanding an apology, Obama let a prime opportunity to damage McCain's perceived weakness AND a chance to tie him to Bush's politicizing the Justice Dept and all Govt.

Give us all several examples of when negative ads lost a candidate an election. You won't be able to.

[Political Heretic]

38. I'm not wrong.

You are, in fact, wrong that McCain is barely spending money. The "mediawhores" you refer to are cable news. Do you know what their vieweship is? I hate to break this to political junkies, but NO ONE WATCHES CABLE NEWS! ESPECIALLY DURING THE SUMMER.

John McCain IS spending money on media buys. Lots of it. And what's more he has less money to begin with, and can't raise as much as Obama can. So all my points remain true. While McCain is throwing his kitchen sink now and BARELY MOVING OBAMA Obama is responding (even though you're not listening) but largely biding its time, to dump three times the media buy on McCain in the home stretch at a point where McCain literally can not keep up with Obama in a spending war.

Obama is losing to McCain in foreign policy? What a laugh. His foriegn trip was pure gold, and McCain's attacks against him looked weak and infantile.

Obama didn't "have" a change to nail McCain for politicizing the truth he HAS a chance to nail him. Instant-gratification-no-campaign-experience couch commandos what him to attack instantly. The rest of us know what he's doing. We've already seen quite clearly that he IS very capable of instant responses, quick defenses when attacked. He's done it in the past. Right now I am extremely glad he's smart enough to wait to respond until there is a bigger audience - not in the middle of summer when only about .0000001% of the political-nerdery is even watching.

These things don't suddenly go away -- the best time for Obama to make these counter-punches would be on live television during the DEBATES and subsequently in the four weeks before elecation day as part of his 3 to 1 media spending ratio to the McCain campaign.

Several examples of when negative ads lost a candidate an election? George Bush Sr. and Bob Dole spring immediately to mind. Were you too young to remember those?

[calimary]

5. Superb strategery here! Kicking so others won't miss it.

We have to start thinking like chess players. AND thinking in terms of Perception Management.

[islandmkl]

7. great analysis...

i would also suggest that the timing of any attack/response it critical to the controlling of the situation...not all attacks need to be met with the same type of response, let alone immediately...

much like boxing...the 'distraction' punch negates the 'planned' punch, sometimes for immediate effect, sometimes to set up the 'big hit'...

as frustrating as this election ad war is so far...it is early...and it appears that Obama and his crew have a little 'rope-a-dope' game plan for m.c.johnny...

see: rumble in the jungle

On this day in (October 30)1974 in Kinshasa, Zaire, 32 year old Muhammad Ali knocked out 25 yead old George Foreman and regained the World Heavyweight Title. "The Rumble in the Jungle was a fight that made the whole country more conscious," Ali wrote at the time. "The fight was about racial problems, Vietnam. All of that." Above all the fight was a demonstration of Ali's inventiveness in the ring. After dazing Foreman with his trademark quickness in the first rounds, Ali fell back against the ropes, and waved Foreman to come get him. Protecting his head, Ali let Foreman pound away at his ribs and his gut. "At about the seventh round, I had him beaten, I knew I had him," Foreman recounted after the fight. "He fell on my side and whispered, ‘Is that all you got George?’ I knew something strange was happening in my life especially because that was all I had." In the eight round Ali came off the ropes and unleashed a fury of punches against his exhausted opponent. The dope went down. "I did it," Ali boasted after the fight. "I told you he was nothing but did you listen? I told you I was going to jab him in the corners, I told you I was going to take all his shots. I told you he had no skill. I told you he didn't like to be punched."

[KittyWampus]

24. Boxing analogies are inoperative. Boxing has referees and judges. Politics has a biased media

[kennetha]

9. Wow!

That was very good, very hard-nosed analysis. Send this to the Obama campaign. This is the kind of stuff that I come to DU always hoping to find -- but I'm mostly disappointed at the level of thought and analysis even from my fellow dems.

(By the way, I really do think Bill and Hillary saw exactly this coming. But that's another issue.)

Thanks for the great, great read.

[Labors of Hercules]

12. excellent. well-reasoned. SPOT ON.

:thumbsup:

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

14. addendum: (After editing period)

"That response has the benefit of changing the subject and being somewhat unfair."

The point about lies and unfairness is that a false charge, or unfair charge, is more newsworthy.

Listen carefully to good politicians. They go out of their way to stretch a statement until it rides up to the edge of (or over the edge of) being a lie.

Two points:

1) You want a statement to be true enough to stand by but outrageous/controversial enough TO BE ON THE NEWS. Debating the truth of a statement is talking about it, and that advances the broader intent.

2) Making a slightly unfair or slightly untrue charge puts the question to your opponent. Do you want to keep this alive by pointing out the little lie in it, or let it drop? It's lose-lose. The thing is, if the lie is ambiguous your opponent will sound like a kook if he makes a big deal out of it. Now he's the petty one.

"My opponent missed 50 votes last session." What if the real number is 47, not 50? Any candidate will look like a fool saying, "That's a lie, I only missed 47 votes!"

So saying 50 instead of 47 is a taunt... giving the other guy a chance to make a mistake.

[Political Heretic]

17. That's what Obama did with "McCain plan gives x billions of breaks to Bil Oil"

It was a taunt... its technically true, but McCain isn't giving specific subsidies to big oil, but through his tax breaks to business in his plan, Big Oil would benefit....

McCain can't respond to that. He can't say "that's not true" because technically it is true - someone would say "oh so you're saying that Oil Companies will continue paying the same tax rate under your plan?" And he can't say "well its only true insofar as I want to give major breaks to wealthy investors and big business - because in the end, he still said its true, which Obama would play in ads from now till christmas (even after winning - just for kicks) :)

[wildflower]

34. Excellent posts. How would you apply this to "Obama won't say the surge worked"?

It has been repeated so many times that it is likely to be in voters' minds at this point. Do you think this issue matters to the middle slice of voters?

[KittyWampus]

20. NEVER explain yourself in politics. Someone accuses you of X, you bring up opponents Y

Obama's campaign missed a golden opportunity. They should have forced McCain to apologize for politicizing the troops in Germany.

McCain's real strength is his perceived foreign policy/military history. Obama could have level a huge ass-kicking on McCain AND tied him to Bush's politicizing the Justice Dept.

Obama would have been seen as standing up for the TROOPS.

And there's nothing even negative about that. Standing up for oneself and the troops is actually quite positive.

[ProSense]

23. Did McCain run over someone's dog in Alabama?

more

[Occam Bandage]

26. This needs more recs and more eyeballs.

[ruggerson]

29. Recommended

n/t

[bklyncowgirl]

31. Negative campaigning is as old as elections--it works

There was a guy who put up a whole bunch of ads claiming that the burglars and prostitutes of their city supporterted his opponent. The city was Pompeii right before the big volcano blew.

[geek tragedy]

32. You don't score touchdowns by playing defense.

They need to attack McCain.

Now.

[Impedimentus]

33. Excellent post!

One of the best I've seen here. Negative advertising works, it is used to define a candidate to a specific group of voters as pointed out in the post. The "take the high road", the "expert political strategists know what they are doing", "don't worry be happy", "McCain will destroy himself" posts are nothing but naivete and wishful thinking; they represent a mentality will give the Democrats another Kerry disaster this November. The negative ads seem disgusting and/or stupid to many here, but they are effective with the segment of the voters mentioned in the post; defense won't work with these people and the Roveians know this.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

37. And it is under-appreciated the degree to which negative ads are meant to suppress votes

It is always in someones' interest for turn-out to be lower.

McCain gains if people are disgusted with politics in general. It is sometimes "worth the hit" to look like a clown if it makes your opponent look like a clown also.

[KharmaTrain]

40. Gramps Is Fighting To Keep His Base

You are very correct about how negative advertising works more effectively during a general election and that many who are now "offended" have already decided. In this case, Gramps going negative so early shows his weakness not against Obama, but within his own party.

Just look at the buzzwords and dog whistles we saw this week...it was messages tailored more for dittoheads than "low information voters"...to show Gramps had "spunk"...that he was one of "them"...cause he still hasn't closed that deal. With his poll numbers still stagnant in the low 40s (he needs over 45 to have a shot), he needs to both pump up his numbers and bring down Obamas...through a combination of energizing his "base" and demoralizing Democrats who are fearing the "sky is falling". It's not.

If you're going to go negative, you need to first establish yourself and then to find ONE big thing about your opponent and hammer it home...as a "flip-flopper" or "aloof" or "inexperienced"...but you can't do all...the message gets muddled and appears desperate. Also, if you're gonna shoot, make sure your ass is both clean and covered...and don't miss.

Gramps has gone negative too early...there's no way he can keep up all this sliming and be considered a credible candidate. Something's gotta stick and soon...the clock is now running cause once he can no longer throw the pooh, he will have to debate on issues and he's meat.

Cheers...