For next: 43915
From: Buenos Aires, Argentina
Since last post: 2185 days
Last activity: 2135 days
|AIM: || ||#1 Posted on 1.11.02 2215.46 |
Reposted on: 1.11.09 2216.09
| Mudslinging fucking sucks. It says to me, that you don't have enough laurels to run on the issues, and instead have to resort to a "I might suck, but he sucks more!"|
With no Libertarian running here in New Mexico in the governor's race, I decided I'd vote for either John Sanchez or Bill Richardson, based on their philosophies. I read an interview with Richardson in the Alibi here that portrayed him as centrist, with some good ideas. I was considering voting for him. Then, just one turn of the TV changed that. A smear campaign against John Sanchez had started. My research on the topics and voting records would've eventually led to me supporting Sanchez, but, this turned it automatically. With the smear campaign going on, and me seeing no retaliation, the polls were relatively close. Then.. Sanchez's group started smearing as well. Another reason just to turn off big party politics. Now, fuck them, I think I'll just write in none of the above come Election Day.
|Promote this thread!|| |
For next: 181900
Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 2 days
|#2 Posted on 2.11.02 2049.34 |
Reposted on: 2.11.09 2050.25
| And I thought the race here in CT's 5th District was bad. It's gotten to the point where Nancy Johnson's campaign sent us three different flyers saying to vote for her, and I believe it was also her side running attack ads attacking Maloney's usage of attack ads. I'm tempted to vote for Pillsbury, but at my internship, he faxes us about four or five press releases a day, which I have to future. More work for me = no vote for you. |
Then in another race in CT, some religious group in Virginia mailed out flyers in the name of one of the candidates, saying to vote for him so he can ban gay marraiges. Although the candidate is against same-sex marraiges, he never even considered this sort of campaign. He never asked the group to mail them or anything. And he only found out about it when he got one of the flyers in the mail.
For next: 200343
From: Pittsburgh, PA
Since last post: 51 days
Last activity: 4 days
|AIM: || ||#3 Posted on 3.11.02 2203.12 |
Reposted on: 3.11.09 2204.00
| The Pennsylvania governer's race has gotten pretty... unusual.|
The frontrunner, Ed Rendell, is the governer of Philadelphia. He's up against Mike Fisher, the state Attorney General and native Pittsburgher. Fisher has begun running local commercials indicating how much he loves the Steelers and how much better a Primani Brothers sandwich is than a Philly Cheese Steak. I have yet to meet one person, Republican or Democrat, who thinks these commercials are anything but condesending and desperate.
(NOTE: Primani Brothers is a major Pittsburgh cultural landmark - the home of the best damn sandwiches on the planet. Huge and thick, and topped with coleslaw and french fries. Trust me, don't knock it until you try it and, if you ever see a "Pittsburgh sandwich" somewhere, that's what it is.)
The local "news media" found themselves an opportunity to really dig into the political campaign for once and conduct a week-long investigation, attempting to determine if that was a *real* Primani sandwich. (It was.)
If I were Rendell, I'd pay money to have those commercials run in Philadelphia myself...
For next: 191330
Since last post: 2516 days
Last activity: 238 days
|#4 Posted on 4.11.02 0848.31 |
Reposted on: 4.11.09 0849.23
Originally posted by OlFuzzyBastard
If I were Rendell, I'd pay money to have those commercials run in Philadelphia myself...
For all intents and purposes, they have. Rendell's been running an ad for a week-plus detailing Fisher's anti-Philadelphia theme, and ending with "You've heard what Mike Fisher thinks about us. On Election Day, show Mike Fisher what you think about him."
This is going to be an ass-stomping of Biblical proportions.
For next: 11078
From: Plain Dealing, LA
Since last post: 282 days
Last activity: 3 hours
|#5 Posted on 4.11.02 1426.02 |
Reposted on: 4.11.09 1429.05
Originally posted by kazhayashi81
Mudslinging fucking sucks. It says to me, that you don't have enough laurels to run on the issues, and instead have to resort to a "I might suck, but he sucks more!"
I so agree. One of the great virtues of Directv is that I only have to see political ads during the incredibly rare times that I'm watching network tv. I thought that the state GOP had wrapped up my award for the slimiest political ad of the season with their race-baiting ad against one of our gubernatorial candidates but the Democrats came through late to produce an ad that ranks in my personal top 5 of all-time slimiest political ads. We have a very heated race for a state senate seat in our district, the candidates genuinely don't like each other either professionally or personally, and this district could be the deciding one for control of the state senate. So, our state Democratic party decides to run an ad accusing the incumbent, a Republican Anesthesiologist, of refusing to see a child with a brain tumor because the child's parents only had Blue Cross/Blue Shield insurance, thereby driving the family into bankruptcy. Needless to say, just about everyone under the sun has come out of the woodwork to criticize the Democrats for this one, especially since medical records from the clinic and hospital at which the GOPer works indicate that he never had any contact with the child at the hospital and that the family never attempted to visit the clinic at which he works.
My candidate for slimiest ad of the year and proof positive that mud-slinging is anathema to anything that resembles rational political discourse.
For next: 248178
Since last post: 21 hours
Last activity: 4 hours
|#6 Posted on 4.11.02 1439.17 |
Reposted on: 4.11.09 1441.44
| Slimiest political ad this campaign season: RI governor's race, Democratic frontrunner accuses the Republican candidate for being personally responsible for the death of 15 miners in Brazil. The result of this ad, the Democrat blew a 15 point lead and looks like she will lose by at least 5. |
For next: 147165
From: Huntington Beach, CA
Since last post: 798 days
Last activity: 1 day
|#7 Posted on 4.11.02 1702.15 |
Reposted on: 4.11.09 1704.12
| I think the definition of "smear" campaigning is far too blurred anymore. I mean, I think it is perfectly OK for canditate A to come out and say "I support X, my opponent B does not, therefore, I am the better choice." Or "B voted for Z while in office, that is why I should replace him." These are all reasonalbe campaign points, and I see no reason why a canditate can't say things like that. Unfortunatly, nowadays, instead of defending their position, canditates will more often than not run to the press and start screaming about how their opponent is running a negative campaign. And then the ads gets worse- "A kills and eats small children," "B wants your grandma to starve and die of pneumonia." Every little fact is stretched until it yeilds its most negative possible meaning.|
Negative campaigning is not the problem. The canditates themselves are. How about a little TRUTH for a change?
For next: 42295
From: Happy Valley - Goose Bay, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada
Since last post: 2700 days
Last activity: 2424 days
|ICQ: || ||#8 Posted on 4.11.02 2111.14 |
Reposted on: 4.11.09 2112.25
| Canadian political ads are so much nicer, at least in the East.|
The absolute worst I've seen were the ads back in the '92 federal election, the ones the PC's was runnin' against the Liberals (specifically against Big Ol' Jean C.), basically saying "Would you vote for a man who looks like this?". Worst attack ads ever. Not attacking the ideas, actions or anything of merit, but his physical appearance. This upset many people greatly. The PC's proceeded to win half as many seats as there are in an double cab pickup truck (which was more the result of disliking over what they did in when they with Mulroney, and Campble for 6 months, as their leader when they were in power during the previous thing than with their stupid, stupid ads, I think).
I generally dislike political ads.
Especially American ones. They're all the same. general guideline follows:
Ominous music plays, black and white pictures shown, motion optional. Did you know that [candidate] does [thing] and is affiliated with [group which sounds eeeeevil, but may not be]? He is. [Candidate] supported [bill/legislation] to take money away from [schools/medicare/old people/the cripples/other cute and cuddly group]? He did. Not only that, but he's also in the pocket of [big evil corporation] and he wants to take away your right to [insert generally silly/bullshit thing here]. If you vote for [Candidate] you are sentencing yourself to [length of term + random adjectives, verbs and nouns strewn together] and he will take away your [insert right/privelidge/item here. Generally guns]. Oh, and he's really a communist. And he eats [babies/puppy dogs/kitty cats/other cute thing].
Switches to colour. That is why you should vote for [Candidate 2]. They won't do [insert things here from what Candidate accused of], and they will work for [you/the people/not big business]. And they really like [cute thing other candidate accused of eating].
Paid for by [either campgain of Candidate 2 or group not-affiliated with candidate 2, but hates Candidate].
(edited by Fuzzy Logic on 4.11.02 2319)
For next: 158771
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Since last post: 9 days
Last activity: 13 hours
|#9 Posted on 7.11.02 1133.01 |
Reposted on: 7.11.09 1133.16
| A couple of nights ago, Wolf Blitzer discussed negative ads with Mario Cuomo and a Republican whose name I can't recall. It was a light-hearted discussion, all of them were laughing at the ads.|
One in particular talked about a candidate's voting against a law banning public urination, and would you support such a candidate? Then it showed a young woman saying "Public urination? Gross!"
|ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE