Eric Cantor to address the rich-poor gap in speech at University of Pennsylvania Rea

[MagickMan]

Worth repeating.

And this is why you are stupid, and I won't be responding to you anymore.

Grow up.

Oooh, now there's a farm-wide revolt. Just goes to show that when you put a mirror in front of sheeple they just don't like what they see. Hey, I heard it was tough debating issues in P&N, but they were wrong. Just point out the stupidity of others and your opponent gets mad and concedes.

Dems, Repugs, they're the same shit in different suits. You're stupid in that you don't see it too.

 

[woolfe9999]

I know candidates spend more each year, but that seems to be due to the fact that most of politics is bullshit, and most campaign consultants are chosen more for their contacts than their ability. Seriously, go look at the research on campaign advertising and changing people's opinions. For example this was a pretty groundbreaking study when I was at UC San Diego: http://fas-polisci.rutgers.edu/lau/articles/LauEtAl_EffectsOfNegativePoliticalCampaigns.pdf

Sadly, I am willing to bet that most campaigns would not shy away from airing a campaign ad with a 'pants on fire' tag. The percentage of people viewing the ad that would actually take the time to check the website would likely be exceedingly small, and generally they would be the ones most skeptical of the message anyway.

This doesn't mean that more effective and honest TV ads would have no effect, but I find it unlikely that they will have anywhere close to the effect that some here might expect.

Interesting meta-analysis. Thanks for linking it. I note that it doesn't support the notion that people aren't paying attention to the ads. What it does say is that with negative ads, the secondary backfire effect on the attacker roughly counter-balances the primary intended effect on the target, so the net effect is about neutral. I'm not sure how the idea of showing a fact check result with the ad plays into that. I'd think if it's a "pants on fire" then the backfire effect might tend to exceed the primary effect, whereas if it says "true" it might be the opposite.

I also think to the extent that some people discount these ads, it is because they are perceived as bullshit by default. Supplying a fact check might perk up greater attention. I think we'd need some research specifically on the issue of fact check disclaimers included with ads to get a fuller picture.

On a side note, I suppose I am rather glad that in general the negative advertising is not terribly effective.

- wolf

 

[Jhhnn]

On a side note, I suppose I am rather glad that in general the negative advertising is not terribly effective.

Well, there's Willie Horton and the Swift Liars on the other side of that argument...

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Eric Cantor = Pussy