Would you vote for a candidate who did not run a negative ad campaign?

Answer 1

Totally ... the candidate would earn instant credibility and respect!

Answer 2

i ask your self the place all of you men see Obama working a adverse marketing campaign. The final time I examine, the McCain’s marketing campaign is the only that attempt to downgrade Obama’s previous experience a community organizer. Does his marketing campaign be responsive to it became into community organizers who wrote the announcement of self reliant, created County First, and for God sake… even the bible takes us that Jesus became right into a community organizer. Now i'm no longer asserting Obama is a messiah, yet permit’s be honest. ….AND with regard to the lipstick on a pig. Why became into it ok while McCain used some twelve months in the past while he became into mocking Hilary’s well being care plan. The media is in simple terms being bias. so some distance the sole candidate who's sticking to the undertaking is Obama. on a similar time as Rep. are working a "character marketing campaign". that's no longer a severe college popularity contest.

Answer 3

Only if I agreed with their plans when elected. If they have stupid ideas and ran no negative ads, the ideas are still stupid.

I will vote for the best candidate in my opinion, and that MOSTLY has to do with the issues at hand

Answer 4

I would vote for the person I felt would do the best job.. The agenda , voting record , legislation , and job performance would have a lot to do with whether or not I would vote for them.. One thing all politicians understand, is "you catch more bees with honey than vinegar" even though some may forget it every now and then . So No, it depends on a whole lot more than their public persona..

Answer 5

sure. that would be just one criteria. you have to look at the whole package before voting for a candidate.

Answer 6

I'd want somebody who mixed it up.

Answer 7

I would rather not, but it is hard, since they all do.