NEGATIVE POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS: WHATAYATHINK?

"Im running a positive campaign, Im not like my gutter pulling opponent"

Nothing negative there.

Arguing with a man's victory speech seems a bt foolish.

Christie ran a great campaign (far better than his opponent). He deserved to win. I was supporting Corzine. I was dismayed when Corzine started attacking Christie's weight.

Victory speaks for itself.

i love a negative campaign

it would have been great to see ads like "Obama rapes puppies" or "McCain bathes in the blood of virgins"

i really hope the 2012 campaign does a better job

Good point, but that shoud be illegal
as it is for commercial corporations as per the anti-trust laws.

(I make it a point to avoid trusting.)





David

What are you babbling about? Corporations are under no obligation to slam their opponents verbally in advertising... and by definition, a positive campaign is no less an attempt to compete than a negative one anyway. Check your premise.

Conspiracies in restraint of competition are violations
of federal anti-trust law; that is what I am BABBLING ABOUT.





David

I dont vote for people who run negative campaigns. Makes it tough when all the candidates run dirty. Too bad that those kinds of campaigns seem to sway the weak minded.

That was a rhetorical question, David. Your premise doesn't even fit your analogy, let alone your point. Positive campaigns and competition are not mutually exclusive endeavors.

Example:
Apple’s advertising consists almost exclusively of slams on PC’s. PC manufactures, by contrast, generally only hype the features of their own product. Contrary to your laughable suggestion that positive advertising is somehow equivalent to a “restraint of competition”, PC makers are neither in violation of the anti-trust laws by staying positive nor are they uncompetitive by any stretch of even your imagination.

Until you can at least conceive of a compelling argument that a decision to keep a campaign positive isn’t simply a strategic move (good, bad, or otherwise), your ridiculous analogy is utterly absurd.

rabel22 wrote:
Y don 't u? Will u reveal your reasoning ?






rabel22 wrote:
Not necessarily; if secret questionable practices are reciprocally revealed to the voters,
e.g., one candidate is a drunk, whereas his adversary beats his wives,
u can choose among which offends u the least. Yes ?





rabel22 wrote:
If someone chooses to vote against a wife beater, I don 't think that 's weak minded.





David