Obama's Political Ads: Study Shows 1 Out of Every 10 are Negative

[iNow]

...However, McCain far surpasses this, and the same study has shown that 1 out of every 3 McCain ads have a negative spin.

 

 

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hDUFPuTNWTC7-8NapQmch4BNZ40AD9290DS80

 

Angry candidates don't win elections. Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton won by running as sunny optimists — one promised John Winthrop's "shining city upon a hill" and the other was the "man from Hope."

 

But McCain wants the presidential campaign to be about Barack Obama — that's why he talks about him so much.

 

To that end, McCain is helping frame a not-so-flattering portrait of Obama for voters. His ads have become increasingly tough; a third of his commercials portray Obama negatively, a new study concluded.

 

As of last week, more than 90 percent of the ads aired by Obama did not mention McCain, whereas one-third of McCain's ads referred to Obama negatively, according to a study of political commercials by the Advertising Project at the University of Wisconsin.

 

 

Here's a link to the group who did the study:

http://wiscadproject.wisc.edu/

 

 

Their data reinforces a point I've tried to make several times here during this election season's political threads on SFN.

 

I'm tired of hearing McCain talk about why Obama shouldn't be president instead of why McCain should be president.

 

 

What do you think?

[ecoli]

Actually, I think McCain's approach is sensible, considering the messianic view that many people seem to have of Obama.

[john5746]

I haven't seen ads and haven't paid attention, nor do I want to investigate the study, but:

 

1) Obama is in the lead, so it is easier to take the high ground

 

2) Obama can attack the establishment - an implied attack on McCain.

 

but I do agree with iNow that McCain will need to do better in selling himself, instead of hoping Obama crumbles.

[Pangloss]

I'm tired of hearing McCain talk about why Obama shouldn't be president instead of why McCain should be president.

 

QFT, full stop.

[iNow]

So, is nobody going to rail against Obama for making 1 in every 10 ads negative against McCain?

[Pangloss]

Sure, I will. He shouldn't do that either.

[ParanoiA]

Well allow me to be the contrarian, then.

 

What's the beef with negative ads? Actually, I get it (I always compared it to interviewing for a job and instead of telling the potential employer what you can do, you berate the other guys out in the waiting room as twits).

 

But, there's nothing inherently wrong with a negative ad. Particularly when the media has not done the background work on Obama. We've been following McCain peripherally for decades, but Obama is brand spanking new to most of us.

 

So, negative ads can force honesty into the debate. By McCain running negative this and that, Obama has to respond in some way, thus we learn new things about him. Things we may never have known if he didn't have to defend himself. And when people are seemingly following someone like a "messiah", this becomes a very necessary check mechanism.

 

Also, consider what's really negative. If we were zapped back to 1800 and I wanted to run on an anti-slavery policy I might point out the negative effects of slavery, the inhumanity and the shameful duplicity of the pro-slavery advocates. But how negative is that? I suppose technically it is a negative message - an attack - but it's a superior message, a good one.

 

Anyway, 1 out of 3 ain't bad, relatively speaking - for now. Obama's certainly got the high ground with 1 out of 10 and I'm impressed with that. Seriously, that's quite a notable achievement and entirely compliments his campaign message. Major thumbs up there.

[ecoli]

Sure, I will. He shouldn't do that either.

 

Why not? Both candidates are running against each other. It's the same reason why you have to play defense in a sports team. You don't trust only on your offensive abilities to outscore the other team.

[john5746]

So the question is, has "substance-free celebrity" become the official Republican talking point caricature of Obama for this election cycle? Is it working?

 

Emotion wins elections, so each side will try and make an emotional impact either for their candidate or against the opposition.

 

Obama's strength is that he is a fresh face and he has charisma. He represents change. To attack this strength, you make him all style and elitist. Clinton tried this and I think it worked - she did pretty well against Obama, especially amongst the working class. McCain will have a harder time with this unless Obama implodes in a debate.

 

McCain's strength is that he has years of experience as a civil servant - military and congress. To attack this strength, you make him part of the establishment - part of the problem. Obama did this against Clinton and that is why he won. I think it works against McCain because Bush has failed miserably.

 

So yes, the Republican line will be to paint Obama as an inexperience left wing liberal elitist. The Democrats will paint McCain as an old, tired right wing Bushie. Obama has been tempered by attacks from Clinton, but McCain never really faced establishment attacks in the Republican race. They all argued about who was most like Reagan.

[Pangloss]

Why not? Both candidates are running against each other. It's the same reason why you have to play defense in a sports team. You don't trust only on your offensive abilities to outscore the other team.

 

Because two wrongs don't make a right. Or as YT likes to put it, when you play with the pigs everyone gets dirty. Great debate tactic in certain situations, maybe even good politics, but it's not what I want my candidate, whom I've chosen because of higher goals, to be doing. That's why not.

 

Just to give an example of that, Obama trotted out the RACE card yesterday in response to McCain attacks. He stopped a hair shy of accusing McCain of using race, but he did accuse his opponents in general of doing so, saying they're trying to scare voters because he "doesn’t look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills." (source)

 

They may well be doing that, but a statement like that gives the appearance of throwing all his opposition into a racial bag. That's not fair -- people can oppose Obama without being racists. Period. And Obama's handlers know this, which is why that portion of the video was left out when it was posted to the Obama donations page yesterday afternoon:

 

https://donate.barackobama.com/page/contribute/baracksresponse?source=feature

 

So they know it was wrong and hopefully they'll stop doing it. I want to see McCain drop the negativity for the same reason, but I acknowledge the points raised above that suggest it's unlikely that he will do so.

[bascule]

negative ads can force honesty into the debate.

 

Typically they don't...

 

They may well be doing that, but a statement like that gives the appearance of throwing all his opposition into a racial bag. That's not fair -- people can oppose Obama without being racists.

 

I don't know how you would infer from Obama's statements that he was calling all of his opponents racists.

[Pangloss]

They may well be doing that, but a statement like that gives the appearance of throwing all his opposition into a racial bag. That's not fair -- people can oppose Obama without being racists.

I don't know how you would infer from Obama's statements that he was calling all of his opponents racists.

 

In what other way besides skin color does Obama "not look like those other" presidents and past presidential candidates?

 

He's kinda tall and thin, I suppose. Perhaps that's what he meant. Somebody issue a press release quick.

[iNow]

I don't know how you would infer from Obama's statements that he was calling all of his opponents racists.

He's been accused of playing "the race card." He was speaking to an audience where he was commenting on the Republican attack machine. He made comments about how they were going to try to scare the American populace, and make them anxious about Obama. It worked so well against Kerry in 2004 with the swift boating, that it's a valid concern to express. He said that they were going to say he was a risky guy, and he had a weird name and how he doesn't look like the presidents on the $1 or $5 bills.

 

Makes sense. Historical precendent was set, these tactics are consistent, and we're already seeing them.

 

So, only minutes after he completed his comments, McCain's campaign manager jumped out and said he was "playing the race card," and not only that, but he was "dealing from the bottom of the deck."

 

 

So, comments about the attack machine resulted in more attacks from said machine. It's really like a dog chasing its tail and quite disgusting.

 

 

These two links capture the issue well:

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=5504858

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/25998190#25998190

[bascule]

In what other way besides skin color does Obama "not look like those other" presidents and past presidential candidates?

 

He's kinda tall and thin, I suppose. Perhaps that's what he meant. Somebody issue a press release quick.

 

And you've gone from that innuendo to Obama: "All of my opponents are racists"

[Pangloss]

He's been accused of playing "the race card." He was speaking to an audience where he was commenting on the Republican attack machine. He made comments about how they were going to try to scare the American populace' date=' and make them anxious about Obama. It worked so well against Kerry in 2004 with the swift boating, that it's a valid concern to express. He said that they were going to say he was a risky guy, and he had a weird name and how he doesn't look like the presidents on the $1 or $5 bills.

 

Makes sense. Historical precendent was set, these tactics are consistent, and we're already seeing them.

 

So, only minutes after he completed his comments, McCain's campaign manager jumped out and said he was "playing the race card," and not only that, but he was "dealing from the bottom of the deck."

 

 

So, comments about the attack machine resulted in more attacks from said machine. It's really like a dog chasing its tail and quite disgusting.

[/quote']

 

Exactly. He was saying that he's being attacked on the basis that Republicans want to scare people about the fact that he's black. It's called playing the race card. A time-honored American political tradition, and it's disappointing to see it from a man who calls hope "audacious".

 

He shouldn't be talking about the conservative/Republican attack machine either, though for a different reason. That's beneath the dignity of a presidential candidate; the sort of thing you have your lackeys do. That's what they're for. Complaining about being attacked makes him come across like a stereotypical Hollywood screen politician.

 

Granted what his opponent is doing at the moment is worse, but two wrongs don't make a right. Come to think on it, "two wrongs don't make a right" is the entire basis of his campaign, or at least his appeal to moderates. I hope he hasn't forgotten that.

[iNow]

What bugs me a bit is that our nation is still not mature enough to talk about how race very genuinely plays a role in this campaign without being accused of "skin color poker." Obama has every right to talk about it, as does McCain. It's a real issue for many, and if they openly put the dialog out there then it may have real impact to move our nation forward.

 

When it becomes "beneath the dignity of the presidential office" is when it's not articulated as a sincere and authentic issue, but instead as a craftily spun blurb of focussed obfuscation.

 

 

Also in the news today, a relevant donor to the McCain campaign expressed her offence at McCains recent commercial:

 

 

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hYXNxmjlnpC2aHwsOdPmg6u7f3PAD92BFBH00

 

"It is a complete waste of the country's time and attention at the very moment when millions of people are losing their homes and their jobs," Kathy Hilton said in a short article posted on the liberal Huffington Post Web site. "And it is a completely frivolous way to choose the next president of the United States."

 

McCain on Friday denied that his campaign had taken a negative turn, saying, "We think it's got a lot of humor in it, we're having fun and enjoying it."

 

Kathy Hilton, however, was unpersuaded, calling the ad "a complete waste of the money John McCain's contributors have donated to his campaign."

[Pangloss]

Making a false accusation isn't "talking about it".

 

BTW, I think you might have misunderstood me -- I don't think it's beneath the dignity of a presidential candidate to talk about race, I think it's beneath them to talk about the opposition's cheesy attack methods.

[ecoli]

Because two wrongs don't make a right.

 

So maybe it's not negative campaigning that's bad, but the fact that our nation is built on a two party system. A negative ad against one is automatically good for the other guy.

If the two parties didn't have so much power, and third parties actually had a chance, maybe candidates wouldn't waste so much money on negative campaign ads, because it would be akin to a free lunch for the third guy.

[Pangloss]

Well I think this fall you're certainly going to see the biggest demonstration in favor of more than two parties that this country has ever seen. It'll be called "Election 2008". Never before has Congressional approval been so low, and the fact that people aren't flocking to vote for the opposition party either, just goes to show how disenchanted people are with both parties. Democrats will pick up seats in both the House and Senate, they'll call it a "mandate", and then they'll watch their approval rating fall even further (no doubt wondering how that's even possible).

 

Unless, of course, they change their tune. Democrats have shown some signs of waking up to reality recently, talking about how gas prices aren't going to come down just because we drill more, for example. But then they go right back to cheesy populist tricks like trying to get gas released from the reserve. Two steps forward, one step back. I'll take it, though.

[bascule]

I don't know about you, but I'm pissed off at Congress because they aren't doing anything about the criminals in the White House, at the very least ending the war they started.

 

If anything, the currently elected Congress did effectively have a mandate that they failed to follow through on.

 

Perhaps time heals all wounds and a new administration will end the political gridlock.

[Pangloss]

Well at least part of the reason that they're "not doing anything about the criminals in the White House" is the difficulty of making a legal case on that basis. You can't even meet the burden of proof here at SFN, what makes you think you could meet it in front of an impartial judge?

 

Besides, partisan brinksmanship (e.g. impeachment) isn't the answer to ending political gridlock. It just perpetuates it. One of the few things I agree with Nancy Pelosi on, and kudos to her for sticking by her guns on that issue.

[iNow]

I don't think it's beneath the dignity of a presidential candidate to talk about race, I think it's beneath them to talk about the opposition's cheesy attack methods.

 

I'm not sure why you would say this. Discussing the situation we are experiencing in the present in an authentic way is very appropriate. The attack methods aren't "cheesy," they are undignified and working far too well.

 

I apologize for not taking more time to express my point. It's been a long day and I'm really tired. I may come back to this post tomorrow, but I wanted to comment now. I think the McCain campaign should be heavily ostracized for it's ridiculous approach in this campaign. I think McCain himself should be outraged at how this approach is ruining the good name he has fought so very hard for, and which he rightly deserved, during all of these past decades.

 

 

An election focussed on this issues is exactly what we're having. The problem is that the most prevalent issue seems to be stupid mudslinging, content-free issues, and pandering to the lowest common denominator.

[bascule]

Well at least part of the reason that they're "not doing anything about the criminals in the White House" is the difficulty of making a legal case on that basis. You can't even meet the burden of proof here at SFN, what makes you think you could meet it in front of an impartial judge?

 

What do you make of Vincent Bugliosi's book? Is that just more partisan rhetoric to you?

 

Besides, partisan brinksmanship (e.g. impeachment) isn't the answer to ending political gridlock.

 

I think having a President such that you don't have to worry about having enough votes for a veto override, especially mustering a 2/3 majority in a Senate that's split 50/50, will help clear up a lot of that gridlock.

[Pangloss]

I think the McCain campaign should be heavily ostracized for it's ridiculous approach in this campaign. I think McCain himself should be outraged at how this approach is ruining the good name he has fought so very hard for, and which he rightly deserved, during all of these past decades.

 

An election focussed on this issues is exactly what we're having. The problem is that the most prevalent issue seems to be stupid mudslinging, content-free issues, and pandering to the lowest common denominator.

 

Well I certainly agree with your criticism of McCain, 100%.

 

The problem with Obama talking about that is that Obama himself has an iron in that fire. Therefore, whether he is sincere or not, many people will immediately question his objectivity on that subject. We are not a society that is trusting of its politicians right now, and for good reason.

 

You proceed from a position of already believing that Obama is not only the better candidate, but is also sincere in his intentions and in his beliefs. But if there is one thing that is absolutely certain right now -- absolutely, 100% certain, according to every poll on record -- it's that not everyone who will ultimately vote for Obama this fall has yet made up their mind. And those people need to be lead to a positive solution about change in America, not berated about the Republican attack machine that they may well have voted for only four years ago.

 

Many on the far left just assume that anyone who doesn't support Obama right now has been unduly influenced by that Republican attack machine. But there's no "magic date" by which you're "with us or against us". These things take time. Perfectly intelligent people reach conclusions in different time frames and in very different ways. That has to be respected, even if the conclusion they arrive at is ultimately not the one we wish.

 

Another reason why he shouldn't be talking about it is the same one that you gave about McCain. It drags him down to McCain's campaign's level. It's like when you yell at me and I yell at you (or vice-versa) and everyone else here rolls their eyes and looks for another thread. We do much better when we avoid that sort of thing, and so do they.

 

That having been said, though, I respect where you're coming from with it -- you're absolutely right in saying that we should be having a dialogue in this country about political attack machines just as we should be having a dialogue about race relations. I guess we just disagree about who should be leading that dialogue at this particular moment in time.

 

---

line[/hr]

 

What do you make of Vincent Bugliosi's book? Is that just more partisan rhetoric to you?

 

You mean "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder"? I haven't read it, but the title's a bit of a giveaway, don't you think?

 

 

I think having a President such that you don't have to worry about having enough votes for a veto override, especially mustering a 2/3 majority in a Senate that's split 50/50, will help clear up a lot of that gridlock.

 

Well yes, and if Joseph Stalin were in charge we wouldn't have any gridlock at all. We have two parties for a reason, bascule. They wouldn't have any gridlock right now if they were passing laws that both sides of the aisle agreed upon.

 

If your party of preference had that 2/3rds majority in the Senate right now its solution to the energy crisis would be releasing small amounts of oil on a regular basis from the national reserve. Yessir, that's a major leap forward alright. Cannot wait.

Edited August 5, 2008 by Pangloss
multiple post merged

[iNow]

...not everyone who will ultimately vote for Obama this fall has yet made up their mind. And those people need to be lead to a positive solution about change in America, not berated about the Republican attack machine that they may well have voted for only four years ago.

 

<...>

 

...you're absolutely right in saying that we should be having a dialogue in this country about political attack machines just as we should be having a dialogue about race relations. I guess we just disagree about who should be leading that dialogue at this particular moment in time.

Let me ask you your opinion on this, then.

 

If Obama is being attacked, and he avoids making retaliatory attacks (like negative ads of his own toward the other side), how is he supposed to defend himself? If you take the option of discussing authentically the Republican attack machine off of the table, what other responses does he have at his disposal to negate the impact such negative ads have on the populace?

 

If he is all "message" and all "ideas," then he will lose many of the people who trust McCain's ads enough to believe them. Yet, according to you, if he responds and counters them, shows them for what they are, he loses undecideds.

 

It's a no win position. Again, though... how else should he respond? What would you propose he do instead? Turning the other cheek could lose him the election since ignorance and misguidedness often votes in blocks.

 

 

To be fair to you, I don't know the answers to my questions above at all. I'm just enormously frustrated with and tired of YET ANOTHER US ELECTION focussing on the ridiculous BS instead of the problems we collectively face. I suppose it's a good thing that California recently made legal gay marriage, otherwise, we'd be hearing that tired old war drum beating too...