What do you think about those who caution us not to go negative/truthful?

[MoonRiver]

Poll question: What do you think about those who caution us not to go negative/truthful?

[HEyHEY]

1. Bush subversives

[volosong]

22. If Going Negative Didn't Work

We wouldn't be having this discussion.

Sure voters claim they don't like negative campaigning, but results ALWAYS prove that negative attacks work. End of discussion.

[MoonRiver]

29. Sadly, the negatives get voters attention more.

I think that is a huge part of why they work. We are a nation of citizens with short attention spans and a love of scandal.

[Cobalt Violet]

2. I think they should start the NICE party...

And see how far they get.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

3. Cable "News" Whores are pushing a loosing....

stragegy for Kerry.

[A_Possum]

4. This poll splits the "they think it's a winning strategy" group

You have 3 questions about why someone might think negativity won't work, and only 1 question for those who think it will.

You've weighted this to make it come out ahead for "losing strategy."

[MoonRiver]

6. Well, can you suggest another question? I don't quite understand

what you're saying.

[MrBenchley]

9. A weighted poll and demonization of their opponents....

Sure sounds like Republicans to me (snicker)

[MoonRiver]

11. Can you suggest another question to balance it better then?

These struck me as the primary factors going on. I don't claim to be a professional pollster, btw. And I don't play one on DU.

[A_Possum]

26. Oh, I'm not saying your questions are "wrong"

Was just pointing out that because of the way the questions are phrased, only 1 indicates that going negative is a "losing" strategy, while at least 2, or 3 if you count "other" imply a winning strategy. Therefore, the sum of those who think it's a winning strategy but have different reasons for thinking so are split, and appear to be falling behind in the poll by a larger margin than their sum would indicate.

I guess you'd have to come up with two ways it's a losing strategy to weight it evenly.

[MoonRiver]

27. OK, I understand.

But maybe this poll gives us a little insight into how we DUers feel. And the comments have been awesome!

[acmavm]

5. Sensation and ugliness, while unattractive, is what captures the attention

of the American public. And there is just so much to work with when it comes to this administration. They are getting over on the public by throwing words out like compassion, Christian, etc. Start showing what they really are, and do it in a big way. There is no way that being 'nice' will win this election.

They're slinging mud, we need to sling bricks.

[chefgirl]

17. Exactly how I see it , acmavm

The media simply aren't covering all these wonderful speeches Kerry is giving, but they sure as hell were all over his midnight rally when they thought they would get some juicy soundbite.

Sensationalism sells, and the Kerry campaign, IMO, needs to do a hell of a lot more of it.

All they have to do is use the truth against the idiot. Short, sarcastic, true tidbits of info about these criminals would break through the fog of the average voter.

Give the voters what they want. WE are all already going to vote for him. The voters he needs to go after are the ones sitting on their couches, not paying attention until someone stirs the pot and they hear it on their TV's.

Kerry needs to start some shit....throw the ball into the little dickheads court, piss him off and goad him into spending his time defending himself. Bush is a petty, mean spirited man. I have no doubt he would take the bait.

-chef-

[rfranklin]

7. Branding the truth as "negative" is a handicap...

Saying "Bush has killed thousands upon thousands of innocent people" is the truth.

Saying that "Bush sucked their brains out of their heads with a straw" is negative.

All you have to do is tell the truth about Bush and say we'll do better. That's not negative. Negative is the smear technique that the Bush family has used again and again thtough their surrogates.

[MoonRiver]

8. I corrected. See updated message. Thanks!

:yourock:

[Old and In the Way]

10. Suggestion for your next poll, saywhat.

"What's wrong with Democrats?"

(a) They are wussies.
(b) They picked the wrong candidate.
(c) They are losers.
(d) They are the same as Republicans.

[MoonRiver]

13. Lol!

You can do that one!

[MrSandman]

12. They fail to see "attack ads" as...

either negative or positive. Stating outlandish prevarications which takes weeks to expose is negative.

Telling it like it is, exposing the fraud and deceit are positive ways of attacking to make Bush supporters or undecideds realize the deception of this President.

Failing to attack, especially when under attack, may feel morally superior, but will allow the Bush campaign to define Kerry in terms of the perceived strengths of the incumbent.

Kerry needs to define the failings of Bush so undecided or weak Bush supporters will accept him as a needed alternative to the incumbent.

[depakid]

14. Likely a combination of 1 & 2

although there are a few posters (not sangh0) who I've observed say things that make me suspect that they may be here for purposes other than to forward the progressive agenda or win this election. Call it lawyer's intuition.

For the most part, I think it stems from the fact that as progressives, we're on another level- both in terms of thought processes and emotional intellence. Someone posted an interesting application of Kohlbergs stages of moral development, noting that Republicans are stuck in the lower two levels- I think that was a very astute observation.

[raysr]

15. The people in this country

need to know exactly why things are the way they are, that means telling the truth about the repukes, if the information is negative so be it. They need to know who stopped them from getting an extention on their unemployment, they need to know all the dirty shit the Bushes have done, clear back to Prescott being run out of Columbus Ohio for wearing medals he didn't earn in WWI. All this has to come out. These SOB's are being made into heroes, it has to stop!!!

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

16. Let me quote Harry Truman

"I don't give 'em hell. I tell the truth. To them it's hell."

Nothing wrong with negative so long as it can be backed up. We should intersperse those with positive adds though.

[bigtree]

18. I'm a Bush subversive?

I wrote a book last year. I've promoted it here.

It's called "Power Of Mischief". http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0974735205/002-0073119-5222456?v=glance&s=books

Go check it out. I think it is still available in its entirety somewhere on the net. Google the name and mine, Ron Fullwood. Here's an excerpt:

Food for Thought

"If the Almighty Ruler of Nations, with his eternal truth and justice, be on your side of the North, or on yours of the South, that truth and that justice will surely prevail, by the judgment of this great tribunal, the American people. By the frame of the government under which we live, these same people have wisely given their public servants but little power for mischief; and have, with equal wisdom, provided for the return of that little to their own hands at very short intervals."
~Abraham Lincoln

What power for mischief is there in the short interval of an imperial presidency? What power for mischief is there in a small cabal of appointed executives who capture the offices of our government and plot to bend their weakened franchise to the realization of their narrow corporate agenda?

These preoccupied courts of equity that are the instruments of our democracy were, in their infancy, forced to bend to the will of the governed by war, and tempered by a compact in which a united people reluctantly bestowed the force of their lives and labor to a handful of managers. From that compact, a nation was born.

And from that compact, generations of Americans would give their faith and their lifeblood to defend the principles and morality which cosseted every sacrifice of their freedom and well-being that they entrusted to those they elected, for the benefit and furtherance of the common good.

These same Americans would demand that those who profess to lead us would wield the power of our collective faith and struggle with a selfless spirit, and be humbled by the source of the awesome power that is effectively bequeathed to them with our vote.

But through our nation's faith, and in the trust we place in our representatives that they would be humbled to serve the will of the people, and by their good judgement lead, we have been betrayed by a ruling-class oligarchy which has perpetuated its role and influence in our governance; not by the quality of their service, but through the advantages of patronage and association.

This Republican administration is a reflection of that tiny percentage of the nation's citizens who have maintained their wealth and influence through the last century. Despite the persistent poverty of generations of Americans who work and struggle with no guarantee of success or survival, this same working-class of people routinely elevate these power-brokers to the cadre of the privileged few who would lord over their wealth in the offices of our government.

With our votes, cast for hollow promises of representation in the division and disposition of our contributions of blood and sacrifice, we get no more than spattered remains of precious meal from a pig's trough. And in turn, we assure their ascendency to that two-percent confederation of corporate interests who routinely divide the fruits of our labor for their own benefit and purpose.

What is the power for mischief in the short interval of an imperial presidency? It is in the executive looting of our tax dollars and the bankrupting of our government to further enrich that ruling class oligarchy.

To enrich that two-percent confederation of corporate interests in our government who perpetuate their class in and out of office by manipulating our precious contributions to democracy; from federal appropriations; to corporate tax breaks; and through sly deregulation schemes that allow them to slough off their responsibilities to worker safety, or to the protection of the community and the environment.

The power for mischief is in the unelected, unchecked executive appointments gifted by this two-percent confederation to their power-driven lackeys, to lord over our regulatory agencies; to infect and obstruct the very institutions which are there to protect and assist the common citizen; by under-funding them and intimidating the public servants; barely allowing the emasculated institutions to survive; giving them a reluctance to respond to any but the entrenched, monied interests.

The power for mischief is in the systematic targeting and suppression by the forces of our executive government, of groups and individuals who raise their voices in disagreement with its practices or policies. And the mischief is in the arbitrary expulsion, without due process, of those who would immigrate to America and dare to criticize their benefactor.

What is the power for mischief in the short interval of an imperial presidency? The power for mischief is in an unelected, star-chamber Supreme Court whose life-appointed justices huddle to decide whether to halt the counting of the votes in a presidential election.

The power for mischief is in the ascendence of a counterfeit loser who would govern with the approval of less than half of those who actually voted.

[MoonRiver]

23. That's not what I think at all.

I did this poll because there are many questions about whether to go negative/truthful or not. Some question why we keep up this stay positive stance when we're being pummelled by the exact opposite tact. I have been al for taking the high road until recently. Now I think it's time to start attacking. But the attacks should all be about true events and policies, not slander and lies. I appreciate your input very much bigtree, and your book seems like a great read. And I plan to read it.

[bushwakker]

19. They are Greens - fuck 'em

[bigtree]

20. Wrong again

[Tangledog]

21. Because it doesn't work?

I don't know about this. But I was thinking about a local race that an incumbent Democrat lost a few years ago. He went negative in the last couple of days and essentially tanked whatever chance he had left to win.

I can't back this up via stats. But here are a couple of hypotheses:

a) Republicans are coated in Teflon. A lot of people were immune to hating Ronald Reagan, even if he was destroying their lifestyles. Apparently B* has some of that same appeal, though if I knew why I'd bottle it and get rich.

b) It's relatively easy to get a Republican into a drooling paroxysm of rage over, say, Willie Horton. Republicans are motivated by perceived injustice, and they personalize it. The Democratic loathing of B* is almost unprecedented; I haven't seen anything like it since Nixon, and even then it might have been more of a generational thing -- that is, if you were young and liberal you were prone to thinking that Nixon was the Antichrist; if you were liberal but not young, you were more inclined to think that Nixon was just another right-wing wackdome, not really any worse than the rest of them.

But if I'm at all on track here, the Democratic political operatives are thinking like:

a) Going negative will turn off some of our core supporters.

b) Going negative won't win us any B* supporters. They've already drunk the Kool-aid.

c) Even if we went negative, we lose, because Karl Rove has been slinging it since he was 3 and we haven't. So we probably don't win the independents.

I'm not privy to their thoughts and I might be totally out to lunch here. But it's a speculation that I thought was worth mentioning.

[newyawker99]

25. Hi Tangledog!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Placebo]

24. Going Negative Sounds Nice, But It Doesn't Work

Think about the times we're living in. We're in a culture fueled by headlines, stereotypes, ads, gossip, drama, and for the vast majority of americans, VERY little substance.

It's easier to get into people's heads JOHN KERRY IS A LIAR, HE DIDN'T DESERVE HIS MEDALS, I KNOW, I WAS THERE, then it is to get into their heads the truth, because the truth often CAN'T be summed up into a 3 second sound-byte or a headline.

Negative attacks work because we're living in a negative society, and if thats the way we've got to play the game, then so be it

[sangh0]

28. Push poll

The opposite of "lie" is not "negative" The difference between truthful and negative is the difference between

a) "Where was Bush* from May 1972 to May 1973"

and

b) "Bush is AWOL"

[MoonRiver]

30. They do it, and it works. Should we?

Personally, at this stage of the game, I say hell yeah.

[sangh0]

31. Thanks for proving my point

Some people can't distinguish an attack on the issues and the records, and childish name-calling.

Here's a clue - name-calling appeals only to those who already agree with you because there's no content.

[LSdemocrat]

32. Other - they just don't understand politics

No candidate that simply "stayed positive" has ever won an election for President. Even politicians regarded as optimists (Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton) often made scathing, occasionally completely unfair negative attacks on their opponents.

Americans are not going to suddenly just "get it" about Bush. The media is too incompetent for that. Kerry and Edwards have finally started to go after Bush on the facts with specifics, so hopefully we can still turn this around.

[sangh0]

33. No one said Kerry shouldn't attack

You should read some of the other threads where posters promote the idea that Kerry should call Bush* a liar, a draft dodger, a murderer, and AWOL. Some say Kerry should tell lies.

Why tell lies when the truth is so damning?