U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-13-2012, 09:06 AM
 
Location: Montgomery Village
4,120 posts, read 3,703,193 times
Reputation: 1694

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz View Post
[btsilver]Now what you are saying: Obama's "negative" ads led to voter suppression.
The answer is no, it did not. In order for it to be considered any sort of suppression, it is going to need to actually inhibit someone from actually voting. That is a fact.
Read definition 5a and 5b of "suppression" that you yourself posted. And as long as we're quoting Wikipedia, look at this:
Negative campaigning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Which in fact was the case in the 2012 election. Poll after poll showed Romney winning among indys. Nonetheless I do give you props for being the first to actually present some counterarguments, some of which I agree with (especially that R's did not do enough to win the non-white vote). But again, the semantics angle is a fail.[/quote]

Reading the rest of the quote from wikipedia:

"They also found that negative ads have a greater impact on Democrats than on Republicans. According to them, base Republicans will vote no matter what (and will vote only for a Republican), but Democrats can be influenced to either stay home and not vote at all or to switch sides and vote for a Republican. This, combined with the effect negativity has on Independents, led them to conclude that Republicans benefit more from going negative than Democrats."

Now if they still consider that voter suppression, then it would generally go Republicans way. But the bigger point is that both campaigns were "negative." So, how can one say that Obama suppressed the vote while Romney didn't? The fairest thing to say is that both candidates suppressed the vote and Romney still lost. I would think that this is a non-factor at best to the conclusion of the election seeing that(based on the link from your post) Republicans would fare better than Democrats. You could also correlate that it worked better for the Republicans because more people were "suppressed" that voted for Obama than the amount that voted Republican from the last presidential election.

But, when I look at the definition of suppression, a more physical act or direct act than coercion or a statement of opinions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-13-2012, 09:07 AM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
85,051 posts, read 99,018,950 times
Reputation: 31544
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz View Post
Obama

If you want to understand the 2012 presidential election, make sure you read this piece by Michael Medved. Pres. Obama won via voter suppression. All legal, of course.

It's a truism in politics that "negative ads work" but why? Negative ads work by discouraging people from voting, especially swing/independent voters who are probably not political junkies but vote out of a sense of duty, community spirit, etc. I have quite a few friends in this category, and to a person they all said that they hated this election and were glad when it was over. That's how negative ads work.



Pres. Obama got about 7 million fewer votes in 2012 than in 2008, yet still won. Republican and conservative voters did show up to vote, as people like Michael Barone predicted. But the indy/swing voters didn't. Credit where credit is due--Obama, Plouffe, and Axelrod pursued a brilliant strategy, and it worked. Team Obama came up with a winning strategy, just as in 2008, when (according to Hillary Clinton in Game Change) the strategy of Team Obama was: play the race card.

Clever guy, that Obama. He's Lebron, baby.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz View Post
Still waiting for a coherent argument, an alternate theory to explain a) the depressed voter turnout of 2012; b)the 85% negative ad rate from Team Hope and change. Medved offers an explanation that fits. The only response from the left so far is a) namecalling; b)semantics.
Well, Romney ran quite a few of his own negative ads. See below:

OMG! I just realized the post I quoted is from the OP! He knew when he started this thread that Romney was no slacker when it came to negative ads, either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz View Post
Your numbers are off. While Romney did run a lot of negative ads(79%), Obama ran even more(86%). So if you don't like negative attacks, to be able to decry Romney while absolving Obama is a neat trick.
Jonathan Merritt: Lessons (Not) Learned from the Most Negative Election in U.S. History
My explanation for (slightly) lower voter turnout? Voters were sick of the negativity, period. As for "semantics", words DO have meaning. Suppression is not the same as negative.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2012, 09:12 AM
 
33,194 posts, read 39,232,808 times
Reputation: 28532
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz View Post
I see you don't have an argument either, just spewing name calling. I haven't seen any alternate explanations for the drop in vote totals. Obama got 7 million less votes, and Romney got less votes than McCain, despite the fact that R's were considerably more enthused about Romney than McCain.

But Pres. Obama found the one path to victory: supress the conservative leaning indy/swing voters, the kind who "vote the person, not the party." How else do we explain the 85% negative ad number mentioned by Medved? Why did Mr. 'Audacity of Hope' turn so negative this time around?

Medved's theory fits together quite well. It was a smart strategy by Team Obama, and it worked. Congrats. Any alternate theories out there? Or just semantics & name-calling.....?????
Ya you're grasping at straws to justify the Romney loss, anything but admit to the reality the majority of American voters thought Romney was an empty suit and the rightwing had too many whacky birthers and teabaggers calling every one a bunch of welfare bums,,,Heres your sign...Obama for 4 more..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2012, 09:19 AM
 
1,058 posts, read 945,367 times
Reputation: 624
This article makes a huge assumption without any facts. Namely, this article asserts that the turnout numbers when compared to those of McCain must have been the result of Obama ads, but he provides zero evidence to support this conclusion. One could think of any number of reasons why people preferred McCain to Romney independent of Obama ads.

So for the sake of argument let's assume that Medved is right and that somehow Obama's negative Romney ads dissuaded voters. Clearly, the Super PACs supporting Romney put out negative ads as well, so why didn't those ads work? Or is the author trying to suggest (contrary to reality) that there weren't negative ads put out by Romney or his Super PACs?

Another funny tidbit from the article is the following..."A report from the Wesleyan Media Project suggests that an astonishing 86 percent of all campaign commercials by the Obama campaign and allied groups featured negative messages about Romney."

Notice there is no stat saying what percentage of campaign commercials from the Romney camp were negative. Hmm, I wonder why?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2012, 09:27 AM
 
Location: Hinckley Ohio
6,722 posts, read 4,268,667 times
Reputation: 1376
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Obvious View Post
This article makes a huge assumption without any facts. Namely, this article asserts that the turnout numbers when compared to those of McCain must have been the result of Obama ads, but he provides zero evidence to support this conclusion. One could think of any number of reasons why people preferred McCain to Romney independent of Obama ads.

So for the sake of argument let's assume that Medved is right and that somehow Obama's negative Romney ads dissuaded voters. Clearly, the Super PACs supporting Romney put out negative ads as well, so why didn't those ads work? Or is the author trying to suggest (contrary to reality) that there weren't negative ads put out by Romney or his Super PACs?

Another funny tidbit from the article is the following..."A report from the Wesleyan Media Project suggests that an astonishing 86 percent of all campaign commercials by the Obama campaign and allied groups featured negative messages about Romney."

Notice there is no stat saying what percentage of campaign commercials from the Romney camp were negative. Hmm, I wonder why?
If the right leaning superpacs and Romney outspent Obama and the left by 3 to 1 one has to assume there were far more negative ads directed at Obama. Why didn't they suppress the vote for Obama 3 times as much as was this medved jerk is claiming.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2012, 09:32 AM
 
1,058 posts, read 945,367 times
Reputation: 624
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzards27 View Post
If the right leaning superpacs and Romney outspent Obama and the left by 3 to 1 one has to assume there were far more negative ads directed at Obama. Why didn't they suppress the vote for Obama 3 times as much as was this medved jerk is claiming.
Exactly!

It would at least seem to be more credible if the author asserted that the confluence of negative ads from both Romney and Obama helped discourage Independents and Republicans not to vote. But, to just look at negative Romney ads seems to be intellectually dishonest.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2012, 09:35 AM
 
Location: Old Bellevue, WA
18,794 posts, read 13,621,618 times
Reputation: 7921
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Well, Romney ran quite a few of his own negative ads. See below:

OMG! I just realized the post I quoted is from the OP! He knew when he started this thread that Romney was no slacker when it came to negative ads, either.



My explanation for (slightly) lower voter turnout? Voters were sick of the negativity, period. As for "semantics", words DO have meaning. Suppression is not the same as negative.
Note that the 79-86 numbers came from a May 2012 study, which I should have checked when I posted it. The HuffPo piece quotes the numbers as if they are up to date, but they are not.

To the extent that Romney ran negative ads, he cooked his own goose because, according to the other study (quote posted earlier) the effect of negative ads is to suppress the independent vote, which was where Romney was leading.

It will be interesting to see if the Wesleyan Media Project updates their study to cover the entire campaign. With this being such a negative campaign, I'm sure someone will do it if WMP doesn't.

I'm not going to go over the definition of 'suppress' again. Take it up with Merriam-Webster if you disagree.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2012, 09:39 AM
 
Location: South Africa
5,563 posts, read 6,158,069 times
Reputation: 1785
The only plausible reason the GOP lost votes, they did not have the MILF factor this time around.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2012, 12:09 PM
 
Location: Where they serve real ale.
7,249 posts, read 6,425,109 times
Reputation: 3497
The Russians are still butt hurt because the ruling party got internationally humiliated after it was caught rigging elections. Now they're trying to deflect from their own actual crimes by claiming honest countries so how do the same. Only an idiot would fall for such an obvious ploy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2012, 12:12 PM
 
Location: North America
18,409 posts, read 11,662,540 times
Reputation: 7638
It wasn't Obama that gerrymandered PA, and it wasn't Obama that shortened early voting in Florida.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but the negative campaign ads went both ways.

It wasn't Obama supressing the vote, Mr. Medved. I love it when RWers try to delegitimize a legitimate and legal election. Sounds a lot like sour grapes to me.

Last edited by carterstamp; 11-13-2012 at 12:28 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top