Fun Fact: Despite near unanimous claims by voters to the contrary, the data bears out that negative campaigning is far more productive than espousing the positives of your own candidate.
ok, can I see the data?
https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/why-negative-campaigning-works-and-how-fight-it
Ledgerwood and her colleagues have also found that a negative frame is much more persistent, or “stickier,” than a positive one. If you come at an issue negatively, but are later reminded of the policy's positive aspects, you will still think it's a bust. And if you start out thinking favorably about the policy, but are reminded of its downsides, your positive perception will be swept away and a negative one will take its place.
The beauty of negative attacks — from a campaign standpoint — is that they influence everyone. Even a candidate’s supporters will be affected by negative attacks, Ledgerwood and her collaborators have found. Once a negative idea has been planted, it’s very hard to shake.Looking at correlations between the volume of negative ads and the vote shares achieved by U.S. Senate candidates in 2010 and 2012, the researchers found that “while positive political advertising does not affect two-party vote share, negative political advertising has a significant positive effect on two-party vote shares.”
https://www.rochester.edu/newscenter/when-campaign-ads-go-low-it-often-works/
“Negative campaigning has been around as long as campaigning,” Lovett says. “It stays around because it works.”
https://www.cnn.com/2012/01/02/opinion/lariscy-negative-ads/index.html
So if we don’t like negative ads and even perhaps suspect they contribute to political malaise, why are they increasingly dominating candidates’ strategies?
The answer is simple: They work. And they work very well. Gingrich’s drop in polls in Iowa last month was no accident – it was choreographed by negative advertising. . . .
. . . Our brains process information both consciously and non-consciously. When we pay attention to a message we are engaged in active message processing. When we are distracted or not paying attention we may nonetheless passively receive information. There is some evidence that negative messages may be more likely than positive ones to passively register. They “stick” for several reasons.
First, one of the most important contributors to their success may be the negativity bias. Negative information is more memorable than positive – just think how clearly you remember an insult.
Second, negative ads are more complex than positive ones. A positive message that talks about the sponsoring candidate’s voting record, for example, is simple and straightforward. Every negative ad has at least an implied comparison. If Mitt Romney is “not a true conservative,” then by implication the candidate sponsoring the ad is saying he or she is a true conservative. This complexity can cause us to process the information more slowly and with somewhat more attentiveness.
What if I told you... Harris needs to do more positive things to get voters to want to vote for her.
What if I told you: No Shit
Part of the fucking problem is that Dems seem to have kinda given up on ever getting anything nice. The only thing that matters is "BEAT TRUMP". Healthcare, civil/labor rights, debt relief, the anti-war movement, environmental protections, business regulation, green infrastructure development... none of that is even being offered up.
The only thing you hear is "Whatever position you have, know that Trump will be worse than Harris, so you have to vote Harris". How do you go up to someone's door and ask for their vote on those grounds? What do you say to someone who looks at Trump and Harris, shrugs, and says "They look the same to me"?
It isn't the MAGA voter that you have to worry about. It's the voter that's been getting burned election after election by disappointment and can't be bothered this time around.
What do you say to someone who looks at Trump and Harris, shrugs, and says “They look the same to me”?
What do you say? You say "are you suffering a stroke, would you like me to call you an ambulance?"
Americans aren't being given a real choice here, too bad, but that's how it is. Anyone who is eligible to vote but doesn't realise Trump is a genuine threat to democracy the world over maybe shouldn't be allowed to vote.
If you were caught in someplace where you didn't have access to water, and the only choices were a bottle of piss with blood in it (Trump, in this metaphor) and a warm, stale coke light (Harris, in this metaphor), which one would you choose? Neither of them are particularly enjoyable or healthy in the long run, but if you were in a place which had no access to fresh water (spelling out my metaphor here, but democracy), you would die without consuming liquids. Still, you probably wouldn't choose the pissy blood, because that'd actually be dangerous to drink no matter how dehydrated you were. A warm, stale coke light would still be a functional drink, no matter how much you'd never choose it if you had an option.
See where I'm going?
Chomsky did have a good point once about how there's a difference of the type of lack of democracy that you can see between America and Russia. (I'm Finnish, btw, fuck Putler.) He made the point that Americans tend to like to think they have a choice, whereas Russians are pretty openly certain they don't. As a heavy exaggeration, that is. I don't recall which book it was, but I think it was honestly one of his books from the 70's about linguistics, which made it weird, since it started with a chapter about CIA shenanigans and propaganda.
i think the bottom text has it wrong.
this is probably a stronger argument to get people to vote for her:
what she'll do
what her opponent won't be able to do if she wins.Awhile ago I saw post about having fun arguing with magats about going libertarian. Pretend to lump Trump in with then Biden now Kamala, as old Washington big wigs. Wanting to be free of big govt, ma freedoms, whatever. They were never gonna vote Democrat, but maybe stop em from voting Trump?
I have discussed politics with actual magats maybe 3 or 4 times since then. I think one actually thought about it. Pretty sure I saved America.
If we stopped constantly arguing logic and reason to people that clearly have none, and focused on discussions of how we improve the country through governance and policy, we could actually convert some of them. But If i were to imagine life as a Trumper all I would see is hatred towards me everywhere, why the fuck would I listen to people insulting me?
Not that this would happen because at the end of the day, both sides of the aisles have their fair share of people whose political ideology is just to regurgitate what their own social circles reinforce while simultaneously be unable to withstand some minor pushback on topics and then confirming to the other that they dont know what theyre talking about. And the media will constantly put a megaphone up to this ignorant minority so the other side can confirm to themselves how dumb that side is.
Shit half the time I try to make the point that most people voting for trump are doing so because of their social circles influence on them, and that we should try and treat them with decency if we ever want to change their minds, and I get downvoted into the floor and hear a bunch of "centrist bad" nonsense. Political parties are just sports teams to many at the end of the day, they were raised to follow one and think the other one sucks, and most involved don't realize how brainwashed they are that they now see the other half of the country as a hostile foreign entity.
Meanwhile capitalists rob us all blind and continue to spread this narrative that we should fight each other, so we dont unite against them.
So the main reason to vote for her is "I am not Trump". Is that it? I don't think that sound that good.
I think the only reason Republicans have for voting for Trump is "he is Trump". Did they release a platform this time or just repeat the one from last time that was just "what Trump says goes"?
If you had a choice between 2 cars and one explodes when you turn it on, are you really thinking about the merit of the other one's adaptive cruise control?
Then "this car doesn't explode AND has cruise control" is better than just "it doesn't explode".
what do you mean "ours", did you mean "mine"? I don't know you and I'm not associated to any group except my family
She does not exhibit leadership qualities. It's going to be preaching to the converted, because only the converted could be so blind to her failings.
let me know when she stops supporting a genocide, promises to retain Ms Khan, and actually has detailed plans for inflation/health care and then i'll care.
She's committed to saying nothing until after the election, so I guess we just have to wonder if she's for burning Palestinians or against it. Clearly its a tough decision to make right now...
Incorrect. she has said plenty on gaza. for example she has said she'll remain committed to supporting israel's war, that they have a right to our weapons and support. shes remained uncommitted on khan and other policy issues. I dont see why I should support a candidate with such a questionable moral compass and a well known history for prosecuting weed crimes and being a corporate bootlicker. 🤷 but again your vote is your vote. just don't bitch about your candidate losing when she can't even clear a basic human decency bar of fucking not enabling genocide.
Has she shown regret as a proponent of profits in the California prison system at the expense of humanity?
Has Trump? Is it worth giving up your right to democracy over? Giving up the health and welfare of ALL women. The future of the world over? No it fucking isn't.
Vote, and then you can go back to being a faceless idiot on the Internet or bot or whatever.
You're doing it wrong
You're failing to follow the advice of the meme
If you are bringing up Trump when I talk about Harris, then we are not having the same conversation. Learn how to use critical thinking, even when your "common sense" gets in your way.
If you want to talk about democracy, then we need to address the problem with our system of elections and representation.
If you want to talk about health and welfare, then neither party gives a shit. Harris shows she is okay with the way things are going except returning to Roe v Wade. Trump blames immigrants, his favorite red herring, because he has no concept of health and welfare. Unless you mean corporate welfare.
I'm not sure what you are referring to in "future of the world over."
I can see you are as frustrated as we all are with the direction of our politics. It will never stop me from voting, no matter how futile it seems. I wish everyone did. Again, that leads to the topic of systemic issues with our voting. I hope someday our passions for a just and fair country with sound, constitutional decision making will become reality. For now, we are stuck with bought and paid for politicians and self-righteous eccentrics. It IS hard to accept this state of the union.
Talking about missing the point whilst said point is staring you in the eyes...
Very true, but much more difficult because Harris actually has to commit to something positive. It's easier for the astroturfers to just throw dirt at Trump.
Trump deserves all the dirt thrown at him.
I do hope you'll notice how many people have downvoted you. I know it won't matter to you, but check out that number.
Yes, it's important to stop Trump. But don't fool yourself into thinking that Harris has your best interests at heart. She sees the people as a tool she must convince to get into a position of power. Not as someone who she should serve.
I won't argue over whether she does have my best interests at heart. It. Does. Not. Matter.
I don't want to marry her, I want her to keep Trump out of office - and right now, she is the only one who can.
Fun fact: Most exterminators don't have your best interest in mind - they just want to make a living. Yet, they do keep the bedbugs away, so it's all good.
America when it comes to electing the most powerful person on the planet: well as long as we don't elect the fat pants shitting criminal rapist liar again we're doing a pretty good job.
It's a little bit below the absolute bare minimum a democracy has to offer but the struggle is still real.
Harris could sit in the Oval Office and spin around in her chair for four years and still be an immeasurably better president than Trump.
OP's statement was that she'll do more than that. I agree that she's better than Trump. What are you trying to tell me that I haven't already stated?
Decades of civil service would beg to differ. Of course all politicians in a democracy need to sway voters to vote for them, but it's absurdly cynical to believe that no politician in any democracy ever has given any fucks about the well-being of their constituents. Unless you're saying that this is something mostly unique to her, which is equally silly. I have my doubts about how much of her campaign promises can actually be delivered on, mostly due to congressional Republicans who will definitely stonewall everything possible, but it's outrageous to claim without any supporting evidence that Harris is uninterested in serving the people when she's already been doing so for her entire career.
it's absurdly cynical to believe that no politician in any democracy ever has given any fucks about the well-being of their constituents.
It's a harsh oversimplification, but yes: Most politicians primarily focus on maintaining their own power. Claiming to have the best interest of their constituents at heart is one strategy to achieve that.
without any supporting evidence
Why would she be different than centuries of historical precedent?
