*What is it about running for office that relieves people of the responsibility to not be a horse's ass? Here in Kansas USA, a state dominated by one of the major political parties ever since I first moved here, political ads are particularly vitriolic and are prone to leaving the path of strict truth-telling. I cannot stand it!!!
The primary election in Kansas was on August 5. The general election is scheduled to occur on November 4. Do you think we got a break after the primary election? If so, you would be wrong. The Billionaire Brothers of Kansas fund an enormous number of commercials while other major funding comes from as far away as the Commonwealth of Virginia. Most, if not all of the ads should cause many small fires - that is, there should be many pairs of pants burning - at the worst and are misleading at best.
When a political ad (and I don't care whose** it is or what political ox is being gored) comes onto TV, I am quite capable of changing the channel with great alacrity - and do! However, Internet ads are harder to deal with. It is impossible to get to the information or display being sought without first enduring a political ad. Case in point: my experience in trying to view a video that Stu (of Eunoia) was kind enough to call to my attention - concerning birds. I have yet to see the video because I am unwilling to endure 20-30 seconds of commercial exhorting me to re-elect our governor. That our governor is, in my not-so-humble opinion, an ideologically-driven, incompetent, spinmeister of a politician is not the point. The point is: why should I have to endure a political ad of any stripe to access information on the Internet? I have complained to our Internet Provider and await a meaningful reply.
If you care to see some beautiful photos of birds (of the United Kingdom), do follow the link that Stu provided. You may be able to view the video that is embedded in the piece - without being assailed by political ads that are not even meaningful in Kansas! (I'll watch it when the general election is in the past.)
___________________________________________
*In the spirit of full disclosure I will tell you that when I, myself, ran for public office the only advertising was on signs (1 meter wide) placed in the yards of supporters and in the 8.5"x11" flyers and postal-card-sized card stock that I (and my supporters) handed to residents while making personal visits, door-to-door. My approach to not being swayed by the donations made to my campaign was to tell my "bag man" that I did not wish to know who did and who did not contribute to my campaign - let alone how much. (I still do not know and my "bag man" died nearly 15 years ago.) This allowed me, when elected, to vote as logic and conscience dictated. BTW: The office was as City Councilman (sic!) in our small city - a non-partisan post. Regardless, there were undoubtedly a few people among the incumbent's supporters who considered me a horse's ass.
Here (below) is a slightly redacted version of my flyer. Credit Hunky Husband for the photo.
**MS Word® flagged "whose" as being incorrect, suggesting that I insert "who's", instead. Oh, me!
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.
Posted by: Ingineer66 | September 25, 2014 at 07:43 PM
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*
Posted by: Cop Car | September 26, 2014 at 02:42 PM
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.
Posted by: Ingineer66 | September 27, 2014 at 12:00 AM
Ingineer--I'll drink to that!
Posted by: Cop Car | September 27, 2014 at 08:23 AM
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.
Posted by: bogie | September 28, 2014 at 07:05 AM
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!
Posted by: Cop Car | September 28, 2014 at 09:36 AM
What I want to know is: Did you win?
God the ad saturation in areas like yours must be just about unbearable.
Posted by: Hattie | September 30, 2014 at 01:09 AM
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.
Posted by: Cop Car | October 01, 2014 at 02:33 PM
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.
Posted by: buffy | October 07, 2014 at 08:55 PM