So if you read the postings I made during the trip then you pretty much know how I spent Saturday afternoon. What you do not know is the extent of political ads I was forced to endure.
Once I reach vegas itself I stopped using the ipod in the car. I listened at the Ipod by way of a small fm transmitter and there were so many FM stations in Vegas it was difficult to find a clear channel for my own music. Because of this and the TV in my room, (Cable but no premium channels.) I saw and heard a lot of political ads during those three days.
I never saw one ad that was pro-Sharon Angel. Oh there were endless ads anti-Harry Reid. Some of them quickly tricky. (“Ladies, Harry Reid wants to take away your right to chose.” Without explicitly stating that what they mean is chose your won healthcare.) To me the ads in Nevada were microcosm of the political winds blowing across the country. It isn’t that the Republicans are suddenly popular with their ideas, it’s that the Democrats are taking a pounding.
You can argue it is because of the way the Democrats passed their bills.
You can argue it is because they tried to push the country to far left.
You can argue it is because the economy is in the drain and they’re caught holding the bag.
You can argue it is because Obama is so arrogant and people hate that.
You can argue all these viewpoints on why, but you cannot prove any of them. You can not disentangle the factors enough to prove any single factor is the principle factor in the coming wave. However, the wave is coming, the question is what happens next year with the new Congress.
I think it is more of a function of the wave election and incumbancy. In a Wave – like 1994, 2006, or 2010, the people are very unhappy with the conditions as they are and want change. The bodes ill for the power in control. The out-of-power candidates can run on generalities. Because they ARE out of power the candidates don;t have votes to haunt haunt them or specific stances to defend. hence they attacks are on policy –be generalized. (Deal with the debt but don’t say what yo are going to cut) The party in power can’t fall back on what they have done because the popualtion is angry and wants change. So they fall back to attack the personalities of the wave. Also wave elections tend to sweep in candidates that normally wouldn;t have a chance of winnning, this draws in more extreme candidates — on both side — and therefore more chances for personality based attacks from the status quo — the people on the wrong side of the wave.
Does it seem to you both as if the weaker party or candidate uses personal attacks as a last-ditch effort? Is it a tactic of despiration?
Thanks for the link. That was an interesting article. I followed the link in the article to the pdf of the survey. The definition used did not seem overly subjective.
Most interesting was the switcheroo that occurred between 2008 and 2010.
in 2010 the Democrats and their allies used more personal attributes based attack ads than the Republicans, but in 2008 it was the Republicans using more personally based attacks that the Democrats. (I really wish that had compared 2006 to 2010 I think that is a fairer comparison.)
So you statement that Democrats attack personally and not policy is true 2010, but false for 2008.
Found the story, here’s the link.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/vote-2010-elections-democratic-closing-argument-personal-attacks/story?id=11996410&page=1
The airwaves were flooded with attacks ads against Reid. I do not remember any ads attacking Angle. I did not hear any ad that I remember where policy was contrasted. (You hear plenty like that in the current Brown vs Whitman.) I’d be dubious of the story about personally based attacked ads vs policy based one until I read myself as that very definition of what is a policy based attack ad can be very slippery.
My point though is that I heard not ONE pro-angle ad. Never did I hear an ad that said what a great person Angle would be to vote for. If she wins and I think that is likely it will be because people hated Reid not because people supported her policy or goals and I think that will be generally rue across the board.
Ack typo alert! I meant to say “of the negative ads you saw” not say “of the negative ads you say” D’oh!
Question: of the negative ads you say, what was the subject?
Did the ads attacking Reid attack the person or his policies?
Did the ads attacking Angle attack the person or her policies?
Sadly, I can’t find the link right now, but I read a story about a fascinating survey which claims the overwhelming proportion of negative ads which attack policy come from republicans while the overwhelming proportion of negative ads which attack the person come from democrats.
Republicans attack policy while Democrats attack people.
Fascinating comparison of 2010 election to 1942 election!
http://1942and2010.blogspot.com/2010/10/comparing-1942-us-mid-term-election.html
Did you watch Obama’s Daily Show appearance this week? It’s viewable on their website if you haven’t. It’s not goofy like most of their episodes.