Democrats Getting Desperate- going Ad Hominem

easycruise said:
Your math skills need improvement.

Type of Negative Attacks by Party
(Candidate Ads Only)
Click to expand...

Interesting, that. One can't help but wonder what happens to the numbers when you throw in all the ads by "independent" groups.
 
And frankly, I have a lot more problem with these corporate ads than I do with negative ads of themselves.

I think one result of all the attack ads is that whoever wins is still viewed as tainted and untrustworthy. I think that's a healthy way to look at politicians, even though I would guess that they are no less ethical (and some a lot more so) than most of the population.

One of the bad things is that it sort of numbs us to scandal. I'm not sure what kind of scandal it would really take these days to end a politician's career. The bar is pretty darn high at the very least.
 
Political ads by either side becoming negative and personal? This is shocking, I say, truly shocking!


Wait, nope. It's business as usual.
 
Elind said:
My point earlier. Thank you.
Click to expand...
Your original point was not to say that Republicans were outspending Democrats no matter where the money comes from, is that right? You were just pointing out that in one area, namely the "sleaze ball" rule as it has been called in this thread, Reps have outspent Dems, correct?

If we look at overall spending, it again seems the Dems have outspent the Reps. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/44216.html

If anyone would like to argue otherwise, please do.
 
Last edited:
That article states that Conservatives have spent more than twice as much on attack ads than Liberals.
 
thaiboxerken said:
That article states that Conservatives have spent more than twice as much on attack ads than Liberals.
Click to expand...
Indeed, it does. And come this Tuesday the impact of those ads will put the Reps in charge of the House, will siphon off the considerable Dem majority in the Senate, and will increase the number of Republican governorships.

If attack ads are so effective as to do all this, and if the Dems have raised the most cash overall regardless of its origin, why haven't the Dems spent more on attack ads?
 
Last edited:
Dumb All Over said:
If attack ads are so effective as to do all this, and if the Dems have raised the most cash overall regardless of its origin, why haven't the Dems spent more on attack ads?
Click to expand...
Maybe they have but there so ineffectual noones noticed. Kind of like the administration as a whole...
 
Dumb All Over said:
Your original point was not to say that Republicans were outspending Democrats no matter where the money comes from, is that right? You were just pointing out that in one area, namely the "sleaze ball" rule as it has been called in this thread, Reps have outspent Dems, correct?

If we look at overall spending, it again seems the Dems have outspent the Reps. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/44216.html

If anyone would like to argue otherwise, please do.
Click to expand...

My original point was spending, period, and I am going by the frequency I see and hear this allegation in the press, not an analysis of analyses. If the difference is not that great, good. On the other hand your link says the following:

But the decision by some of the GOP groups to organize under tax laws allowing them to keep their donors secret raises the question of “who will these candidates be beholden to in the end?” he added.
Click to expand...

What is the point of secret donors if they have nothing to hide?
 
Elind said:
My original point was spending, period,
Click to expand...
Thank you for your clarification. So, in your original post when you said, "Given that the Republicans are outspending them by several times," we will rightly understand that you meant spending, period, and not just spending via the sleaze ball rule.

Given that you thought it was the other way around, how surprised are you now to know that the Democrats have actually outspent the Republicans?
 
Dumb All Over said:
Indeed, it does. And come this Tuesday the impact of those ads will put the Reps in charge of the House, will siphon off the considerable Dem majority in the Senate, and will increase the number of Republican governorships.

If attack ads are so effective as to do all this, and if the Dems have raised the most cash overall regardless of its origin, why haven't the Dems spent more on attack ads?
Click to expand...
Correlation is not causation. The party of the occupant of the White House almost always gets thumped in the midterms. There are so many factors in play, it is impossible to assert that attack ads (or any one other factor) caused the election result.
 
Dumb All Over said:
What I don't think is that Republicans have outspent Democrats by several times or at all. You do. You are wrong.
Click to expand...

The article you linked to stated that the Republicans have outspent the Dems by about 2 times. 86million vs 40million.

Who is wrong?
 
Dumb All Over said:
Thank you for your clarification. So, in your original post when you said, "Given that the Republicans are outspending them by several times," we will rightly understand that you meant spending, period, and not just spending via the sleaze ball rule.

Given that you thought it was the other way around, how surprised are you now to know that the Democrats have actually outspent the Republicans?
Click to expand...

I think what he means is that more money is being spent on ads that favor Republicans (or attack Democrats) than vice versa.

You're only pointing out that the Democratic Party (or Democratic candidates) themselves have outspent the Republican Party (or Republican candidates) themselves. Since the Citizens United decision that's not a very accurate way of assessing campaign spending.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom