What do you think of negative campaigning?

Answer 1

"Mudslinging" has always been a part of politics. I don't consider it negative campaigning because speaking the truth is just that....the truth.

People are willing to do whatever it takes to win.

Good Luck!

Answer 2

I think it gears people toward fear rather than looking at the possibilities. It is done to capture the little minds who are always running in fear. The ones who watch the daily news as if it was gospel. Then they are sucked into this negative spiral of slander. The Bush campaign was all about it.Not that John Kerry did much of a job in running. Frankly I would have voted for his wife. But how did they manage to make Bush look like a war hero and Kerry a bad guy with those swift boat liars.
The truth was Bush deserted his post because he could. Kerry won several Purple Heart medals. He then protested against the war. The one we all know as a bad idea. He knew first hand. But negative campaigning sidelined the issues. People voted in fear that Kerry would not be up to the war in Iraq. Frankly he would have had us out of there. Something that is painfully obvious.
If you vote because you are voting in fear then maybe you shouldn't vote. I like don't vote.com. Don't vote unless you study the issues.

Answer 3

I believe negative campaigning is a waste of precious time and money.

I also believe negative campaigning has a boomerang effect more often then not causing the mudslinger to be viewed in a questionable light.

It appeals to those who truly dont understand the issues. If they did it would be quite obvious to them negative campaigning is a tactic used to pull attention away from the issues and the abilities of the mudslinger in simply hopes of gaining votes based on the bad reputation of the other guy. Anyone who understands the issues finds this unacceptable. In other words "spend more time proving to us why YOUR worthy...rather than why the other guy isn't"

Who wants a politician in office who uses such tactics? The maturity levels are dwindling year by year and we're left with high school children in expensive suits... pretty scary

Answer 4

Candidates have a limited amount of time to express their positions, and we, the people, have a limited attention span. So when they spend time bashing their opponent, that leaves less time for us to learn what they are FOR.

I think effective campaigning is telling us what your positions are, and leave the bashing to the public, there's plenty of that going around already. Also, take the high road. Assume your candidate is "okay", but you are better. If you make the candidate look TOO bad, then you don't have to raise yourself very high and could merely be the lesser of two evils.

Answer 5

I don't care if campaign ads are negative or positive. I care if they are substantive. If the incumbent is absolutely awful (like Rick Santorum or George Allen) then the challenger has every right to go negative as long as it remains substantive. I fully support candidates who say "Our Congessman sucks and that's why I'm running against him."

Answer 6

It's the last resort of candidates who don't have a good record to talk about.
"My votes put the US into the Iraq Quagmire and increased the deficit!" -- you're not going to hear that.

Answer 7

How else would you learn what sleeze is running for office if the competition were not aggressively investigating eachother??

Answer 8

All's fairin love war and politics. You don't have to watch if they bother you.

Answer 9

sick of it...both sides...just tell us what "you" want to do or believe in...not what ya think your opponent did wrong......just say what ya believe......