User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 32 of 32

Thread: Negative political advertising

  1. #31
    Points: 61,084, Level: 60
    Level completed: 37%, Points required for next Level: 1,266
    Overall activity: 18.0%
    Achievements:
    Tagger First ClassSocialVeteran50000 Experience Points
    pjohns's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    14536
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    7,907
    Points
    61,084
    Level
    60
    Thanks Given
    19,470
    Thanked 4,230x in 2,709 Posts
    Mentioned
    42 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Perhaps negative advertising really does work--as much as I hate to admit it.

    In the recent contest in Tennessee's Fifth District, there were essentially three (serious) candidates: Andy Ogles; Beth Harwell; and Kurt Winstead.

    Kurt Winstead seemed like a very likable guy; he did no negative campaigning.

    Yet he finished (a fairly distant) third, with 12,709 votes.

    Beth Harwell, who finished second, got 14,998 votes.

    And Andy Ogles, who won the contest, garnered 21,298 votes.

    So perhaps nice guys really do finish last...

  2. #32
    Points: 19,618, Level: 33
    Level completed: 98%, Points required for next Level: 32
    Overall activity: 3.0%
    Achievements:
    10000 Experience PointsVeteran
    invictus's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    1536
    Join Date
    Sep 2020
    Posts
    8,335
    Points
    19,618
    Level
    33
    Thanks Given
    567
    Thanked 1,526x in 1,182 Posts
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by pjohns View Post
    There are some primaries underway in Tennessee--actually, they will be fully underway in November--and the various candidates are now advertising.

    Most of the ads are very negative.

    I simply cannot understand why most politicians wish to concentrate more upon causing others to dislike their opposition, rather than to concentrate upon the public's liking them.

    Could it be because negative emotions are usually greater motivators than positive ones?

    Or could it be because they believe that it is futile to try to make the public warm up to any politician?

    Or perhaps both?

    Or something else, altogether?

    Some thoughts on the matter?
    People are risk averse... Meaning, people are more motivated by what they might lose in comparison to what they might gain. Politicians know this and that's why they try to scare you into voting for them.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts