Click the baby's bottle!
Many thanks, JoeProBono
Uh oh! This little guy is already breathing fire.
He's going to be a mean one!
Donate monthly to keep the mean dragons away
Sponsors will contribute $10
For each new monthly sign-up
Posted on 02/08/2012 9:22:21 AM PST by jazusamo
I agree. However, if the candidate's "orientation," as it were, is wrong, he's also not going to get the votes of the thoughtless, unprincipled people ("independents") who may not be government dependents themselves, but don't see anything really wrong with it.
The candidate has to be able to show those people how big government/socialism is hurting them. To do that, he has to believe that there's just not enough Other People's Money to keep the welfare state racket going indefinitely.
That's what Dr. Sowell says!
I absolutely reject the idea that a negative ad campaign - all by itself - can seriously harm any nationally known candidate running for president.
The ESSENTIAL ingredient is news coverage of the ad campaign.
If the MSM amplify and agree with the ads, then - and only then - will the candidate suffer.
If the MSM ignore the ads, there will be almost no impact.
If the MSM criticize the ads, the candidate running the ads may actually be harmed.
I rent to THOSE PEOPLE, they don't listen to any of this. All they know is their welfare check date and when to apply for Sec 8 housing. That's it.
They don't listen to the news, or read the things we do, they don't care.
I have sat down and explained the system to them, they just listen with that DUH look on their face. When I tell them they are more of a slave now than ever, they don't get it.
I've tried, but they simply have no reference for any type of support system, and they don't know how to make the first step and break away.
Once the system broke up the family unit, no fathers in the home, it is hopeless for those mothers.
People who work with the underclass do tend to despair of their capacity for improvement. Nonetheless, some do change their lives on their own or with help. As for the majority, “tough love” in the form of cutting off the handouts might help. If nothing else, it’s hard to see how the results could be worse than what we have now.
>> The ESSENTIAL ingredient is news coverage of the ad campaign <<
I must respectfully disagree. I think there have been a lot of negative campaigns over the years that “flew under the radar” and yet were successful. It’s especially possible these days, when negative info can be spread quickly, cheaply and widely by robo-calls and social media. In other words, the MSM isn’t always a necessary player.
Now some of these stealth campaigns have used downright false information and succeded mainly because they were so late in a campaign that the attacked candidate didn’t have time to respond. But I think they are rare, at least when we consider the POTUS races.
So, leaving aside those late “blind-side” attacks, I think that by and large there are at least three essential elements that determine the success or failure of a negative campaign:
1. The seriousness of the negative charges. E. g., a negative campaing against Romney that only harped on his dog-crate incident and his speaking French isn’t going to do him fatal harm.
2. The truth of the negative charges. Outright falsehoods will, if propagated early enough in the campaign and discovered as groundless by the voting public, will be ineffective, maybe even backfire. But if you attack Newt with a true charge, like being chummy with Pelosi, it’s pretty hard for him to claim he didn’t sit on that couch.
3. The response by the attack victim. Kerry may have lost the 2004 election because of his basic failure to respond to the swiftboat tsunami. And Newt may have torpedoed himself in Florida by over-reacting to Romney’s assault.
On the other hand, the above having been said, I think you’re basically on the right track when you “reject the idea that a negative ad campaign - all by itself - can seriously harm any nationally known candidate.”
Remember, they get it all from Obama's STASH. They don't know where the money comes from, and don't care.
Those people will never hear any Republican message, yet believer everything a Democrat will tell them. Oh well.
Remember, they get it all from Obama's STASH. They don't know where the money comes from, and don't care.
Those people will never hear any Republican message, yet believe everything a Democrat will tell them. Oh well.
Thanks for posting this article. T. Sowell is a gem!
I’m so tired of the *get along ...go along* Republicans, who are leading us down the path of inevitable destruction.
Heck, Romney changes every election, and multiple times between!
LOL!
Well said!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.