Why do politicians and more likely, their ""advisors" think that negative advertisements are the only ways to win an election?

It’s too bad, but it’s just impossible to hold elections that are decided on real issues or competency. People are short-term thinkers, and are heavily influenced by a person’s face and charismatic (you and me probably are too).

Given that most people can only be trusted to pay attention to a TV program for a couple of minutes at a time it’s easier to say “Palin doesn’t have the experience and is and idiot” or what ever in a comercial than trying to explain how one tax policy, or health reform is better (or even different) to another.

Sadly, its because they work.

Willie Horton
George HW Bush beat Dukakis, 1988

Max Cleland
Saxby Chandliss beat Max Cleland, 2002

Swift Vets
George W Bush beat John Kerry, 2004

Yes it is the soundbite that funnels politics into our heads lately. \

We have a local State Senate race in our part of North Carolina and there is a s**tload of money being spent on TV and the other night my wife said, I wouldn’t vote for either of these sc******ags!

Nasty words from my lovely wife. That is the current pulse of the Nation.

SRM

sc******ags?

@srm – lol, I’m pretty sure you can use the term scumbag here.

I thought maybe scumbags or scallywags…maybe scrotumbags…

oooh, scallywags!!!

the 3rd fits with the number of *‘s

scented hags?

I am 59 years old and was raised to use asterisks in public places.
But I guess we are all friends so Scumbags, it is.

SRM

I think both candidates usually start out talking about their own good points. Then, they move into how what they’re going to do is better than what the other guy is going to do. If that’s clearly not working (like it isn’t working for McCain), you go the dirty route. I guess they figure, “If people don’t like me, my only choice is to make them dislike my opponent more. And if I can’t really touch his policies, I have to get ugly about his character.” If they can (successfully) tar the opponent as untrustworthy, that taints everything he does with the possibility of it being a lie.

Too bad that he who throws mud only loses ground himself.

It’s not that they use them that sucks.
It’s that studies have shown they are effective. That really sucks

LOL@asterisks!

Negative adverts are effective. Dramatic. They’re a way of killing two birds with one stone – show the GOOD side of yourself and the BAD side of your opponent. In some cases, it goes too far, but in others the argument is clearly worded and thought-provoking.

I’m a fan of all things opinionated. Blogs, to me, are more interesting than “unbiased” articles. This could be because I feel so inundated with facts and figures (especially when I surf the net) that the only way to hold my attention anymore is to wrap those facts and figures in a well-worded rant. Then I’ll check to see if the facts claimed in the blog are true (resorting to news pieces).

If there are others out there like me, they will hear/see a negative opinion on a politician, get interested, then do research to find out the truth. I hope most people do this, otherwise these ads are simply swaying the votes of the uninformed, and it becomes a battle of propaganda.

shadling21: “then do research to find out the truth I hope most people do this, otherwise these ads are simply swaying the votes of the uninformed, and it becomes a battle of propaganda.”

No objection to your urge for fact finding by the voter, but I doubt that Most people do this. It’s so much easier to believe what you hear. Bill Moyers interviewd Kathleen Jamieson this past Friday on his PBS show. She ran through several examples of ads and showed them to be, at the least, semi-truthful (the actual facts were true, but sufficent context was removed to change the meaning of the fact).

Fast forward to the woman who expressed concern to McCain about Obama being an Arab. There are millions like her (both sides) who choose not to think and investigate.