I dont watch Matthews as a rule.

[OwnedByFerrets]

In fact, I try to avoid him altogether. Tonite, however, I watched the last half-hour. Almost all of it was devoted to negative ads and their worth. If the dems dont get this message they are completely stupid.
NEGATIVE ADS WORK. YOU MAY DISLIKE THEM. THEY MAY BE DISTASTEFUL. BUT IF YOU DONT USE THEM AND USE THEM FIRST, YOU LOSE.
GET IT, YOU LOSE.
BURN THAT INTO YOUR MEMORY DEMS, YOU LOSE.
YOU LOSE
YOU LOSE
and in the end
we all lose.

[KeepItReal]

1. Best "negative" Democratic ad I ever heard was in Louisiana

They said of the Republican...."They are from the same party that brought you David Duke!"

I think you know the outcome of that race.

:woohoo:

[cadmium]

2. we watched the same hackfest

They couldn't conceal their glee at the prospect of a glorious negative ad driven Republican victory.

Got to call talk shows, write letters to the editors and support Dem/liberal PAC's to have any chance.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2828210&mesg_id=2828461

[calimary]

3. It's unfortunate but true. We've GOT to get off our high horse about

being so moral and upstanding that we'd never stoop to such depths. We've GOT to stoop to those depths. Or we WILL lose. It's a sad fact, but fact it IS. People can bellyache all day long about how awful those negative ads are, BUT THEY WORK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And people fall for them EVERY time. A negative image just seems to sink in better and more permanently - like a tapeworm or virus or something. And it takes hold like crazy, and has its poisonous effect. Look, I don't like it either, but what I don't like even more is LOSING. And I can be as Macchiavellian as the next (bad) guy.

[OwnedByFerrets]

5. Thank you,

You said it much better than I did.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

11. as long as it's true, I have no problem with it...

however, making shit up will get us sent to the same level of hell as the Repug liars.

[goclark]

4. I love the one here in LA @ Arnold tied to Bush

Has him cheering up the audience at the Republican Convention( I think that was the setting.)

[Swamp Rat]

6. Now yer talkin'! I say...

ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK!!!

[Justice Is Comin]

7. Here is the answer but it sailed into oblivion here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2127687&mesg_id=2127687

With the corporations pouring in the big donations to keep the pasty faced bastards in power, we can't defend the individual attack ads they will attempt to batter our candidates with just before the election.

The key is to parry the effect of what any of their ads say no matter how untrue and get the voter to understand why they're running it and who's paying for it.

That way as soon as they see hear the funeral dirge music and see the crap roll across their screen, the first thing that will come to mind--oh yup, there's another one of those desperate bullshit ads paid for by Exxon contributors or pharmaceutical companies that wrote that 3 AM prescription drug bill that's making them billions.

If we tie them to the money, they're dead. Each attack ad they run will only make it worse for them. I call it the bowling ball concept.

[cadmium]

8. I think that is a good technique.

Lamont and Wellstone both did this pretty well with a disarming style mocking attacks.

[OwnedByFerrets]

10. You CAN do that......

and should if your war coffers are large enough, but we have to get over this "better than that" attitude. That is, if we want to win. Listen people, our democracy/freedom is at stake here. If someone is breaking into your home and threatening to kill your family, you dont play nice. You do WHATEVER it takes to keep your family safe. Our representatives have to be just as ruthless. This is all about the life of our country. Its worth saving, by any means possible.
Without shredding the constitution.

[Justice Is Comin]

12. Yes but the republicans have the big money.

It was just leaked and appeared in the Washington Post that they are going to spend almost 60 million dollars in personal attack ads.

That is four or five times more than we have to spend. We have to make their advertising the issue. It's never been done before like that.

If we create a great ad that shows they are going to spend almost their entire bank to slime our candidates, it puts the focus on their purpose, not their message.

Once they have been branded by this stigma, it turns people off as soon as one of those ads come on the air. If you see someone you can't stand to watch on tv, do you wait to listen to what they have to say before you change the channel? NO. And that's the same thing we want to ingrain on the voters.

1. They're spending an unprecedented fortune.

2. They're not running ads telling about all the great things they accomplished. They're running ads solely intended to slime our candidates.

3. Who benefits most from them staying in power, the drug companies or those that got a $10 tax cut?

4. What single thing can they point to that hasn't been a disaster for the middle class and the poor?


Create my suggested kind of ad by the perfectly chosen spokesman or woman with the perfect background and just matter-of-factly tell the American people these things.


They will be tied up fighting back against this devastating connection to the rich and their ads will be more and more ignored.

That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.

[OwnedByFerrets]

13. While I greatly respect YOU and YOUR story,

history has proven both to be wrong in this instance. And history never lies.......it can only be lied about. Peace.

[napi21]

14. In most cases that won't work.

If you watchedMathews last night, you'll remember that they were talking aboutvoterswho don't like the incumbant, but they don't know anything about the other guy. Thena negative ad is on the radio, in the mail or on their TV, and the thing they remember is the BAD and ONLY thing they heard about that new unknown guy!

Most people don't bother to read that little bottom print that says "sponsored by XXXX", they only remember what they hear!

[kerry-is-my-prez]

9. The Dems need to go on the offensive - stop being on the defensive.

You do need to answer things but not go on and on about it.

[sandnsea]

15. Kerry went negative more than Bush

Did Kerry attack unfairly?

67% yes

Did Bush attack unfairly?

60% yes

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

The people thought we attacked in 2004. What we see as honest criticism, others see as attacks. And since we have no honest journalism, we don't even get the facts set straight. This isn't as easy for Democrats as Republicans, and it won't be until we get a handle on the media.