Thread: Why Romney Lost
View Single Post
Old December 6th, 2012, 10:02 AM   #52 (permalink)
cjr72
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 292
 
Device(s): Samsung GS3
Carrier: T-Mobile (US)

Thanks: 8
Thanked 44 Times in 34 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
The challenger is always going to be more negative though. The incumbent has a track record. All he has to do is tout his track record and tell everyone how awesome he is whether it's true or not. The challenger has to come out and say that the incumbent sucks and he can do a better job. That's a negative campaign right from the start.
Perhaps, but that's not how this last election went down:



Quote:
A full 86 percent of Obama’s television advertising and 79 percent of Romney’s has been negative, according to the Wesleyan Media Project, which tracks political advertising. By comparison, Obama and John McCain had spent an average of 69 percent of their TV budgets on negative ads by this point in 2008, and George W. Bush and John Kerry had spent 58 percent in 2004.

The record-setting rancor reflects the circumstances of the 2012 race: Obama couldn’t run on an economic rebound, and some of his biggest legislative accomplishments, such as his health care law, are unpopular in the polls. Romney has tried to persuade the American people to fire the incumbent — but has been light on details of his own.
R.I.P. positive ads in 2012 election - POLITICO.com

I think the main take away is both candidates were massively negative in this race. Making hay over one being slightly more negative than the other is just splitting hairs to score political points IMO.
cjr72 is offline  
Reply With Quote