Are the independent ads backfiring?

[dsc]

Kerry's ads seem to be almost all positive right now. They rarely, if ever, mention Bush. In contrast, Bush's ads are nearly all negative. That makes a great contrast between Bush and Kerry. But, the independent ads are also all negative due to the rules they have to abide by. Thus people can get the impression that Kerry is engaging in negative ads as much as Bush is. At least in Ohio, the independent ads outnumber Kerry ads by a substantial margin. Any thoughts on this? The independent ad thing seemed like a good idea at the time. But given Kerry's fundrasing, maybe they aren't such a good idea.

[w4rma]

1. Any media is good media, imho. As long as portions of the message get out.

It would be nice to change the rules somehow to allow for positive independent ads, tho.

[mistertrickster]

2. Nah, if it doesn't have Kerry's picture on it, the couch potatoes won't

associate it with him. And they'll be right, it's not Kerry running them.

I think it sounds perfect--Kerry stays all high-minded and we "Bush-haters" (hey, why not embrace it? it's pretty true) can run the attack ads.

[Sporadicus]

3. Negative Campaigning Works

The following Jim Lehrer Newshour transcript features discussion among four political experts on the subject of negative campaigning.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/election/jan-june00/negative_2-22.html

Among the points made lies this gem from Kathleen Hall Jamieson: 'What we found is this -- that voters make a distinction between attack that is legitimate and attack that is illegitimate and they tag the illegitimate attack dirty and negative. But if attack is perceived to be fair and accurate, if it contains an argument for the candidate making the attack, as well as an argument against the opponent and, most importantly, if it's perceived to be true, that attack is considered to be legitimate.'

John Kerry's campaign certainly doesn't lack for legitimate grievances against * and his junta. The same doesn't hold true for *'s negative campaign.

[JI7]

4. nope, they are helping Kerry

and it's not really negative ads against bush, it's mostly truthful ads against bush.

[dsc]

5. truthful or not they are negative

It is absurd to say they aren't.

[Still_Loves_John]

6. I'm kinda with you

Independent ads always make me nervous, because people associate them with the campaign but the campaign has no control over them. I'm always scared that they're gonna cross a line and turn people off when it's no fault of Kerry's.

They don't get as wide circulation, though, and they haven't messed up yet, so I got nothing.

[Old and In the Way]

7. Negative ads are the Republican smear forte.

"Kerry's voted for tax increases 790 times." or
"Kerry's for disarming America and funding Al Qaeda"

The indie ads I've seen simply point out the truth about this administartion's policies and agenda.

[JI7]

8. right

[dsc]

9. negative and truthful aren't opposites

ads can be negative and truthful.

[zulchzulu]

10. I find the indy ads kind of sloppy and predictable

They need to be funny or use humor. The eery stuff with the faux-Ashton Smith VO and murky image thing is SO last century.