Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Slinging mud never wins votes, it just depresses votes for your opponent.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
last1standing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-30-07 06:16 PM
Original message
Slinging mud never wins votes, it just depresses votes for your opponent.
This means that every time you sway someone with a negative attack post you're not getting someone to support your candidate, you end up turning them away from the entire process. Many times it turns them away from voting in the general election as well as the primaries because "they're all crooks". How does that help any of us?

I just wanted to get that truism out there to remind some of the less aware members of the DU community. Support your candidate to the fullest, but stop with the disgusting attacks and slurs. Remember, even the worst Democrat beats the best republican - no contest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-30-07 06:20 PM
Response to Original message
1. Excellent reminder
and very true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
last1standing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-30-07 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Thanks. Too bad no one seems to give a damn, huh?
Maybe if I had titled it "Hillary in bed with Castro" or "Obama really is Osama" some others would have looked in. I guess most people here really do want to spread the hatred.

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no name no slogan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-30-07 06:43 PM
Response to Original message
3. True enough. That's why we need a circular firing squad
That way, we ALL get shot :crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
last1standing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-30-07 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. BANG!!!!
That's the sound of everyone firing at once. At least thats what I hear in my mind when reading this forum lately.

Thanks for helping kick a dying thread NNNS. Too bad its so unpopular to be supportive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-30-07 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. You've been on a roll lately
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no name no slogan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-30-07 08:28 PM
Response to Reply #8
20. Yeah, they're adjusting my meds again
behold, the wonder of modern medicine
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WHEN CRABS ROAR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-30-07 06:58 PM
Response to Original message
4. I would like the dems to all sling more truth and details about
the failed republickin ideals, attack them and not stop. Thats how you win.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1corona4u Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-30-07 06:59 PM
Response to Original message
6. Eh, there's 111K members on this board....
and probably another 5K that lurk. So I hope the election doesn't hang in the balance, by that narrow of a margin.

I doubt this board, or it's members will be the deciding factor in any election. :eyes:

Point taken though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
last1standing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-30-07 07:10 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. I doubt the people creating the problems here are only doing it here.
While it really is just a handful of hacks doing this, they are doing it everywhere and they're just a portion of the total number of people who do it during the primaries. However, think of all the people who come to "Democratic" Underground and find this kind of thing going on. I think it probably turns quite a few off, both from DU and the electoral process.

We just shouldn't be slandering each other's candidates. It hurts us all in the end.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1corona4u Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-30-07 07:49 PM
Response to Reply #10
16. There's a fine line between slandering ...
and pointing out facts though. But when presented with facts, some supporters say they are slander, when in fact, they are neither slander, which is spoken word, or libel, which is written word.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
last1standing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-30-07 07:54 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. LOL! I did know the difference.
But when discussing things in an online forum I usually think of it more as verbal conversation than written, although I'm clearly wrong about that.

As for *ahem* libelous comments, I think that if these weren't public figures they'd have fantastic chances of winning some lawsuits from this site.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1corona4u Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-30-07 07:55 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. Oh yeah they would.
;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Two Americas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-30-07 09:06 PM
Response to Reply #6
22. if we are doing our job
If we are each doing our job, we should be influencing a hundred people each, and those people are influencing others. That means we can influence 10 million people, and elections can swing on that number. The better we communicate our message, the more likely people are to spread it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
last1standing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-30-07 09:45 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. That was a fantastic way of saying how important a single voice is.
Thank you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlCzervik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-30-07 07:00 PM
Response to Original message
7. in the general thats the name of the game, trying to get you to hate your candidate so you
just say fuck it and stay home.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
last1standing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-30-07 07:55 PM
Response to Reply #7
19. Doesn't really make sense when the general rolls around though, does it?
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earthlover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-30-07 07:10 PM
Response to Original message
9. I have noticed a difference between this campaign and 03-04
During the last primary cycle, the unspoken pledge was to not attack each other, attack Bush.

Now it seems we attack each other, not the Republicans.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
last1standing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-30-07 07:26 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. I remember plenty of attacks last cycle, but they do seem more intense this time.
The favorite target in '04 was Dean and the "Deaniacs", but most people agreed that none of the other candidates were baby eaters or Mac users (just kidding). This time it seems like some people would rather huckabee win than a Democrat other than their favorite. That's a big problem to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eurobabe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-31-07 08:28 AM
Response to Reply #9
29. Oh my friend, we attacked each other in 2003 too
the circular firing squad was alive and well up until the General Election. Don't kid yourself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-30-07 07:15 PM
Response to Original message
11. Actually that is not clear at all, or rather it is as clear as mud.
Abstract

The character of elections critically affects the dialogue of democracy. This article examines that dialogue in 143 U.S. Senate elections, 1988-1998, in which an incumbent sought reelection. We go beyond previous research on the impact of campaign spending to focus on the character of the contest itself, particularly the impact of negative campaigning. Campaign strategies are endogenous to the campaign itself, requiring plausible instruments and two-stage statistical techniques to produce reliable estimates. Our analyses combine information on the relative "tone" of U.S. Senate campaigns with an original aggregate data set and ANES survey data. We ask a simple question: how effective is negative campaigning in helping to get candidates elected? Our results provide no straightforward answer. Generally speaking, but dependent on the opponent's strategy, negative campaigning is relatively effective for challengers, while positive campaigning is more effective for incumbents. Overall, our results do provide clear evidence that the campaign "matters."
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0092-5853(200201)46%3A1%3C47%3AEONCIU%3E2.0.CO;2-J

Because negative political advertising that identifies the sponsor and the target hurts both candidates, when a candidate uses such advertising, it would be better not to identify the sponsor. However, it is normally required that by law the sponsor be identified. Garramone also pointed this out and suggested that "independent political action committees sponsoring negative advertising offer the candidates they help this anonymity advantage. Independent sponsors may contribute the additional benefit of greater credibility."72
http://www.scripps.ohiou.edu/wjmcr/vol02/2-1a-B.htm#results

Which is why we have swiftboat attacks.

Relying on two large and high statistically powered field experiments, we find little evidence that exposure to a negatively framed message either reduces turnout or that it is especially effective at persuading individuals to support the sponsor of the message. It is important to note that we find a lack of evidence for such effects among undecided and politically unattached voters, which is a subpopulation among whom negative campaign messages are supposed to be particularly pernicious (Ansolabehere and Iyengar 1995: 111-12).
http://americandemocracy.nd.edu/working_papers/documents/Arceneaux_Nickerson_Negative_Messages.pdf



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
last1standing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-30-07 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Sounds to me like those studies bolster my point.
Am I missing something here?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-30-07 07:39 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. Yeah the studies are all over the place.
The one that most clearly agrees with the conventional wisdom that negative campaigning is bad for voter turnout for both candidates also says that if the candidate using mudslinging distances himself from the negative campaign (as in the swiftboat attacks) that effect goes away. The third study didn't fine any voter suppression effect.

If it doesn't work to a candidates advantage, why do they keep using it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
last1standing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-30-07 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. I never said negative campaigns don't work. They work too well.
I'm saying they don't work in primaries because they suppress the very voters we need in the general election. So while your candidate may win the primaries, they hurt themselves for the general. I think all of the studies bolster that argument.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-31-07 08:15 AM
Response to Reply #15
26. And the data on that is not clear at all.
Which is all that I am saying. The conventional wisdom that it suppresses voter turnout for either side is in dispute. All the studies do noy bolster your argument, the studies are all over the place.

Anyhow, I hate negative campaigns mostly because in the general election, without the support ot the bullshit media system stenographic echo chamber, our side's attacks are not any where nearly as effective as their side's. In addition, while they manage to stay on point and stick to the script, our stalwart Democrats tend to examine each new attack launched at them as if it were credible news worthy of objective evaluation, with a fair number actually buying into the attack itself, and the target of the attack frequently deciding to apologize for whatever it was he or she was accused of doing. In other words, 20 years into the modern age of mudslinging (although perhaps this started earlier with LBJ's flower/child/nuke ad against Goldwater) we still suck at it.

Happy New Year.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
last1standing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-31-07 09:38 AM
Response to Reply #26
31. I'll agree with you there...Dems do suck at mudslinging.
Except when attacking other Dems. For some reason we seem to be experts at the low blow when it comes to hitting our own. Sad huh?

Anyway, happy New Year to you, too. Let's hope its a good one....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
last1standing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-30-07 08:32 PM
Response to Original message
21. Kicking just because I want people to see this thread.
If nothing else it makes a change from "OBAMA GAVE MY MOTHER A WEDGIE!" threads.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Igel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-30-07 11:31 PM
Response to Original message
24. I don't like mud-slinging, nor purely negative campaigns.
But I have decided not to vote for candidates based on negative ads, and since the choice of who to vote for is usually limited, I suppose I've voted for the person who ran the ads.

As long as the tone is simply factual, even if it's a bit into hyperbole, I'm ok with it. Such ads point out issues that I wouldn't have thought about, or facts I didn't know. Sometimes the "facts" are wrong (and yes, I typically check them out, if I find that I think they're important).

Purely positive campaigning sucks: Nobody has any flaws, unless you dig into their background yourself (and look in the right places), they just have gaps--does not taking a public stance on an issue mean you're against what I think should be done, or does it just mean that it's not your top issue? When you say you did X, Y, and Z ... did you, really, or were you a figurehead or silent non-active partner? And when you say as a result of your actions X 'improved', is that a 0.001% improvement that's not worth mentioning, but still counts as "improvement", or was it a 100% improvement? (And who measured it?)

Same with debates: Candidates should go after each other's positions and records. But they should not be gratuituously insulting or resort to innuendo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
last1standing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-31-07 12:13 AM
Response to Reply #24
25. I completely agree, but I'm mostly talking about the slurs being posted by DUers.
When a campaign decides to go negative that's on them. They have made a tactical decision and if it works, it works, but when DUers do the same thing in the name of their favorite candidate or just to try and hurt a candidate they don't like, it really makes this forum less of a good place for Democrats. I remember when DU first started up in 2001 when we were all still shell-shocked from bush's* first theft. There was a sense of comraderie that made DU more of an oasis in a hellish desert than just a forum. I've had my ups and downs with the place over the last six and a half years but it still hurts to see a few people come in and trash the place with their foul comments and rude behavior.

I think its time we all got back to working toward the goals we talked about then instead of seeing how well we can offend and hurt other people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Igel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-31-07 11:29 PM
Response to Reply #25
32. Agreed.
Personally I let the candidates run their campaigns, I tend not to campaign for them, at least among the converted.

No, strike that. I don't campaign for them among the "sinners", either.

It helps not having a candidate. No primary in this state till March, no reason to decide on one until March. Yes, I like procrastination.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perry Logan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-31-07 08:20 AM
Response to Original message
27. Here's good news: the Hillary bashers--who are BY FAR the worst--will be leaving the party soon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
last1standing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-31-07 09:36 AM
Response to Reply #27
30. I think a few people from every camp have been horrendous.
And that includes those supporting my candidate, Edwards. In fact, I think if you look, you'll find that its the same few Clinton supporters posting the same crap over and over that has you thinking they're the worst but Edwards, Obama, Biden, Richardson and Kucinich all have their hacks in here creating anger and confusion. These posters either have no idea how disgusting their actions are or just don't care, but either way they're not winning any converts to their candidate.

Oddly enough, the only supporters I haven't noticed attacking everyone else are the Dodd supporters. Is that because they're inherently more mature or there just aren't enough here to make a splash? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eurobabe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-31-07 08:26 AM
Response to Original message
28. I can think of one specific group that has turned me off so badly
that although my head says Dem candidate X would be better than a CON, the supporters are so awful, I might consider NOT voting at all. They are vicious and snarky.

Of course in the end I will vote, I'll hold my nose like I did in 2004.

Which is why I have not changed my avatar for my candidate, I'm staying out of the fray :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Dec 09th 2024, 12:34 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC