Big Surprise. The GOP goes negative.
The Vandehei article is interesting in that it shows the level of desperation among the GOP (90% of money to be spent on negative ads,) but I think it will be far more interesting to see where the money is spent. More than anything else, the distribution of the national money will tell us how the GOP sees the election.
Also, I would note the sourcing on this. It's coming straight from the GOP. ("GOP officials said internal polling shows Republicans could limit losses to six to 10 House seats and two or three Senate seats..." That "internal polling" is not close to reality.) This is the story they want out there.
Threats of negative ads may force Dem candidates to temporarily pull back spending nationwide to prepare to defend themselves, when in actuality, the Republicans will only target 20-40 congressional districts. Also, the later the Dems wait to buy ads, the more expensive they become, so this "threat" by Republicans increases ad costs.
(Note that this spending curtailing threat is coming right in the middle of the national effort to bolster the president. Bush claims free national "terrorism" speech network time against fewer Dem ads. I'm just so skeptical this time of year.)
Also, I would note the sourcing on this. It's coming straight from the GOP. ("GOP officials said internal polling shows Republicans could limit losses to six to 10 House seats and two or three Senate seats..." That "internal polling" is not close to reality.) This is the story they want out there.
Threats of negative ads may force Dem candidates to temporarily pull back spending nationwide to prepare to defend themselves, when in actuality, the Republicans will only target 20-40 congressional districts. Also, the later the Dems wait to buy ads, the more expensive they become, so this "threat" by Republicans increases ad costs.
(Note that this spending curtailing threat is coming right in the middle of the national effort to bolster the president. Bush claims free national "terrorism" speech network time against fewer Dem ads. I'm just so skeptical this time of year.)
posted by mikevotes at
7:37 AM
9 Comments:
I wasn't surprised that the GOP was going to go negative this early. Let's face it, they have to. But spending 90% of the NRCC funds on negative ads did suprise. 90% - wow.
I guess they really don't want anybody from the other party to have subpoena power.
By
Reality-Based Educator, at 8:55 AM
Yes, and Yes.
I think the 90% is really a testament to the fact that they don't poll well ON ANYTHING.
There's no good legislation to point to and say Congressperson X voted for this bill.
There's nothing positive to say.
It really shows what their internal polling must be saying.
Rout! Rout! Rout!
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 11:41 AM
What really struck me about this story is the apparent goal of the negative ads beyond the obvious - the hope that lots of negative ads will disillusion voters and keep them from the polls, since repubs believe a low turnout is in their favor. Trying to manipulate voters this way is pretty cynical, in my estimation.
By
abi, at 11:45 AM
I agree, but again, I think that's all they have.
If the voting turnout in this country was 70%, the Republicans would be reduced to a rump party. If you look back at all the recent contested elections, Ohio, Fla, the tactic is the same whether it's purging voter roles or making 4 hour voting lines.
I still think they're working way uphill.
(And negative ads sometimes blowback against incumbents. The same sense of disgust that keeps turnout low also tends to create a disgust with politicians overall.)
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 12:01 PM
Did you see how Cheney referred to these negative ads on "Meet the Press" - “I hope our guys have good, hard-hitting advertisements. Certainly, the opposition does,” he said.
I traded 'barbs' with a Republican who actually believes that Democrats lost the last election because they were so negative and the Republicans are not??? How could anyone believe that????
By
Ptelea, at 12:29 PM
The thing about negative ads is that they usually work, despite the public's professed distaste for them.
But this year may be different. It seems to me that the attacked Dem need only to spotlight the litany of lies from this Republican government and end with, "Can you really believe anything the Republicans say?"
By
-epm, at 12:30 PM
ptelea, you still bother to argue with someone who hasn't jumped the Bush ship yet? I mean, if they're still on board, they're not gonna leave.
And, no, I forgot to set the recorder for Meet the Press. I caught a couple of excerpts at ThinkProgress and Crooks an Liars. So, I didn't see that section.
Right now I think the national Repubs are in a swing for the fences mode. They haven't yet hit resignation, but they know it's going to take something extraordinary for them to come out of this election well.
EPM, As you said, negative ads are used because they often work. But it's going to take a lot of negative.
A significant portion of the anti-Republican feeling comes off of Iraq and those opinions are deep and not likely to change much at this point. The best thing the Repubs can hope for is to push it down the priority list or at least muddy it as a leading issue. The effort to retie Iraq to 9/11 has largely been a failure.
And it's not like the Republicans can point to anything and say, look at the good thing we've done here. All they've got is negative.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 1:56 PM
Mike,
The other group I hear about that also drives me crazy is the one that hates politics so much that they think it makes no difference which one you vote for - they are both just as bad! That viewpoint takes a lot of 'disconnect'!
By
Ptelea, at 2:41 PM
I agree with that. I run across that occasionally. Often I think it's a deeper question of discomfort at ignorance.
You know, you explain to somebody that the Dems are more likely to raise minimum wage (their pay) and they come up with some other excuse. I think there's something else behind that alot of the time.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 2:54 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home