Negative political advertising spreads hate, Meaning the battle for power becomes a battle to “elect the least worse candidate”. Candidates should focus on what they can bring to the table, Not what their opponents can’t. This however should not restrict freedom of speech. There is pleanty of other methods to expose scandals and other problems that should be in the public domain e. G evidence backed news reports. Doing it this way removes some of the emotion involved as their is greater validation of claims and accusations involved.
There needs to be rules of the road when it comes to campaign advertising. They should only be able to talk about themselves and what they bring to the table. In an attack ad, Even a partial truth can be skewed and taken out of context and the average American isn't engaged enough to understand that they are being duped by the ad. Elections have been won and lost on misleading ads. It needs to stop.
Be POSITIVE about what you can do. If you can't be positive about your stand on issues, Why bash your opponent.
It disgusts me when I see and hear how someone speaks about an opponent. One lies, Then the other lies, Ad nausea. What have we come to. Please, Please. Thank you
I have e seen too many negative ads that are disputed by both Democrats and Republicans alike. It's time for both side to stop giving false information or information that cannot be trusted. Instead I would like to hear what we know and can trust. Please stick to party and personal views and aspirations. Tell me what make you the perfect choice or set you apart from the heard without resorting to thinly supported accusations. I want to know more about spiritual and moral codes with examples based on past experiences. Tell me what guides you and makes you want to strive and thrive daily. Tell me about you history and dreams that set guide posts in your journey. That's what I want to know.
In a political election many if not all candidates use hateful and negative comments about the people they are trying to best. They overwhelm our TVs and anyplace they can get them. My problem with them is most of the time they border on Slander. While the base of the comment is true they add to them over exaggerations and facts that are not true and in a regular non election someone would be sued for defamation of character. My 2nd problem is if you can not support your campaign by just stating you planks and where you stand on them, Then should you really be running. Protected by the 1st amendment or not which I don't believe they are due to the nature of them as the 1st amendment protects free speech not hate speech they should not be allowed in the political world of 2018 they communicate a nature that we should be trying to fight against not support. A nature of hate that is poisoning the united states and theses campaigns directly or not they support that idea of hate.
Let each candidate lay out his/her policy without saying anything about the other candidates policy. Let the people decide who they want to vote for by determining which candidate's policy they agree with more. It would keep elections civil and there would not be so much hatred toward either candidate. It would just be about policy.
We are an embarrassment to other nations. Is it any wonder that visitors to this country laugh about our political campaigns when they watch political advertising? We lack civility to one another. Leadership comes from the top and our two leading presidential candidates and their national committees have exhibited a lack of leadership with respect to negative advertising. Where is the honor in running or holding office anymore?
On who is the better candidate.. When they both just slam each other. Please explain what you are going to do. Right now it's no more than a tattle tale , he said /she said playground sand throwing contest. Please just start selling yourselves and show strong moral values instead of attacking the opponent
Most of the negative adds are made up of carefully fabricated lies designed to make a candidate look better than their opponent by comparison. Besides, all that money wasted on adds could be put towards a good cause. Political slander is essentially insults hurled at each other insteaf of focusing on their individual achievements.
In my opinion negative advertising is a way to deflect the candidates own shortcomings to capitalize on their opponents. I believe a candidate's main tool to get supporters should be honesty. The candidate should focus on their main goal to accomplish while in office. Bashing another candidate in my opinion is weak. If you have a strong stance and really value you ideal, you would have actions to capitalize on. I will not vote for a candidate that use negative advertising as a primary tool to get ahead.
Without Negative advertising the people (voters) will never truly know the character of the political person running. It is the persons job to get informed and decide what is truth and what is propaganda. Of course there will always be someone who uses negative advertising because they have nothing else.
It is Fair because freedom of speech come in to play when they are speaking because the can say what they want and that is what freedom of speech is. Also it makes the debates fun and more interesting because with out it its just people talking about boring things.
If negative political ads were banned, how would a politician get a point across to the voter? Elections would be boring. But if you kept "negative" ads, politicians could get a point across and expose scandals. This would create a higher voter turnout and make it a more interesting election.
If all negative advertising in political campaigns was banned, then it is true that candidates could not advertise slanderous lies about opponents, but by restricting a political campaign's right to free speech then you have additionally taken away their ability to spread negative but true information about a political opponent.
Most people claim to hate negative political advertising, yet it also seems to work (otherwise it wouldn't be done!) Studies have shown that negative advertising can affect a person's opinion of a candidate, even if the ad is later proven false. However, a blanket ban on negative advertising would be a difficult thing. Who is to say what is considered negative? Pointing out that a senator voted against a particular bill, would that be negative? Making the statement that because that bill failed, thousands of people lost their jobs? Would that be negative? Any debate must necessarily not only point out the positives of a solution, or candidate, and also point out the flaws of the alternatives. It isn't the government's place to censor that debate, even if members of the government are involved. Instead, such well-meaning measures are often used by the ones in power to silence those who disagree with them, as many have suggested is the case currently in Venezuela. The tone of election campaigns needs to be changed... but a ban on 'negative ads' isn't the answer.
If the information presented is true, then voters will have more information to base their votes on. Even if the information is a lie or distorted, that could also help voters decide, as they would be able to see the deceit and be able to discern the candidates more clearly. Most important campaigns do a great amount of "mud slinging" in order to cast their opponents in a dark light, but I really think that's healthy. It encourages the people to do the research and use their discernment to pick the best candidate. Taking things on face value is a dangerous procedure, when it comes to giving people power. Presenting all the facts makes the final choice easier.
I think most people who look at these political ads just know that there a promotional tool. Elections are won at debates. A person votes for the best candidate who addresses their issues. I personally don't care what a person did in college, if we judge all adults by how they acted in their early 20's we would all feel shame. Mean ads just make a candidate look desperate.
If negative ads are banned then so are the discussions of legitimate issues. The screaming queens throwing wigs character assassination spots hurt the people who make them more, and we do need to hear about the true problem issues. Banning any kind of discourse weakens and censors the debates we do need to have about the issues. We are adults here, we can take both excesses of personality and talk about real problems. We are voters, not preschoolers who need half cups of juice and padded table edges.
We have freedom of speech through the First Amendment--which means that we have to allow political candidates to have their say, especially when it helps us to decide which person to elect. For good or ill, negative ads are certainly the most entertaining part of any campaign--they can be viewed as satire, which is supposed to make us laugh AND think, or just an adult version of the rubber-vs.-glue children's taunt. Either way, it makes an otherwise lackluster campaign worth watching.
While the majority of the voting population does not support the use of negative advertising when seeking elected office, the fact remains, so long as it is truthful, it is protected by the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution. Political speech enjoys the greatest protections which we can afford under our laws. If we should impose such a ban or limitation, the potential for abuse is great. The argument would then become whether the statement, even if factually true, is or is not negative, which creates an endless cycle of argument and detracts from the political process. While people may not like negative advertising in politics, political free speech should never be abridged.