It's all this, "he did this" and "he did that" stuff. You can't trust any of them. It's all lies and smears on both sides. If someone was positive and said what they stood for, if it was reasonable, if I felt like I could trust someone to listen to both sides and really vote for what they calmly and rationally thought was best, they'd have my vote.
I'm not hearing any candidates like that here in Indiana. I hear Dan Coats say, "Pelosi, Obama, don't vote for Elsworth." I hear Brad Elsworth say, "lobbyist, lobbyist," don't vote for Coats. I don't hear Coats say, "We just have to get the budget balanced" and I don't hear Elsworth say, "We saved the economy from disaster." How do I feel about these two--I feel like they're both a couple of morons neither of whom should be a Senator. Thanks a lot, Evan Bayh for resigning and leaving us this mess.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Is the only problem the candidates, or is it also the general public that allows such ads to be effective?
If people showed that they would respond better to more detailed, positive ads, would not the candidates utilize such an approach? I think they would. The candidates have limited resources and time to get their messages across to the public. They emphasize the messages that seem to work.
Fox opinion link below suggesting mandatory voting. In the author's view, negative ads don't persuade one who is already going to the polls. They either keep someone home, or make a (normally conservative or liberal) voter angry enough to bother with it this year.
There is mandatory voting in Bolivia. No cars on the streets, all shops closed. You can vote a blank ballot. If you don't vote, you will find your bank account frozen very soon.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/10/19/kt-mcfarland-voting-negative-campaigns-whore-witch-australia-singapore-chile/
Such ads communicate to me the message, "Vote for me; I am the lesser of two evils."
Post a Comment