Full Version: 8+ months of negativity
Well here we are.8 months+ away from the elections and already both parties are in full froth. The negativity is already at a level that is almost physically palpable.
The airwaves are already full of sad attempts to vilify the other side. The radio propagandists have already developed their catchy one liners to be used as political flash cards for the uninformed and impressionable. (Got to admit Hannity is good.)
How long before this completely turns off the American public?
Many people may become so exhausted by it they won’t vote. How long before the negativity hits critical mass and could it do far more damage than intended? As in really damage our faith in the validity of our system.
Is this a blessing for the 3rd parties?
The airwaves are already full of sad attempts to vilify the other side. The radio propagandists have already developed their catchy one liners to be used as political flash cards for the uninformed and impressionable. (Got to admit Hannity is good.)
How long before this completely turns off the American public?
Many people may become so exhausted by it they won’t vote. How long before the negativity hits critical mass and could it do far more damage than intended? As in really damage our faith in the validity of our system.
Is this a blessing for the 3rd parties?
It won't turn off most voters this time. The situation is really quite polarized already, so positive or negative campaigning won't change that.
From Newsweek:
I tend to agree. Most folks -- except us AD political junkies -- just aren't paying any attention to the candidates at this point. We've got a whole summer of baseball to play first.
3rd parties still can't raise enough money to make themselves heard over the noise. They are a non-factor in American politics so far.
From Newsweek:
QUOTE
To John Edwards's "Two Americas," add the idea of "Two Campaigns." The real election in November will involve 100 million voters, most of whom pay little attention until after the World Series. So from now until fall, another, smaller campaign—a mostly cable and Internet event of interest to 5 or 10 million people—will dominate. But not much of this Cable Campaign will leech into the consciousness of the larger voting public. The irony is that the early noise is mostly for voters who are already committed. Early polls say nothing. Too much can happen in the world. And lightly aligned swing voters will likely swing back and forth several times before making a final decision.
Most Americans know nothing about Kerry, so Bush is trying to draw on the blank slate first. His argument is that Kerry is both a predictable liberal and a flip-flopper. (Which seems like a contradiction in terms, but never mind.) The GOP's Elephant Echo Chamber will repeat endlessly that Kerry was for and against the No Child Left Behind bill, for and against the Patriot Act, for and against the Iraq war. Because the details are complex, Kerry does not yet have a good argument to blunt that attack. So he'll try to jujitsu, arguing that Bush was the flip-flopper on steel tariffs, nation-building, adding new cops, funding programs for manufacturers—a "lip-service president" whose Labor Department last week reported an anemic 21,000 jobs created in February, leaving him close to 7 million jobs short of what he's promised.
Most Americans know nothing about Kerry, so Bush is trying to draw on the blank slate first. His argument is that Kerry is both a predictable liberal and a flip-flopper. (Which seems like a contradiction in terms, but never mind.) The GOP's Elephant Echo Chamber will repeat endlessly that Kerry was for and against the No Child Left Behind bill, for and against the Patriot Act, for and against the Iraq war. Because the details are complex, Kerry does not yet have a good argument to blunt that attack. So he'll try to jujitsu, arguing that Bush was the flip-flopper on steel tariffs, nation-building, adding new cops, funding programs for manufacturers—a "lip-service president" whose Labor Department last week reported an anemic 21,000 jobs created in February, leaving him close to 7 million jobs short of what he's promised.
I tend to agree. Most folks -- except us AD political junkies -- just aren't paying any attention to the candidates at this point. We've got a whole summer of baseball to play first.
3rd parties still can't raise enough money to make themselves heard over the noise. They are a non-factor in American politics so far.
I agree AMF that most Americans are not really paying attention right now, but very soon these ads will be unescapable. They will be everywhere and every media personality will soon join the fray. We have a long way to go before this is finally decided (Unless its a close vote again) and the accusations are already borderline vile. We may very well soon wish for a legal NONE of the ABOVE category in the choices.
Christopher,
Your topic gets at the heart of the question I had when posting the Poll on 2004 Election: Vote today for positive candidate or lesser of Two Evils. The poll shows that at least half of the people of America's Debate are not just unsatisfied with their options, but will make their voting decision on the candidate they feel will do less damage.
I must admit that the sample of fifteen replies is a small sample. I had hopes of getting a broader response that could actually be analyzed statistically, but Paladin Elspeth found it necessary to instant retread my poll topic.
I have noted that the majority of replies which stated that the voter was selecting on the lesser of two evils were independent/third party members. The majority of replies stating that the voter was supporting a positive candidate, were from an outspoken Republican or Democrat supporter with political election banners in their signature.
In other words, the SWING VOTERS are voting based on who they believe will do less damage to the country. The hard core party affiliates are listening to the praise of their candidate and his (or potentially but unfortunately not currently HER) platform, but they are party loyalists who cannot be convinced to change their vote.
With this reality, is it any surprise that campaign managers elect to go negative?
Unfortunately this leads to an every widening division/polarization between the two major parties. The negativity also leads to discouraging the apathetic middle from taking the effort vote at all. Who wants to get into the middle of that divisive, underhanded, unproductive political melee? And so whichever of the major parties wins, the country is turned away from the "Middle of the road", moderate, compromise solution set. America, the Land of the Extreme.
- SmileyDog
Your topic gets at the heart of the question I had when posting the Poll on 2004 Election: Vote today for positive candidate or lesser of Two Evils. The poll shows that at least half of the people of America's Debate are not just unsatisfied with their options, but will make their voting decision on the candidate they feel will do less damage.
I must admit that the sample of fifteen replies is a small sample. I had hopes of getting a broader response that could actually be analyzed statistically, but Paladin Elspeth found it necessary to instant retread my poll topic.
I have noted that the majority of replies which stated that the voter was selecting on the lesser of two evils were independent/third party members. The majority of replies stating that the voter was supporting a positive candidate, were from an outspoken Republican or Democrat supporter with political election banners in their signature.
In other words, the SWING VOTERS are voting based on who they believe will do less damage to the country. The hard core party affiliates are listening to the praise of their candidate and his (or potentially but unfortunately not currently HER) platform, but they are party loyalists who cannot be convinced to change their vote.
With this reality, is it any surprise that campaign managers elect to go negative?
Unfortunately this leads to an every widening division/polarization between the two major parties. The negativity also leads to discouraging the apathetic middle from taking the effort vote at all. Who wants to get into the middle of that divisive, underhanded, unproductive political melee? And so whichever of the major parties wins, the country is turned away from the "Middle of the road", moderate, compromise solution set. America, the Land of the Extreme.
- SmileyDog
How long before this completely turns off the American public?
I think as time closes in on the Democratic/Republican Conventions (I wouldn't miss them except for a funeral-depending upon whose) and the debates between Bush and Kerry begin, the voters will listen up and they are the lucky ones indeed, because as someone suggested, the rhetoric is unusually harsh to the point of being slanderous this 2004. Has anyone heard of a sitting President suing the opposing party's nominee for slander?
Will have to do a search on that option.
Many people may become so exhausted by it they won’t vote. How long before the negativity hits critical mass and could it do far more damage than intended? As in really damage our faith in the validity of our system.
Almost half of the people haven't voted in years and unless there is a particular candidate they are taken with or issues that arouse them personally, they aren't about to make the effort for 2004. Those are the couch potatoes that all the eligible parties are in hot pursuit of. The negativity and uncivil rhetoric IMO is far from sounding the alarm bell...but I do think it really turns off the young voters and they are prevented from establishing a solid voting pattern very early in their adult life.
The fact that fewer and fewer people are showing up at the polls to vote every election is proof, for whatever reason, that the damage has already been done.
Is this a blessing for the 3rd parties?
Not in my opinion, using Nader as an example, he may have enough votes to be called a "spoiler" but not enough even with a miracle to win the election.
I think as time closes in on the Democratic/Republican Conventions (I wouldn't miss them except for a funeral-depending upon whose) and the debates between Bush and Kerry begin, the voters will listen up and they are the lucky ones indeed, because as someone suggested, the rhetoric is unusually harsh to the point of being slanderous this 2004. Has anyone heard of a sitting President suing the opposing party's nominee for slander?
Will have to do a search on that option. Many people may become so exhausted by it they won’t vote. How long before the negativity hits critical mass and could it do far more damage than intended? As in really damage our faith in the validity of our system.
Almost half of the people haven't voted in years and unless there is a particular candidate they are taken with or issues that arouse them personally, they aren't about to make the effort for 2004. Those are the couch potatoes that all the eligible parties are in hot pursuit of. The negativity and uncivil rhetoric IMO is far from sounding the alarm bell...but I do think it really turns off the young voters and they are prevented from establishing a solid voting pattern very early in their adult life.
The fact that fewer and fewer people are showing up at the polls to vote every election is proof, for whatever reason, that the damage has already been done.
Is this a blessing for the 3rd parties?
Not in my opinion, using Nader as an example, he may have enough votes to be called a "spoiler" but not enough even with a miracle to win the election.
As to whether the negativity has any effect...
Well, I used to be open to more ideas from the Democrats, but due to the amount of vitriol, in what in my eyes seems to be pure hatred directed at the President and this administration this year I've been turned off to the Democrats. It has become so spiteful, that I rarely speak to Democrats anymore. Why? Because I tire so of the hateful negativity and rhetoric that is injected into every debate about Bush, for once I'd like to hear a positive agenda put forth. But, I have dismal hopes for such this election, especially following John Kerry's public characterization of Republicans as crooks and liars (his words, not mine).
As to whether this has effected voter turnout;
Well, for Republicans I cannot say (as we really didn't have a primary...), but the Democrats have had the third lowest voter turnout in decades duing this primary season....
Well, I used to be open to more ideas from the Democrats, but due to the amount of vitriol, in what in my eyes seems to be pure hatred directed at the President and this administration this year I've been turned off to the Democrats. It has become so spiteful, that I rarely speak to Democrats anymore. Why? Because I tire so of the hateful negativity and rhetoric that is injected into every debate about Bush, for once I'd like to hear a positive agenda put forth. But, I have dismal hopes for such this election, especially following John Kerry's public characterization of Republicans as crooks and liars (his words, not mine).
As to whether this has effected voter turnout;
Well, for Republicans I cannot say (as we really didn't have a primary...), but the Democrats have had the third lowest voter turnout in decades duing this primary season....
QUOTE(wanderer @ Mar 11 2004, 05:42 PM)
Well, for Republicans I cannot say (as we really didn't have a primary...), but the Democrats have had the third lowest voter turnout in decades duing this primary season....
Huh? Call me skeptical, but every early primary was reported as having significantly MORE people showing up to vote than in years past. Do you have a source for this claim?
QUOTE(amf @ Mar 11 2004, 09:06 PM)
QUOTE(wanderer @ Mar 11 2004, 05:42 PM)
Well, for Republicans I cannot say (as we really didn't have a primary...), but the Democrats have had the third lowest voter turnout in decades duing this primary season....
Huh? Call me skeptical, but every early primary was reported as having significantly MORE people showing up to vote than in years past. Do you have a source for this claim?
Only a few press reports!
Here's oneVoter Turnout
QUOTE(christopher @ Mar 10 2004, 11:16 PM)
Well here we are.8 months+ away from the elections and already both parties are in full froth. The negativity is already at a level that is almost physically palpable.
The airwaves are already full of sad attempts to vilify the other side. The radio propagandists have already developed their catchy one liners to be used as political flash cards for the uninformed and impressionable. (Got to admit Hannity is good.)
The airwaves are already full of sad attempts to vilify the other side. The radio propagandists have already developed their catchy one liners to be used as political flash cards for the uninformed and impressionable. (Got to admit Hannity is good.)
Gee, Christopher, where ya been? President Bush has been under pretty much constant attack for the past year or more. He's been compared to Hitler, called more dangerous to the world than Osama bin Laden, called a coward and a deserter, a drug abuser, a drunk, stupid..... and on and on. Where ya been when all that stuff was going on Christopher? Now you're concerned about the next 8 months? Where were you the past 12 months or so?
Perhaps it's because Bush supporters are beginning to respond. Could that be it? Now, after months and months of attacks on President Bush, things have suddenly "gone negative" because Republicans are questioning John Kerry's voting record in Congress? Gee, maybe that is negative because that record is really bad.
Well, I don't know what to tell you, I think this coming campaign is going to be a nasty campaign and I don't know if that's good for America or not, but that's the way it's going to be. The parameters have been set over the past year and if you think Bush supporters are going to sit back and just take the constant assaults on President Bush without responding, you are wrong. We are going to bite back.
QUOTE(offwind @ Mar 11 2004, 10:32 PM)
QUOTE(amf @ Mar 11 2004, 09:06 PM)
QUOTE(wanderer @ Mar 11 2004, 05:42 PM)
Well, for Republicans I cannot say (as we really didn't have a primary...), but the Democrats have had the third lowest voter turnout in decades duing this primary season....
Huh? Call me skeptical, but every early primary was reported as having significantly MORE people showing up to vote than in years past. Do you have a source for this claim?
Only a few press reports!
Here's oneVoter Turnout
You gotta get past the headline:
QUOTE
Some of the lower-turnout states were later in the primary process, they said, when voters may have concluded the nomination would go to Senator John F. Kerry after his victories in Wisconsin, Virginia, and Tennessee.
Meanwhile, earlier states saw greater numbers, in part because so much money and time were poured into those races and the nomination, at that point, truly appeared to be a free-for-all. According to Iowa Secretary of State Chet Culver, that was especially true in his state's caucuses -- at least by his method of calculation. The number who voted in the Democratic race doubled from the last election cycle, to approximately 125,000 voters in this year's caucuses.
Meanwhile, earlier states saw greater numbers, in part because so much money and time were poured into those races and the nomination, at that point, truly appeared to be a free-for-all. According to Iowa Secretary of State Chet Culver, that was especially true in his state's caucuses -- at least by his method of calculation. The number who voted in the Democratic race doubled from the last election cycle, to approximately 125,000 voters in this year's caucuses.
In other words: when something was on the line, voters turned out in greater numbers. And doesn't that seem reasonable?
QUOTE
Gee, Christopher, where ya been?
Right here Bub!
Ever since the Carolinas and the rumors about McCain by Bushies I have no real sympathy for him. However in the interests of fairness I can't stand Kerry either.
I think Hannity's idea of having Kerry debate Kerry is excellent. For every stand he has ever taken he has an opposing viewpoint. His strategy is wait for a Bush idea and trash it. That is all its going to be. Both sides saying nothing at all except insinuating the status of their opponents as pure evil on a stick. The most honest opinion given so far has been by Kerry and he didn't even know his mike was on.
All Bush can say is that the sky is falling and we're all going to die if he isn't reelected.
What I wouldn't give for an undiscovered continent.
Where are the ideas?
Where is our common ground? It does exist but all that gets put forth is "Why I hate the other side"
Where are actual new visions of how to build this country?
All we ever get any longer is why EVERYTHING won't work.
Compromise!! Never. Do as I say!
We have traded visions of skyscrapers for minimalls and gated communities. Moon Landings for Survivor, Creativity, Dreams and Freedom of Thought and Expression for binary thinking
[ For or Against Either/Or Liberal/Conservative ]
New ideas for repackaged swill that didn't work the first time around.
You want to be offended because Bush is getting criticized, Fine. He stayed quiet by his own decision. Now he can fire back. You can sit in your living room and stuff your face with Cheetos and laugh insanely at the tired and stolen mastercard ripoffs. I hear absolutely no new ideas. People taking what works from both sides and trashing the stuff that failed.
Are you referring to the previous 8+ months of Bush-bashing? or the upcoming 8+ months of payback?
edit - had to add the smilie.
edit - had to add the smilie.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.