Positive or Negative

[yabadabapal]

With the all important presidential election coming up, there has already been a storm of attacks between candidates. My curious question is what formula is most likely to win an election.

Positive- what your going to do

Negative - whats wrong with the other candidate.

What do you think is more effective and likely to win, a positive campaign or a negative campaign.

Im going to go with positive.

No politics!!!!

[Firefight911]

It is ever so much easier to cut on the opponent than it is to lift yourself up....

 

"See, look what he didn't do!", versus, "See, this is what I believe and this is what I did about it."

 

I deal with this all the time in my profession. We call it cutting the rope of your peer versus climbing up your own.

 

Effective? Simple - Positive.

 

Easier and more impactful to the superficial audience who use the media to chose their "candidate?" - Negative.

 

The high road is usually the better path but it is filled with mirrors of reflection and personal responsibility and character. The low road is all about deflection and character bashing another.

[Dave McReynolds]

Let's look at the extremes. Say Charles Manson decided to run for president. Charlie's a very smart guy; I'm sure he could put together a very positive campaign. Would a little negativity on the part of his opponent be called for?

 

OTOH, sometimes candidates over-react to the negative. Let's say that a candidate is shown to have paid a very low rate of tax on his high income. So long as it was legal, my response would be, "so what!" Facts are facts.

 

The worst kind of negative is the kind of innuendo that is difficult to prove or disprove, and tends to tarnish the recipient even if he tries to counter it (Did you know that Charles Mansion has never brushed his teeth once in the 30 odd years he's been in prison?)

[moshe_levy]

This shouldn't even be a debate. The answer is, and always has been, "NEGATIVE" with a capital N. I do not say this happily, but it must be accepted. People give lots of lip service to wanting to see a campaign which is founded on issues and the high ground - history however proves that the highway of politics has many such campaigns littering the side of the road, the negative opponents flying by when the voting time comes.

 

In fact in this very primary season such positive tactics were tried with miserable results, then abandoned for NEGATIVE with much better results.

 

We SAY we want positive. We say we want substance, focus, and seriousness. We however VOTE for negative, we watch TMZ, and we read National Enquirer. Such is the chasm between what people say, and what they actually respond to.

 

-MKL

[yabadabapal]

Its brutal out there. Im still going positive but then again Im not running for office but I am at least running my own life, which is probably something most candidates and politicians cant do.

There has got to be someone in history who ran and won on a positive campaign I hope. FDR?

[RT66Rider]

IMO, it's all just fluff.

In the end, Big Money will make the call.

[moshe_levy]

Michael-

 

Big Money's involvement is obvious but secondary. Big Money buys the commercials and ad campaigns. The question is whether said commercials and campaigns are positive or negative. Let's watch, and see. We've already seen what SUPERPAC money has purchased in the primaries.

 

It's exactly what we were all told when every show on TV seemed to be Jerry Springer or some imitation thereof. If nobody watched it, if nobody responded to it, it wouldn't be on.

 

-MKL

[Jaguar]

I like reading about our forefathers. The first true election was John Adams (Federalist) against Thomas Jefferson (Non Federalist). The said parties later evolved into what we have today. As the first election, it was a negative slinging, dirt dragging all out verbal attack. That was 1796. So, the negativity has been around over 200 years.

The rule back then was the winner became president and the loser became vise president. So, it ended up with Adams (Federalist) as President and Jefferson (Non Federalist) as Vise President.

Note: Federalist = D - Non Federalist = R

[RT66Rider]

Big Money's involvement is obvious but secondary. Big Money buys the commercials and ad campaigns.

In an Idealistic World, this is what we would expect.

But I'm afraid that in this World, Big Money is not secondary, it's Primary.

 

Commercials and ad campaigns are just part of the illusion.

[moshe_levy]

In that sense, you're absolutely right. I was trying to stay in theory though, before we devolve too much...

 

-MKL

[Quinn]

Negative for sure. No matter what you do, there's always something that you didn't do. Makes it easier to chip away at an opponent. Why didn't Jesus cure all the lepers? He should have taught all those people to fish and make their own bread.

 

Hitler was the master of the "Big Lie". Once it's out there, you can chase it forever and never catch up.

 

For me the end result is that I seldom vote for anyone, just against the other guy. Just need some sort of snippit to hang my hat on so I can ignore the rest of the confusing information. "If the glove don't fit, you must aquit."

 

-----

 

 

 

 

[MT Wallet]

Let's say we have two candidates. They are both guy guys. They are likeable, have no skeletons of immorality or illegality in the closet. They both have a positive vision for the country. How are you going to choose? Each one out nices the other? Not in this country. It will inevitably boil down to the distinction created by the negative naraative. "I'm great but my opponent kicks little dogs." or "My opponent breaks his egg from the wrong end" Ok, of course they will go negative.

[Kathy R]

It's as if we are the source of our own dissatisfaction. I agree with many of you that human nature seeks the negative, but it is that very negative that turns so many off to the whole process.

 

I have noticed that there is far less tolerance for the negative campaigner in a small community where the stakes are mayor of a modest sized town. When you get to the big stage, something changes to that tolerance.

 

 

[MT Wallet]

Correction to my post above. 2nd Sentence should read "They are both good guys."

[Mister Tee]

How about a third choice, irrelevant? Which may be the case for those predisposed on party lines.

[barryd]

I wish it weren't so, but as noted by Moshe, negative is far more effective.

 

I would like to go back to the runner-up becoming VP arrangement though.

I think it has real merits.

 

 

 

[Ken H.]

Oh I think negative easily wins the election. People anymore don’t vote for people as much as they vote against them.

 

Negative fuels anger, which cheers on action. E.g. go vote. Positive fuels calm, which cheers on indifference. E.g. why bother?

 

 

[upflying]

Talk is cheap and geared to the audience. All politicians lie and all would be in jail if what they said was under oath.

They can be positive or negative all they want, actions of elected officials is how I decide.

[yabadabapal]

One thought or question I have is that I think aside from the candidates, that many of the voters are lazy thinkers. Im not saying Im any different for modesty purposes but It takes alot less thought and energy to let someone else tell you whats wrong with the other candidate and in that process let that negative candidate do the thinking for you. On the other side it takes much more thought and speculation from a voter who listens to a candidate who provides solutions to problems which requires the voter to think for themselves. Maybe negative lets people to be led and positive requires people to lead for themselves. I dont know.

[Dave McReynolds]

Maybe negative lets people to be led and positive requires people to lead for themselves. I dont know.

 

Candidate A comes out with a wonderful positive plan to solve all our problems. Candidate B responds, "That sounds like a good plan, but if you look at candidate A's record, you'll see that he has never followed though on a plan to completion in his life, and the last 10 plans he tried turned out to be disasters."

 

I think both positive and negative perspectives are necessary for a balanced view of a candidate, if honestly presented. The hard thing is that it's difficult to make an honest presentation in a 10 second sound bite, particularly if honesty is at the bottom of the priority list.

[taters]

negative ads carry the day...i would bet 25% of americans could not tell you the name of the vice`president....buzz words carry more weight...critical thinking in america? doesn't exist....

[leikam]

My curious question is what formula is most likely to win an election.

 

The winning formula is promising "a chicken in every pot."

 

The art comes in promising the right "chicken" to the right audience while persuading people that the other candidate won't deliver or, better yet, doesn't want you to get your chicken at all. Doing both parts well is more effective than just one or the other.

[g_frey]

Why does anyone believe any of this? According to "them" they have all been reformers. By now we should be living in heaven? You left out: who has the most money?