Negative ads - your stance?

[my2¢]

I saw a Hillary Clinton television ad last night. I didn't care for it and thought if she had anything good to say about her own stance on the issues she wouldn't be going negative on Trump.

The way I see it is the negatives for each of these candidates have pretty much reached rock bottom and the winner will be determined by which can get their "brand" to be viewed more favorably. I'd give Trump a big edge in this regard. I think most of us know Trump's campaign slogan of Make America Great Again. I wonder how many are with me in having no clue of Hillary's? (My choice would be, "Obama with balls" but please take that as a joke.)

Trump needs to convince me making America great again is more than nostalgic wishing for the good old days. Likewise Hillary needs to provide me some reason for optimism about her being elected. Going negative isn't going to cut it for either and I see it as a major turn off.

p.s. I also view negative campaigns as a way to make people sick-and-tired of the election and thus a means to suppress voting. I'd think that's a pretty dumb strategy for Hillary.

 

[paulitician]

'Negative' is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[PurpleOwl]

If this was normal campaign I might agree with you but Trump has thrown out any notion of running a clean election, not only now against clinton but even when he was running in the primary. There's no low bar for him, and that's partially why people like him. Its certainly not whether he "knows about the issues". Donald Trump knows how to run a golf course, and thats about it, the man hasn't even been elected mayor of a small town. He knows absolutely nothing especially compared to someone like Hillary Clinton. The biggest problem with negative ads or dirty campaigns, is that both candidates have to agree on it. Trump has no intention of running a clean campaign if he tried he would be clueless, as there are high schoolers who know more about the issues than him

 

[BULLDOG]

I just saw an ad. It was bunch of clips of Trump saying a bunch of really stupid things, and the announcer saying Trump wasn't the best choice. i guess you could call that a negative ad, but I call it information that everyone should have.

 

[MikeK]

This election is analogous to a choice between having lung cancer or colon cancer.

Take your pick.

 

[Lumpy 1]

Hillary's 240 million (1%ers elites payoffs and Hillary ownership) plus negative adds to Trumps 7 million-ish shows that they're basically tied. I'd say Hitlery's blitzkrieg isn't working out so well...

 

[my2¢]

I just saw an ad. It was bunch of clips of Trump saying a bunch of really stupid things, and the announcer saying Trump wasn't the best choice. i guess you could call that a negative ad, but I call it information that everyone should have.

If it showed small kids between those clips then it is the same ad I saw. Which begs the question which is worse, saying those things once in an adult forum or playing it time-and-time again? I saw it around 4:30 in the afternoon when children are most likely watching. Which I'm sure is why it caused me to view it so critically.

 

[Slade3200]

Apparently 15% of the negative ads running in this election actually help the opposing candidate. Talk about a waste of money

 

[BULLDOG]

I just saw an ad. It was bunch of clips of Trump saying a bunch of really stupid things, and the announcer saying Trump wasn't the best choice. i guess you could call that a negative ad, but I call it information that everyone should have.

If it showed small kids between those clips then it is the same ad I saw. Which begs the question which is worse, saying those things once in an adult forum or playing it time-and-time again? I saw it around 4:30 in the afternoon when children are most likely watching. Which I'm sure is why it caused me to view it so critically.

Not as bad as constant discussion of blowjobs every day on the evening news back when Bill was in office. Somehow right wingers thought it was proper to discuss oral sex every chance possible.

 

[Pilate]

Eh, they're just distasteful. I always change the channel when I see them. It's always a candidates sound bite, some black and white filters, scary sounding music, large bright letters. Really juvenile.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

I saw a Hillary Clinton television ad last night. I didn't care for it and thought if she had anything good to say about her own stance on the issues she wouldn't be going negative on Trump.

The way I see it is the negatives for each of these candidates have pretty much reached rock bottom and the winner will be determined by which can get their "brand" to be viewed more favorably. I'd give Trump a big edge in this regard. I think most of us know Trump's campaign slogan of Make America Great Again. I wonder how many are with me in having no clue of Hillary's? (My choice would be, "Obama with balls" but please take that as a joke.)

Trump needs to convince me making America great again is more than nostalgic wishing for the good old days. Likewise Hillary needs to provide me some reason for optimism about her being elected. Going negative isn't going to cut it for either and I see it as a major turn off.

p.s. I also view negative campaigns as a way to make people sick-and-tired of the election and thus a means to suppress voting. I'd think that's a pretty dumb strategy for Hillary.

Everytime I hear one of these complaints I just want to tell you people to STFU. When hasn't their been a bad election where candidates said mean and nasty things about each other? It is like everyone has became a bunch of pussies .

 

[my2¢]

Everytime I hear one of these complaints I just want to tell you people to STFU. When hasn't their been a bad election where candidates said mean and nasty things about each other? It is like everyone has became a bunch of pussies .

That's fair. In other years I'd agree with you but this one is nothing like I've seen before.

The historic high negative ratings we have this year provides far more opportunity for each candidate to lower their own negative numbers than knocking the other's further up. With Trump's 65% negative rating I see her campaign as intellectually bankrupt if she's relying on making him out as a bigger horse's ass than folks already think he is.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

If this was normal campaign I might agree with you but Trump has thrown out any notion of running a clean election, not only now against clinton but even when he was running in the primary. There's no low bar for him, and that's partially why people like him. Its certainly not whether he "knows about the issues". Donald Trump knows how to run a golf course, and thats about it, the man hasn't even been elected mayor of a small town. He knows absolutely nothing especially compared to someone like Hillary Clinton. The biggest problem with negative ads or dirty campaigns, is that both candidates have to agree on it. Trump has no intention of running a clean campaign if he tried he would be clueless, as there are high schoolers who know more about the issues than him

. Bill Clinton is trying to make the case that "Make America Great Again" is racist and you claim Trump isn't running a clean campaign? What is hilarious about this is FoxNews is showing video tape of Bill Clinton saying "make America great again" in his campaign speeches and political Ads. LOL.

I don't think we'll hear the liberals make the case Trump's campaign slogan is racist again.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I saw a Hillary Clinton television ad last night. I didn't care for it and thought if she had anything good to say about her own stance on the issues she wouldn't be going negative on Trump.

The way I see it is the negatives for each of these candidates have pretty much reached rock bottom and the winner will be determined by which can get their "brand" to be viewed more favorably. I'd give Trump a big edge in this regard. I think most of us know Trump's campaign slogan of Make America Great Again. I wonder how many are with me in having no clue of Hillary's? (My choice would be, "Obama with balls" but please take that as a joke.)

Trump needs to convince me making America great again is more than nostalgic wishing for the good old days. Likewise Hillary needs to provide me some reason for optimism about her being elected. Going negative isn't going to cut it for either and I see it as a major turn off.

p.s. I also view negative campaigns as a way to make people sick-and-tired of the election and thus a means to suppress voting. I'd think that's a pretty dumb strategy for Hillary.

If you dislike negative ads, then you ought to be against Citizens United and you ought to be in favor of demanding truth in advertising for political ads.

Many of the negative ads you see are produced and paid for by super pacs....which....by law....cannot collaborate with the candidate.

You seem to believe that Hillary Clinton hasn't provided policy positions which outline her optimistic attitude regarding what America could be like under her leadership. She actually runs a few ads that don't involve Trump in any way. Maybe you should look for those.

You are still considering a vote for Trump. That means that you are probably an idiot. It could be that you aren't an idiot...and stand to gain personally from a Trump presidency in some way...like Most of his surrogates...but that isn't likely.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I just saw an ad. It was bunch of clips of Trump saying a bunch of really stupid things, and the announcer saying Trump wasn't the best choice. i guess you could call that a negative ad, but I call it information that everyone should have.

If it showed small kids between those clips then it is the same ad I saw. Which begs the question which is worse, saying those things once in an adult forum or playing it time-and-time again? I saw it around 4:30 in the afternoon when children are most likely watching. Which I'm sure is why it caused me to view it so critically.

Yep., As I suspected, you are an idiot. What show were you watching when you saw that ad? I'll bet it wasn't SpongeBob Square Pants. You see....that ad wasn't aimed at kids. It was aimed at moms and dads. You know....people old enough to vote.

It is clear that you feel uneasy about a candidate who behaves like a moron and says things that you'd not want your kids to hear from the person who holds the most important job in the world. Follow your gut.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You are still considering a vote for Trump. That means that you are probably an idiot. It could be that you aren't an idiot...and stand to gain personally from a Trump presidency in some way...like Most of his surrogates...but that isn't likely.

Or it could be you don't want a person as President that's subject to blackmail. Or it could be that you don't want a President that has already proven her negligence, dishonesty, carelessness and dis-concern for the country. It could be that you don't want a President that will overrun is with illegals and foreigners. It could be you don't want a President that will tilt the Supreme Court so badly she will be able to get away with anything, or a Supreme Court that will remove our Constitutional rights to carry and own firearms.

 

[LoneLaugher]

You are still considering a vote for Trump. That means that you are probably an idiot. It could be that you aren't an idiot...and stand to gain personally from a Trump presidency in some way...like Most of his surrogates...but that isn't likely.

Or it could be you don't want a person as President that's subject to blackmail. Or it could be that you don't want a President that has already proven her negligence, dishonesty, carelessness and disconcert for the country. It could be that you don't want a President that will overrun is with illegals and foreigners. It could be you don't want a President that will tilt the Supreme Court so badly she will be able to get away with anything, or a Supreme Court that will remove our Constitutional rights to carry and own firearms.

And....since none of that is true, I've no such concerns.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I saw a Hillary Clinton television ad last night. I didn't care for it and thought if she had anything good to say about her own stance on the issues she wouldn't be going negative on Trump.

The way I see it is the negatives for each of these candidates have pretty much reached rock bottom and the winner will be determined by which can get their "brand" to be viewed more favorably. I'd give Trump a big edge in this regard. I think most of us know Trump's campaign slogan of Make America Great Again. I wonder how many are with me in having no clue of Hillary's? (My choice would be, "Obama with balls" but please take that as a joke.)

Trump needs to convince me making America great again is more than nostalgic wishing for the good old days. Likewise Hillary needs to provide me some reason for optimism about her being elected. Going negative isn't going to cut it for either and I see it as a major turn off.

p.s. I also view negative campaigns as a way to make people sick-and-tired of the election and thus a means to suppress voting. I'd think that's a pretty dumb strategy for Hillary.

If negative ads didn't work, they wouldn't use them. Unfortunately however, people do respond to them.

For us political junkies, nothing is going to change our minds as to who we are going to vote for. But we have the most undecideds in this race than ever before for this time of year, and that's who those ads are geared to.

Hil-Liar has more baggage than an airport. It would be foolish of Trump not to use the extensive laundry list of Hillary Clinton.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And....since none of that is true, I've no such concerns.

You better have concerns because everything I listed is true.

 

[easyt65]

As a candidate, tell me what YOU are going to do for me / the country. If you have to try to tear down the other person to try to make yourself look better then you don't have much to offer.