(It’s a relief to learn this, isn’t it? – promoted by Colorado Pols)
Relieved? You most probably shouldn’t be. Turns out far more ads are negative than this time in ’08 and a mind boggling amount, in general and specifically, are coming from PACs, especially the no-need-to-disclose-donor types.
Before the numbers, it’s important to point out that most reelection cycles are negative because the sitting President is trying to discredit their opponent. That said, it’s still an incredible shift.
The numbers:
70% of all ads have been negative, compared to less than 10% in ’08.
Interest group participation is up 1100% since ’08, 86% of their ads are negative, up from 25%.
More than half of candidate ads have been negative, compared to just under 10% in ’08.
96% of the ads at this point in ’08 were from candidates while 36% are this year. 60% of the remainder are from interest groups this year, while 4% are from political parties.
Enjoy your swinging state!
Read more from here: http://politicalticker.blogs.c… Study thanks to our good friends at the Wesleyan Media Project
You must be logged in to post a comment.
BY: Schrodingers Dog
IN: Harris vs. Trump Debate Open Thread
BY: MichaelBowman
IN: Harris vs. Trump Debate Open Thread
BY: JohnNorthofDenver
IN: Harris vs. Trump Debate Open Thread
BY: harrydoby
IN: Harris vs. Trump Debate Open Thread
BY: 2Jung2Die
IN: Harris vs. Trump Debate Open Thread
BY: 2Jung2Die
IN: Harris vs. Trump Debate Open Thread
BY: The realist
IN: Harris vs. Trump Debate Open Thread
BY: The realist
IN: Harris vs. Trump Debate Open Thread
BY: JohnNorthofDenver
IN: Harris vs. Trump Debate Open Thread
BY: 2Jung2Die
IN: Harris vs. Trump Debate Open Thread
Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!
clearly.
All that facty stuff gets in the way of a good insult.
He’s a Muslim, but a radical christian as well, weak on terror, socialist, hurt GM by saving it, and clearly NOT a citizen is better.
sweetheart.
but hardly unpredictable.
One quibble, I would say that the challenger must set out to discredit the sitting president or the incumbent. People have to see that an alternative would be better. More of the same won’t get a challenger elected but people have to see a need for the difference, too. I would use Kerry’s campaign in 2004 as an example. I’m sure he said negative things about Bush’s performance in Afghanistan, Iraq, the economy, etc. but I felt he never made a good case for not re-electing the president. That is why I thought at the time that Dean was the only Dem running who could have defeated Bush: he had a clear critique of Bush, especially regarding Iraq.