Dirty campaigning

arbilad · Head Chef

Dirty campaigning

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

It is sad how nasty these campaigns get. Even if one politician takes the high road they then have to spend most of their campaign answering media questions about the mud slung by the other party. This puts them on the defensive and instead of getting their ideas out they have to spend an inordinate amount of time in damage control with press releases and interviews trying to set the record strait because the media is too lazy to do it right the first time. I think this may be one reason why when one side starts slinging the other jumps right in. Better to be on offense than defense in politics seems to be the prevailing philosophy. I don't condone the behavior or support it but I understand why it happens.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

I say we start a popular grass roots movement to have a Constitutional Ammendment barring any mud slinging from campaigns. Any candidate who does so will have to forfeit any money they receive from those campaign matching funds provided by the government to candidates, be it state or federal... (you know, the thing where you check yes or no on your income tax fund whether or not you want $1 to go to the fund and that it will not increase your taxes to check yes.)

For me, that is why I don't much listen to what any of the candidates say anymore outside of what their stance is on a given issue and their voting record (if they have one) in public office. All the mud slinging is just a bunch of and

arbilad · Head Chef

salesortonscom wrote:

It is sad how nasty these campaigns get. Even if one politician takes the high road they then have to spend most of their campaign answering media questions about the mud slung by the other party. This puts them on the defensive and instead of getting their ideas out they have to spend an inordinate amount of time in damage control with press releases and interviews trying to set the record strait because the media is too lazy to do it right the first time. I think this may be one reason why when one side starts slinging the other jumps right in. Better to be on offense than defense in politics seems to be the prevailing philosophy. I don't condone the behavior or support it but I understand why it happens.

That reminds me, in the local state senate race, my state representitive was running for the republican state senate nomination. His republican opponents went on the attack early, and his ads became, basically, "I'm not all those nasty things they said I was." I actually heard his defensive ads before I heard the accusations. So I learned of the accusations against him in his ads, and since I thought his defense was kind of weak, it not only brought the accusations to my attention, it convinced me that they were true.

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

Cat, how would you define "mud-slinging"? Would it be illegal to point out that my opponent is a tax-cheater and that he voted against (insert issue of choice)? You could say that the ads would have to be truthful--who gets to decide that? Many of these things are subjective--we'd have a court case on every ad!! For instance, in the Tennessee Senate race, the Democrat is running an ad that says that the Republican, when he was mayor of Chattanooga, refused to give raises to cops and firemen. The truth is that he slowed the rate of the increase of their raises. So was that mud-slinging?

Negative ads are extremely effective and provide an important service. Who else is going to dig up the dirt on a candidate, if not his opponent?? The lazy, biased media aren't going to do it.

arbilad · Head Chef

Negative ads are extremely effective and provide an important service. Who else is going to dig up the dirt on a candidate, if not his opponent?? The lazy, biased media aren't going to do it.

So, Shiz, as a hypothetical, say you were to run for office. Would you, as an LDS candidate for public office, follow the advise of the bretheren not to speak ill of others, or follow the most effective campaigning tactic of mud-slinging?

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

So-called "negative" campaigning is a fine art. Naturally you don't want to get something really wrong--as that would only backfire , and I would want to avoid personal attacks. But if your opponent voted against something that is popular, say immigration reform, then you want to communicate that fact to the voters. If the candidate has a history of shady business dealings, then you want to let voters know about it.

Again, referring to the Tennessee Senate race, the Republican is under attack for his wealth. To me, that seems a silly line of argument. Most US Senators are extraordinarily wealthy. But for some voters, painting a candidate as wealthy, especially a Republican, is effective. It insinuates that he is out of touch, and it encourages people to vote against him out of envy.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Well, you bring up a very good point. What is actually mud-slinging?

I think perhaps anything that could be shown to be slanderous or distorting of the truth would. That would be the sensible thing, but then when was that last time much in politics or legal definition followed the common sense of the average person?

There is a difference between negative ad campaigns and mud-slinging. Clear case has been in the current Michigan gubenatorial race. Michigan Democratic party and their incumbent Gov. Granholm ran outright false ads against the Republican opponent saying because he had opened a plant in China (I think he is or was the CEO of Amway or something) he had off-shored manufacturing jobs from Michigan to China. The record actually showed that it was a new plant built for supporting China business, as required by China law, and that no jobs had been lost in Michigan as a result and actually more jobs had been added to Michigan facilities as a result to help bring the plant on line. The Michigan Republican party and the candidate obtained a court injunction that forced the false ads off the airwaves.

Randy · Senior Member

arbilad wrote:

since I thought his defense was kind of weak, it not only brought the accusations to my attention, it convinced me that they were true.

And here you have your answer in at least some cases. A weak defense is worse than useless. A politician who is attacked has to give a strong defense, which is often interpreted to be getting in the mud.

Euphrasie · Senior Bucketkeeper

Another thought is that simple "So-and-so voted against such-and-such" can be misleading.

How many voters are going to bother to find out about the specific issue voted on and why the candidate might have voted that way?

Any kind of 'opponent-based' campaigning turns me off. I prefer to just hear what the candidate stands for.

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

Euphrasie wrote:

Another thought is that simple "So-and-so voted against such-and-such" can be misleading.

How many voters are going to bother to find out about the specific issue voted on and why the candidate might have voted that way?

Any kind of 'opponent-based' campaigning turns me off. I prefer to just hear what the candidate stands for.

Good point. How many times has a senator or congressman been forced to vote against a bill they probably would have supported except that some other congressman or senator had attached a rider to it that they definitely couldn't support. It happens all the time.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

One nice thing about having written a note to my WA state senators, is that after receiving two form letters with really weak excuses, I have no problem voting for someone other than them...

--Ray

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

Bumping this thread to link to this interesting article on the topic:

http://www.reason.com/0611/fe.dm.attack.shtml

The thesis of the article:

"Negative campaigning is an issue across the country this fall... it's time to stand up in defense of the much-maligned attack ad. In this age of instantaneous information via blogs, round-the-clock cable coverage, and other media, political attacks can be swiftly countered. Any opinion offered about a candidate, no matter how mean, vile, or sinister, can be rebutted immediately and globally. Thanks to such exchanges, voters this year will know a lot about prospective elected officials if they are willing to process multiple sources of information and draw their own conclusions. "

Jeffery_LQ1W · Senior Member

Dirty campaigning is as old as this nation politically. Washington refused to have anymore personal correspondence with Jefferson after Jefferson began rumours tha Washington was senile.

Euphrasie · Senior Bucketkeeper

if they are willing to process multiple sources of information and draw their own conclusions. That's a big 'if.'

arbilad · Head Chef

Euphrasie wrote:

if they are willing to process multiple sources of information and draw their own conclusions. That's a big 'if.'

One thing I've learned is that the only source that can be implicitly trusted is the Lord. I've learned to think critically about any other source, including sources of news that I usually agree with.

arbilad · Head Chef

Here is an interesting article on negative ads.