Is Negative Campaigning Good for America?

Negative Campaigns: Good for Candidates, Bad for the Country

As an effort to intimidate an opponent, there is nothing like a good scandal, or negative campaign ad to deter endorsement; it even works for remote endorsement.

But for the nation, who wants to invest in a nation that is so foolishly inept as to allow itself to be swayed by every scandal, every negative attack, etc. If reputations are important, and they most surely are in politics, reputations built upon fear, scandal, intimidation, and coercion are among the worst that America distributes globally.

For those who follow America, or model themselves after it, are we not our own worst enemy, by sewing what we then reap from other nations?

Shooting oneself in the foot isn't common sense; in fact, it is anything but common sense that focuses upon the relationship between cause and result.

Ignoring our own flaws, or disguising them as advantages, or benefits, doesn't work either because the method lacks credibility, and hence, the candidate using them lacks credibility, however popular he, or she, may be.

Elections may never be totally honest in that they are always manipulated events by a plethora of campaign managers some of whom are, at least, civic minded, rather than self-aggrandizing. Those that are tend to be "outed" rather quickly by the openness with which Americans conduct their campaigns. That is not to say that Americans can go overboard in their zeal and become far too zealous in their attempt to discredit a candidate. The balance between free speech and malignment is sometimes very narrow, and most of it is pure judgment and opinion. How much is fact never seems to make the airwaves since, in many cases, accusations are enough to destroy political careers.

Yellow journalism, war mongering, and such have a long history in American independence as far back as Alexander Hamilton and the history of dueling; who knows what existed before that time, even in our European heritage nations from whence we all came? Chances are it did not arrive on American soil spontaneously. It may well have had an even longer history in those nations from whence we all came.

When Americans make value judgments upon the limits of negative campaigns that they be truthful and honest, however devastating it may be to a candidate, they are making a value judgment, and providing a healing process to nations of other lands who may also suffer under the weight of such damaging frivolity, and self-serving political destruction.

If America is to be a model, she must be a model with a measure of well considered self discipline rather than falling victim to market typhology that ruins lives, or she will have earned her reputation as leaderless, and valueless in a system of freedom that permits predatory capitalism and an anything goes philosophy, as long as it produces money and profits.

The world would be free, and indeed, encouraged to view America as insignificant ruffians hell bent on personal if not national destruction.

Negative Campaigning

In every presidential campaign since t.v was invented had negative campaigning. Negative campaigning is just a tactic used by presidential candidates both democratic and republican.

I think it is alright to do if you are running for president. They go into each others backgrounds and find out whatever they can and then make an add about it. To try to down the opponent.

My thoughts

I think that negative ads should not exist in politics today. They are used a lot in the race going on right now, both candidates trying to publicly point out the flaws of the other opponent. I think that instead of doing that, candidates should try to point out their strengths, because a lot of people are skeptical about what they see in negative ads anyway. Many of these ads have been proven to contain lies, so people start wondering if anything in them are true. People like to see truth and confidence in candidates, and I think if negative ads weren’t in politics today then everyone would know what to believe about both candidates, thus creating the ability for voters to know the truth and make smart decisions about who their next president will be.

Negative Campaign

Attack ads should not be run by third parties. They should be approved by the campaigns so voters can hold the candidates accountable if they go too far. A negative campaigns make it harder for the people to choose who they want to be the president. Yes, I say that there should be some that are some what true but at the same time some of it be true. To many positive campaigns would make it even harder to decide who the next president should be.

Negative Campaigning

I think Negative campaigning is good but it shouldn't be used all the time. Every time I see a campaign ad it is Negative. I barley see a positive ad. Both party's use it so much. They should only be able to use so a certain amount of negative ad's. I really don't know what side I am on. Both sides use it so much.

I believe that negative ads can help a campaign. I say this because i think that it will expose the bad things aboput a canidate. It also will make people look up things to see if these bashes are actually true. This will draw more people into the election. Bringing more voters and less undecided voters. I think that the negatives ads really will draw more people into the problems.

Negative Campaigns

I am against negative campaigns. I don't want to have to watch a minute of something that is most likely a lie, from the past, or something that is half true. Who knows what's true anymore in todays society. Can't they tell me more about themselves? I'd rather hear their life story then see another negative campaign on a commercial break! People like me are open to seeing all of these negative thoughts that could change their view on people today.

negative campaigning is bad for America

I think negative campaigning is bad for America because it rips apart our society and pits republicans and democrats against each other. This could create violence in our streets and conflicts between the seats of power. Why don't we hook the candidates up to a lie detector, ask them a few questions and be done with it? we don't need all of this negativety. The president's are supposed to serve us so why does it matter if they are republican or democrat! They serve us, so what we say should be final.

Negative Campaigning

All I have heard from the MCCAIN Campaign is "OBAMA"!! aLL McCain does is constantly knock Obama.....Obama this, Obama that!!! Tell McCain to stay on the trail and tell us what his feelings are......He made a big mistake when he brought PALIN aboard.....someday she may be in but she doesn't have IT!! Tell her to try to become a SENATOR first....her history in Alaska isn't enough.....McCain is too old with several trips with Melanoma....should he die, Palin would step in.....OH NO....bad news.....In Palin's first comments...she used HILARY CLINTON...PALIN you can't touch that LADY...and I don't think you ever will....don't try!! But if you want to try....then come up thru the ranks....don't try to start at the "top" because you won't "cut it". I hope "OBAMA" makes it...we don't need or want another "BUSH".....the War was and is a lie....there is no "winning"......you don't change a countries belief's, you can't "shove" Democracy down their thoats....leave them be and bring our boys (now men) home and in one piece...God Bless them....lets not lose any more lives. If we come home now we haven't lost the so called War....we will save many lives and proud....not like McCain says,"stay if it takes 100 years".....he is nuts, crazy. PLEASE, WE WANT OUR COUNTY BACK.

Negative campaign ads

I distrust all political campaign ads. The negative ones are unbearable. They are decidedly one-sided, unbelievable, wasteful, destructive, and embarrassing. The only ones who benefit from ads, are the television and ad companies. As a rule, when an ad comes on, I change the channel. Do candidates think that voters are stupid enough to believe them?