Civil U.S. presidential race not so good for voters

Yahoo News/Reuters ^ | September 16, 2007 | David Alexander

[DakotaRed]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama may joke about preparing for debates by riding bumper cars, but the 2008 campaign has been fairly civil so far -- and that's not necessarily good for U.S. voters.

Conventional wisdom, and some research, has held that negative campaigning turns off voters and prompts them to stay away from the voting booth, but recent scholarship is reversing that notion, researchers say.

"Democracy itself requires negativity," said John Geer, a Vanderbilt University professor who studies negative political campaigning. "We want the right to be critical of those in power."

With the country highly polarized over issues from the Iraq war to abortion, the campaign will inevitably turn negative as the November 2008 election approaches, analysts said.

That will likely produce more attacks like the one this week in which Republican front-runner Rudy Giuliani accused leading Democrat Hillary Clinton of "spewing political venom" because she questioned the war assessment of the top U.S. commander in Iraq.

[DakotaRed]

Besides the obvious spin on Hillary's "attack" on General Petraeus, if negative ads are good for the country, why all he continuing attacks on the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Republican candidates that mention anything against the left, Karl Rove and so on?

Seems like just more psychobabble to justify their attacks, to me.

[EGPWS]

"Democracy itself requires negativity," said John Geer,...

This is what we are strapped with at our universities?

Tenured no doubt also.

[RC2]

I still believe we should have a debate with the top three candidates of each party. The people of this country have a right to see them state their opinions and answer questions and show how they agree or disagree. We need a different type of debate. The debates of today have no meaning at all.

[o_zarkman44]

Rats only can attack the ones who they blame for exposing their socialist agenda. By keeping Swift Boat and Rove etc in the forefront of critical attacks, they perpetuate their lies and discredit the messingers before the messinger can bring more truth to the table.

Just like the pre-emptive attack on Petraeus. It was clear the left would not accept anything he had to say. He is the right arm of Bush and Bush lies so Petraeus is also a liar because Bush is a failure bla bla bla.

It is always the same 10 Rats who have the Bush attack spotlight. Move on gets their air play. Same group, different day.

[EGPWS]

Conventional wisdom,...

The little bit that still remains.

[ClearCase_guy]

The rules are consistent:

Democrats can call Republicans liars and killers of innocents. Democrats can highlight corruption and scandal on the part of Republicans. None of this is negative campaigning. This is just the mere "putting forth the facts" for the American people. The media helps this process along, as part of their role as the free press.

Republicans, on the other hand, should beware of questioning the patriotism of the other party. Likewise, politicizing the war would be a dreadful mistake. And, while scandals may be mentioned, we need to keep in mind that friends and family are off the table, and scandals which are more than a week old are "old news". Continuing to beat these dead horses is nothing but negative campaigning and marks one as unfit for higher office. The media helps this process along, as part of their role as the free press.

[monocle]

The

The “debates” are merely overhyped press briefings.

‘debates

[DakotaRed]

Debates of today aren’t really “debates.” they are little more than question and answer sessions, fluff for Democrats who rarely are asked hard questions.

I’d like to see a question presented and all candidates present their view and discuss it between them.

[modhom]

Merely recalling the democrats’ own words and voting record is considered a personal attack. It’s a complete joke.

[Jedi Master Pikachu]

That seems a good idea. Each debate, one major question (Iraq/Afghanistan, abortion, illegal aliens, economy, etc.).

[DakotaRed]

Equally important to me, would be an “off the cuff” answer so we can determine if they really have an understanding of the issue or if they are merely reciting what a staffer wrote for them.

We just might discover that some thought to be quite versed actually aren't, while some who ramble on a bit actually understand the true complexity of certain issues.

Canned questions with canned answers don't really give us true insight into who would best lead.