Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[jmancube]

            I recently received a letter from a politician taking part in the local elections. The candidates and location of election to me are irrelevant as I have seen this nearly everywhere. Instead of having reasons why someone should vote for the person the ad supports, it merely comments on the flaws or inadequacies of their opponent without even a reference as to why the supported candidate should be elected. Except due to the flaws of their opponent of course... But what I wanted to ask, was why is this form of campaigning so popular? I find it distasteful and unsuccessful in convincing me of the candidates potential as a representative, and lack to see why so many campaigns use it. I guess it might just be human nature to focus on the negative, but if anyone has a better reason, I would love to hear. Also, what is everyone else's opinion on negative campaigns?

[Leafsnail]

Because it's a lot easier to prove negative stuff than positive stuff about people.

You can look back at their career, say, and show them making a mistake that cost thousands of pounds.  Or you can interview someone who knows something about them, or dig some stuff up.

Wheras most good stuff is subjective (one man's successful project is another man's waste of money) or hard to prove (it's easy to prove someone's corrupt... but how do you prove integrity?  Except through a lack of evidence for corruption?).

[Bauglir]

-snip-

[Lord Shonus]

     Basically, it has to do with space and the attention span and education of your average voter. Generic statements like "I'll create jobs" or "I'll make the economy better" are virtually useless, as everybody is using them. Going into any detail of your plans is difficult in a thirty second commercial or two-page circular, and most voters don't have the training to understand the details anyway (although this goes both ways. It allows you to post a plan on your website and gain support because most people don't have the training to pick it apart). This is not because voters are stupid, rather that the economy and foriegn affairs are so complicated that it takes a LOT of education to deal with them.
    However, if you can tie your opponent to something that is unpopular with the nation as a whole (like the Iraq war), is a single-issue wonk that resonates strongly with your party faithful and is important to a lot of fence sitters (like gun control or abortion) or otherwise impugns the morality of the opponent (like the attempts to tie Obama to a terrorist and to his rather offensive pastor); you'll ping on their radar. This is especially useful for voters that "vote the man, not the party" making the personal character of the candidate the prime reason for voting.

[ECrownofFire]

Because most voters think ad hominem is a valid argument, even if they won't admit to it.

Ad hominem! I knew there was a name for the fallacy. I see it a lot.

I like to think that politicians have given up trying to prove that they're good people, and are just trying to prove that the other guy is even worse.

[Astramancer]

Because saying "Lord Dufus over there smoked a doobie when he was younger" take quite a bit less time than saying "I will help the economy and create jobs by pledging to raise tariffs on imported finished goods to reduce the amount of jobs moving overseas and to encourage local manufacturing.  Sure, there will be an initial period where stuff costs more, but when the factories get going, more money will stay in the local economy and not bleed out to Chinese suppliers, resulting in a general upward swing where everyone will benefit"

[nenjin]

Because politics is about selling people something they want to buy, and everyone is in the market for hate these days.

[Retro]

It would be really awesome to see a Canadian ad campaign that remotely gave a shit about the facts and platforms and didn't just insist that the leader's opponents were poo-poo heads baselessly, but I have long-since lost such optimism.

[Ampersand]

Because a lie can circle the world twice before the truth gets it's shoes on.

[Josephus]

Because it's a lot easier to prove negative stuff than positive stuff about people.

For example: the McCain vs Bush Jr Republican primary in 2000.

[jmancube]

I guess that all makes sense, I am probably in a minority that I am willing to devote time to actually learning the necessary knowledge to at least have a basic understanding of a politicians projected plans before I vote for them. I realize that they probably will not change their advertisement strategies, as they are effective on the majority of the population (I guess at this, I have no real data to support this assumption) but a man can have dreams, can't he?

[Vattic]

Because most voters think ad hominem is a valid argument, even if they won't admit to it.

Because ad hominem is sometimes a valid argument when someone's past performance, character, or motives are pertinent to the issue at hand. Attacking a politician for his past corruption and for skimming money into his offshore bank account might be a valid argument against re-electing him, assuming you can make such a claim safely and the vote is not rigged.

edit to add: I must admit I have distaste for most critical ad campaigns. I'm certainly not defending them with the paragraph above.

[ed boy]

The problem is that we live in a democracy where all people are treated equally. This means that politicians are rewarded for being more popular than the other people, not being a better candidate.

[Bauglir]

-snip-

[smjjames]

Political mudslinging in campaigns has been around for a very long time, centuries even, its in no way new.