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.

[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.:



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.

[Tev]

Originally Posted by Thadius

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.

[shiney]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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.