San Diego Trib: Bush TV ads found more negative

[question everything]

But campaigns keep Calif., other states mostly in dark

By John Marelius
STAFF WRITER

June 13, 2004

(snip)

Since the unofficial start of the general election campaign in early March, President Bush's television advertising campaign has been much more negative than is typical of incumbents, and much more negative than Sen. John Kerry's, the presumptive Democratic nominee.

(snip)

All of this is being conducted on a small playing field. It is being waged almost exclusively in the 18 states that the two campaigns expect will be close in November. That means there is almost no campaigning going on in the rest of the country, including California.


(snip)

The 2004 general election campaign began with 17: Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. Those are states where Bush and Democratic nominee Al Gore were separated by 6 percentage points or fewer in the 2000 election... The Kerry campaign has added to its advertising mix three states that Bush carried by 8 percentage points in 2000: Colorado, Louisiana and Virginia.

(snip)

As of May 20, the Bush and Kerry campaigns had spent $216.9 million, according to figures compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics. They have already exceeded the $192.2 million spent in the 1992 presidential campaign and are on track to top the 2000 record of $343.1 million. In addition, two independent groups are spending freely on ads opposing Bush. MoveOn.org had spent $14.3 million as of May 30, and the Media Fund, led by former Clinton White House official Harold Ickes, had spent $10.6 million.

(snip)


Benoit's research at Missouri found that as of mid-May, Bush's ads contained 48 percent positive messages and 46 percent attacks. The remaining 6 percent were defenses against attacks. That is an abnormally low positive percentage for an incumbent president, Benoit said, adding that incumbents have averaged 65 percent positive messages in their ads since 1952. Kerry's ads, by contrast, contained 80 percent positive messages. Challengers have averaged 55 percent positive messages in their ads since 1952, Benoit said.


More...

John Marelius: [e-mail]


Find this article at:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040613/news_1n13pres.html

[Bluzmann57]

1. They can't run positive ads

because they have nothing positive to run on. They completely fucked up the illegal war in Iraq, gas prices are at an all time high, jobs are leaving the country even as we speak, and on and on and on. So they have to say Kerry's a bum, etc. I'm just waiting for them to come after Kerry's wife. That's when Mrs. Kerry will break out her checkbook and kick their collective asses, imo. edited because I can't type very well.

[lovedems]

2. Here is a little snip I found at fact check

Such ads have become typical of Kerry advertising since he wrapped up the Democratic nomination. A new analysis shows only 27% of Kerry's ads have attacked Bush by name, while 75% of Bush's ads have attacked Kerry. Kerry campaign officials say their high-road ads are working and Bush's are backfiring.

Kerry's ads have mostly been like this one, all positive with no mention of Bush. The Washington Post reported over the weekend that an analysis done for the newspaper by the Campaign Media Analysis Group found that the Bush campaign has run ads saying negative things about Kerry 49,050 times -- amounting to 75 percent of Bush's campaign advertising. Kerry however has run negative ads against Bush 13,336 times -- or just 27 percent of his total.

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=190


Bush has gone soooooo negative.

[peacetalksforall]

3. I hope Kerry keeps up the positive

and is preparing for the debates with the same positiveness. Becaue it is very obvious to everyone who counts what the negatives are with Bush and Cheney with his Bush handlers.