« Under the Wide and Starry Sky | Main | Re-visiting the conditions of 2008 »

September 25, 2014


Grammar code undoubtably written by people whose second or third language is English. :-)
Unfortunately for all of us, negative attack ads apparently get results. Since I live in a one party state, we do not get that many political commercials. And I DVR most TV so I can skip them. Internet commercials frustrate me no matter what it is. I can tolerate a 10 or even 30 second spot, but a 60 second commercial for every different video that plays will drive me away. Even if I mute them.

Ingineer--Whenever anyone questions my grammar (or spelling), I have to re-think what I wrote. After shaking my head, I sometimes conclude that I know better than the other person or system knows.

Isn't it a pitiful statement of the human condition when we are so willing to believe the negative? I think the reason that we get so many political ads is that the Billionaire Brothers of Kansas don't know what else to do with their money. *laughing*

They could send their money to me. Wouldn't it be nice if a candidate's ads talked about why they were better than the other person instead of telling us what a horrible human being the other person is.

Ingineer--I'll drink to that!

I too find the ads annoying and not in the vein that I want to hear. There are a couple of people here trying to do as some suggest, speaking to why they are better than their opponents; not bashing them. But dollar to donuts those are not the ads that are remembered, nor will those be the people elected. Seems that people remember the negative that they are willing to believe (true or not quite so true) - at least that is my conclusion from what I hear people talking about at work.

A great leap forward will be made when someone determines why people believe the negative more willingly than the positive about other people. I think you are correct that studies have shown that such is true. While they are at it, I wish they could/would determine why people are so unwilling to believe a correction when it is provided. From my reading, people continue to believe what they first heard regardless of how it is refuted. Otherwise, lying political ads would not be effective.

Of course, how to "fix" people so that the willingness to believe the negative over the positive and the original over the correction would be an even more valuable finding!

What I want to know is: Did you win?
God the ad saturation in areas like yours must be just about unbearable.

Hattie--Yes, ma'am, I did. I had a great campaign committee who worked themselves silly and I knocked on every door in the ward at least twice. Had the incumbent campaigned, at all, he would have beaten me handily. As it was, I won by 16 votes - out of about 230. I don't know whether he was tired of serving or what.

BTW: I dropped out of the PhD program to campaign. Had I not won, I might have gone back to finish. (That's my excuse and....) However, I'm happy to leave the "Dr" title to folks like Stu who are much better representativeds of the cohort.

I'm in agreement with all of you. I'm much rather hear what a candidate plans to do, rather than all the mud slinging.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Support Wikipedia