Comments on: Obama Airs More Negative Ads http://themoderatevoice.com/22772/obama-airs-more-negative-ads/ An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:18:51 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: DLS http://themoderatevoice.com/22772/obama-airs-more-negative-ads/comment-page-1/#comment-151197 DLS Thu, 18 Sep 2008 23:56:31 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/negative-campaigning/22772/obama-airs-more-negative-ads/#comment-151197 The rabid won't be satisfied unless Obama commits serious slander and worse.<br><br>He's probably never going to stoop that low; sorry, lefties -- unless he's desperate and it's time for an amplification as an October Surprise. The rabid won't be satisfied unless Obama commits serious slander and worse.

He's probably never going to stoop that low; sorry, lefties — unless he's desperate and it's time for an amplification as an October Surprise.

]]> By: pacatrue http://themoderatevoice.com/22772/obama-airs-more-negative-ads/comment-page-1/#comment-151156 pacatrue Thu, 18 Sep 2008 23:12:35 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/negative-campaigning/22772/obama-airs-more-negative-ads/#comment-151156 Yeah, the very next paragraph in the article you link to after the one you quote seems extremely relevant to assessing this claim. So here it is:<br><br>"If that seems like a surprising statistic, it's partially because McCain's negative ads have gotten a great deal more attention in the media than Obama's. That owes primarily to the McCain camp's repeated use of debunked claims. The number also has something to do with the project's definition of a negative ad: "any ad where the candidate's opponent was mentioned." In other words, a spot that spends 27 seconds on how great Candidate A is and 3 seconds on what a jerk Candidate B is would be categorized the same way as an ad that spends its entirety bashing Candidate B. So while these stats tell us what percentage of each candidate's ads mentioned the opposition, there's no gradation available as to how negative each campaign's ads were." Yeah, the very next paragraph in the article you link to after the one you quote seems extremely relevant to assessing this claim. So here it is:

“If that seems like a surprising statistic, it's partially because McCain's negative ads have gotten a great deal more attention in the media than Obama's. That owes primarily to the McCain camp's repeated use of debunked claims. The number also has something to do with the project's definition of a negative ad: “any ad where the candidate's opponent was mentioned.” In other words, a spot that spends 27 seconds on how great Candidate A is and 3 seconds on what a jerk Candidate B is would be categorized the same way as an ad that spends its entirety bashing Candidate B. So while these stats tell us what percentage of each candidate's ads mentioned the opposition, there's no gradation available as to how negative each campaign's ads were.”

]]> By: roro80 http://themoderatevoice.com/22772/obama-airs-more-negative-ads/comment-page-1/#comment-151109 roro80 Thu, 18 Sep 2008 22:37:45 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/negative-campaigning/22772/obama-airs-more-negative-ads/#comment-151109 The article is very interesting, because it points out how "negative" was defined for the purpose of these stats. I live in California, where I guess the candidates don't think they need to advertise at all (fine -- we all know we're going dem anyway, spend the money where it's useful), but just from the ads I've seen on the internet, the difference in the level of negativity between the two candidates is pretty wide. In one case, I've seen honest, issues-based ads about a candidate's views and how the views of his opponent are wrong downright dangerous. In the other case, I've seen pretty character smears, flip sarcasm, hints of racism, and outright lies about policy (for both the "approving" candidate and his opponent). With this in mind, it's pretty incredible to say that Obama is "more negative" than McCain. <br><br>But again, I haven't seen a single ad on TV, so maybe I've only seen the ads that really stir things up (think lipstick, britney, etc). The article is very interesting, because it points out how “negative” was defined for the purpose of these stats. I live in California, where I guess the candidates don't think they need to advertise at all (fine — we all know we're going dem anyway, spend the money where it's useful), but just from the ads I've seen on the internet, the difference in the level of negativity between the two candidates is pretty wide. In one case, I've seen honest, issues-based ads about a candidate's views and how the views of his opponent are wrong downright dangerous. In the other case, I've seen pretty character smears, flip sarcasm, hints of racism, and outright lies about policy (for both the “approving” candidate and his opponent). With this in mind, it's pretty incredible to say that Obama is “more negative” than McCain.

But again, I haven't seen a single ad on TV, so maybe I've only seen the ads that really stir things up (think lipstick, britney, etc).

]]>