Are there ANY positive campaign ads?

[Aerozord]

I am not trying to use hyperbole, I am actually asking if anyone has seen any ad that doesn't simply insult the opposing candidate?

I know mudslinging in US politics is bad, but never seen it so bad thats all they do.

[Mr.Bookworm]

According to Kantar Media’s Campaign Media Analysis Group, a total of 63,793 ads have been broadcast since the start of the general election campaign on April 10. Through May 24, those spots were almost perfectly split between positive and negative: 51 percent of them were positive, 49 percent negative. This week, CMAG crunched the numbers a bit further, breaking them down by partisan affiliation. And that revealed something interesting: Democrats are running a largely positive campaign, while Republicans are running a mostly negative one:

• Democratic presidential advertisers aired 35,936 ads. Of these, 70 percent (25,092) were positive and 30 percent (10,844) were negative.
• Republican presidential advertisers aired 27,857 ads. Of these, 27 percent (7,584) were positive and 73 percent (20,273) were negative.

Source. (http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-06-03/actually-obama-is-running-a-positive-campaign)

[Magus]

Here's a new one from the Republicans that's not...really negative in the same sense we mean "negative" ads, I don't think there's anything particularly untrue about it (some of it is misleading/facetious, or debatable, like "he made it worse", and so forth), it doesn't have scary music, etc.:

Jl41JUXi9lU

That said, I think this is the first ad I've seen this cycle that wasn't the "traditional negative" negative ad.

EDIT: Not saying the Republicans don't run more attack ads, just that this particular ad wasn't a traditional attack ad. I'm sure the Democrats run more "positive" ads that are pro-Obama as opposed to more attack ads that are anti-Romney than the other way around for the Republicans, but that this was the first ad I've seen this cycle that was an attack ad while not also being hyperbolic/sensational, and, ironically, it came from the Republicans. If there's a similar one from Obama (very well could be) I'd like to see it.

[Bells]

Just out of curiosity... what you guys define as a "Positive" and "Negative" ad?

Is a positive Ad when the ad just focus on positive aspects of the candidate without mentioning the other one? Is it when it implies that a candidate is not bad, just that the other is better? How you define this?

Also, is the number of ads higher in this Election cycle than the last few ones?

Cause i would totally relate this to Super Pacs

[Thadius]

An easy way to tell types of ads apart:

A positive one goes over all the experience you have, all the things you've done, all the things you promise to do.

These tend to be thinly-stretched truths, little white lies, or in the case of the things you promise to do, outright pandering that should not be taken seriously.

Negative ads are about your opponent, about finding something about him the public will dislike intensely, and bringing it to light. Over and over again.

An easy way to deal with ads:

Pushing the power button on your TV remote.

[shiney]

Just out of curiosity... what you guys define as a "Positive" and "Negative" ad?

Is a positive Ad when the ad just focus on positive aspects of the candidate without mentioning the other one? Is it when it implies that a candidate is not bad, just that the other is better? How you define this?

Also, is the number of ads higher in this Election cycle than the last few ones?

Cause i would totally relate this to Super Pacs

If the ad criticizes or attacks the opponent, it's almost always negative. If it promotes the candidate, it's usually positive. This is why you see the partisan divide -- the GOP has little if anything positive & noteworthy to run on, so they focus on demonizing the opposition.

[Locke cole]

I hate the stereotypical attack ads. The ones that show the opposition in black-and-white or grainy sepia; filters that one uses for a B-movie monster, only to have the world brighten up into full technicolor when they show the "right" candidate. It's just so paint-by-numbers, "this is what will rile the public" sort of stuff, that it's just insulting.

Democrat or Republican, those ads don't make me hate the opposition, it just makes me want to punch the editor in the face.

[Aerozord]

in a way these attack ads are actually a great metaphor

"look we know both choices suck but hey atleast we aren't as bad as the other guys"

I personally find the left wing politicians just as incompetant and self serving as the GOP, just their particular brand of evil is marginally less destructive.

Its like comparing a guy selling you snake oil that he claims will help you but really does nothing and just took your money.

vs

the guy that kicks you in the groin and takes your wallet.

Both screw you over, just one is more passive while the other actively hurts you

[Sifright]

in a way these attack ads are actually a great metaphor

"look we know both choices suck but hey atleast we aren't as bad as the other guys"

I personally find the left wing politicians just as incompetant and self serving as the GOP, just their particular brand of evil is marginally less destructive.

Its like comparing a guy selling you snake oil that he claims will help you but really does nothing and just took your money.

vs

the guy that kicks you in the groin and takes your wallet.

Both screw you over, just one is more passive while the other actively hurts you

aha... No.


You don't have left politicians running around in America or if you do they are independents have 0 chance of getting any where near power.

Some how I doubt very much you personally would lose and have your 'wallet stolen' by a leftist politician you know unless you happen to be on a personal income that allows you to live like a king. In which case I've no reason to care that you will be losing out a little given all the people starving in the gutters because wealth accumulation is all that matters.

[Amake]

Funny cross-cultural dichotomy: In Sweden we get negative ads mostly from the left side of the party spectrum. They like to pull out charts showing how people and/or the economy have suffered under right-wing government and how these things have improved under their own rule, historically. I suppose the right would do the same except there's not much actual data that would support their side in such a campaign.

Though most of the ads only mention the party or party coalition which is paying for them. It might be more interesting to note they advertise almost exclusively for, and we vote for, the parties rather than any prominent party members. (Although the last decade or so has seen a rise in charming spokespersons being promoted as faces of the parties, no doubt due to evil American influences.)

Looking at the amount of time and energy the Reps and Dems there in the US spend discouraging people from voting for the other guys, holy crap. That ad Magus linked alone makes me sad. There's the outright lying about Obama putting the country deeper in debt, there's that elaborately melancholic, betrayed tone to everything it says, there's that complete and blatant lack of substance, shit, it's a full minute of random people bitching randomly and nothing else.

What makes you a better choice than Obama? What are you going to do that he couldn't do better? Do you in fact have a plan at all? What do you even want? Those are the immediate questions coming to mind after watching it. If I had been raised to trust the Republican party that ad would make me worry they actually have no idea what they want besides having power over a great big country because it pisses them off that those other guys have it.

[phil_]

Well, Amake, politics in America is much like football in America (by which, I mean American football). It doesn't matter who's on your team or whether they win games; as long as it's your team, you're going to root for them. Once you choose a team, you can't change your team, or else you were never a true fan to begin with. Lastly, team affiliation is largely inherited from one's parents. The only difference is that there are more teams to choose from in football.

In such a scenario, "the other team has the ball presidency" is sufficient reason to vote for your team to win.

[Tev]

An easy way to deal with ads:

Pushing the power button on your TV remote.I haven't seen a political ad all season. I own a DVR.

EDIT: I don't count seeing an ad dissected for its claims on shows like The Daily Show or traditional news outlets as that is not really the format/scope the ad was intended for.

[Jagos]

You do realize that this is a result if Citizens United, right?

[POS Industries]

aha... No.


You don't have left politicians running around in America or if you do they are independents have 0 chance of getting any where near power.

Some how I doubt very much you personally would lose and have your 'wallet stolen' by a leftist politician you know unless you happen to be on a personal income that allows you to live like a king. In which case I've no reason to care that you will be losing out a little given all the people starving in the gutters because wealth accumulation is all that matters.
Well, in Aero's defense, I'm pretty sure the wallet stealing is analogous to the Republicans and the snake oil salesman who promises to do what you want but then just takes your money and does nothing is closer to how the Democrats usually perform, which are the "right" and "left" that we have in American politics, respectively.

Yes yes, I know, our definitions of "right wing" and "left wing" are quaint and laughable to you, but it's what we're stuck with for the time being.

[Aerozord]

that is correct, but to be more exact I mean those that CALL themselves that. If you were to abstract the terms and apply democrat and republican to those that actually follow their principles, instead of the names of two organizations that select people to run, you'd realize we haven't had an actual republican or democratic president in a long time.

[POS Industries]

Which is the result of having the entrenched two party system that we have. There are third parties such as the Libertarian or Constitution parties that are much more dedicated to the ideas of limited government and strict constitutional constructionism that that Republicans claim to be about (instead of the rampant government expansion and spending that they always end up doing when in power) and the Green and Socialist parties seem much more interested in upholding the values that the Democrats typically fail to live up to at every opportunity.

But since the only people who are in a position to pass comprehensive campaign finance reform are the people directly benefiting from the status quo, it's incredibly difficult to give the two major parties anything resembling a threat.

[Aerozord]

personally third parties aren't good picks either, just for more legit reasons. Namely that they tend to go too far in one direction or another. Green party doesn't look at just how severe the economic problems would be if alot of their policies were implimented. Socialists, well I think we need to secure worker rights, help educational advancement, and provide basic needs for survival (food, medicine, ect) but over all let the market go through its cycles. Most of our issues with, say, welfare isn't that its too much or too little its that its horribly implemented.

If Democrats were what they are supposed to be I'd say they are what I think we need. For a nation of our size (geographically and population) we need a more centralized government, not to mention our infrastructure is horribly outdated. We need regulation and oversight, but not actual control.

Sadly I think we are already past the point of return. We can stop things from degrading but I doubt we can remove some of the systemic problems we have in our system unless things get so bad we have another revolution.

But hey in 100 years the very idea of geopolitical governing bodies might be outdated so who knows.