Why are Dems so shit at negative stuff?

[Real_American17]

[Material prohibited per our forum guidelines.] - Last Warning

Who is the piece of shit faggot and coward that edited my post?

 

[hashtag45]

This must be Halloween…
RealAmerican sighting!

 

[Conager]

She's gone libertarian from what I heard. Carville shows up on CNN on primary nights. I expect he'll show up next Tuesday.

He also shows up on Bill Maher from time to time.

Bernie should have hired him.

 

[snugglestruggle]

Look at the (D) buthurt in this thread . Relax there's 8 more days to go.

Wikicock phase 3

Huma's Laptop & 650,000 email contents

Donna Brazille scandal brewing

Obama now caught up in her server web of lies.

Clinton Crime Foundation investigation ramping up.

Hillary might have a medical scare, which may actually help her, Irony.

Lots more political entertainment coming LMFAO

 

[Paul_Chance]

I've loved this election cycle. It's totally insane. Which makes for great entertainment. Now, all we need is some bread to go with the circuses.

The problem with negative ads (and what keeps both sides from going full out nuclear on each other) is this. The intent of political advertisement is three fold.

Type One is aimed at the opponents party faithful - the intention is to either persuade them to switch their vote or convince them to stay home. Negative ads are not as effective as positive ads here, since a significant portion of the political participants (especially Americans) react to negative ads with negativity and these ads often encourage rather than discourage participation by the opposition party.

Type Two is aimed at the buyers own party faithful - the intention there is engage and inspire them to get out and vote. This group is already "in the tank", so negative ads only convince them of what they think they already know. Negative ads are not as effective as positive ads.

Type Three is aimed at undeclared and the purpose is to get them to declare for the buyers party. This is the small segment negative ads work on, but in order for them to work they must be true and verifiable, since this segment is willing to consider both sides. A negative ad that is proven untrue has the reverse effect and works to persuade these voters to vote against the party/candidate going negative.

In the case of successful negative ad campaigns, they've worked well in campaigns where one party is relatively unknown and the ads have the opportunity to shape a "first impression" in the undecided's minds and push them in the desired direction.

In this election cycle both candidates have very high negatives to start with, so negative ad buys are having minimal impact. Both sides already believe the other side is scum, so negative ads are preaching to the faithful. The independents are generally sick of both of them, so they've been particularly hard to persuade and volatile in their allegiances - they're mostly holding their noses and trying to decide which candidate stinks the least.

 

[sr71plt]

Type Three is aimed at undeclared and the purpose is to get them to declare for the buyers party. This is the small segment negative ads work on, but in order for them to work they must be true and verifiable, since this segment is willing to consider both sides. A negative ad that is proven untrue has the reverse effect and works to persuade these voters to vote against the party/candidate going negative.

The Democratic Party ads have been brilliant in this, because they put Trump himself up being Trump. That itself scares the begeezes out of most everyone on the fence who is using their brain. But then going the other direction, doing the e-mail grind on Clinton, has been working with some not-so-bright and easily duped undecideds too.

 

[Conager]

The Democratic Party ads have been brilliant in this, because they put Trump himself up being Trump. That itself scares the begeezes out of most everyone on the fence who is using their brain. But then going the other direction, doing the e-mail grind on Clinton, has been working with some not-so-bright and easily duped undecideds too.

"What difference does it make, at this point?" -HRC

 

[Paul_Chance]

In both cases each side has used the others natural negatives very effectively against them. That is part of the power of the new media - previously in history "plausible deniability" was easier, before the pervasiveness of recorders and cameras and the reliance on email and text (which can and are hacked with regularity). One of the reasons both candidates have such high negatives is those negatives are broadcast far and wide. Whether it is "Trump is moron" or "Hilary is Corrupt" both sides face a raft of persons/organizations who are spilling their guts left and right over the stage. Eight years ago when Obama was running on Hope and Change that machine was just getting it's stride (think "cling to their god and their guns"). Now, it's the way the world is, ranging from Trump grabbing pussy and Hilary telling wall street she had a public position and a private position. In politics today you just can't get away with things like that - the age of the private conversion or the privileged conversation are gone. At the end of the story, as we move through a time of turmoil, it will be a good thing because it will help reduce the duplicity so common in politicians.

 

[Christobal]

What Paul said.

 

[girlsmiley]

Oh hey.

FUCK. YOU.

That's BumBoy's "All women are bar whores" mentality shining through.

But he's not a misogynistic pig. Just ask him.

 

[AnnieBonneau]

I don't do politics but I think that people should be seriously concerned about the foreign business dealings of the guy who won't reveal his tax returns.

 

[VaticanAssassin]

She's gone libertarian from what I heard. Carville shows up on CNN on primary nights. I expect he'll show up next Tuesday.

He also shows up on Bill Maher from time to time.

This seems to have broke him.

He just said that the FBI, KGB, and GOP are working together.

Someone should tell him it is not the 90's anymore..

 

[BotanyBoy]

It's not "the truth" just because you happen to believe it. Often exactly the opposite.

So a bunch of women didn't just show up right before an election to accuse Trump of rape and or other forms of sexual misconduct going pretty much all the way back to his days as a young adult?

Because according to both L and R media outlets large and small that's exactly what's happened in the last few months.

If it's not the truth you better call every major and minor media outlet on the planet and tell them they got it all wrong Rob.

That's BumBoy's "All women are bar whores" mentality shining through.

But he's not a misogynistic pig. Just ask him.

I don't have that mentality nor have I ever said anything remotely close to it.

You're just throwing turds from your iggy bunker because facts are sexist.

 

[QueenLevitra]

IsTrumpYourFault.com

 

[about_average]

If you wish to start a 9/11 thread, do so.

Like the way you started a bash Hillary thread?

The real question is why is a guy from the UK so shitty at English.

"Shit" is a noun.

Or a verb.

 

[about_average]

So a bunch of women didn't just show up right before an election to accuse Trump of rape and or other forms of sexual misconduct going pretty much all the way back to his days as a young adult?.

I wouldn't call 1997 "right before an election" in 2016.

When I first reported the story of Jill Harth’s sexual assault accusation back in July, I didn’t get a single interview request to talk about it. The radio show I’d already been booked to go on engaged me only briefly, during an hour-long interview, on the matter of a woman accusing the Republican nominee of grabbing her crotch in a child’s bedroom at his Mar-a-Lago estate, before changing the subject.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ld-trump-assault-allegations-women-jill-harth

Given Trump's resources and love of the lawsuit, it's not in the least surprising women would keep silent until it was made public that he bragged about committing sexual assault.

If fact, the reporter who says he assaulted her was told by a colleague (her boss?) to not report it because Trump would destroy her career.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I wouldn't call 1997 "right before an election" in 2016.
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ld-trump-assault-allegations-women-jill-harth

Are you seriously saying 1997 was the last time someone accused Trump of sexual misconduct?

All the media outlets for the last 4 months painting him as the ultra rapist and numerous women accusing him of sexual misconduct didn't happen???

Seriously?? LOL Ok, whatever you say.

Let's just go with that.

If this went down in 1997 what happened? Did he not face charges?

Clearly he wasn't convicted, why should I give a fuck today?

 

[RobDownSouth]

I wouldn't call 1997 "right before an election" in 2016.

"but...but...right before the election!" is a classic staple of Wingnut Excuse Making.

 

[Fala]

The Repos have been pushing non scandals as the worst thing since Herod's massacre of the innocents but their candidate is about to go on trial for fraud and child rape. Is there no-one in the DNC with a vicious streak?

Darling....we VOTE. VICIOUSLY, even...I slammed that "Enter Vote" button so hard that I Know Trump felt it punch him in the face.

No worries...Hillary will win.

 

[Fala]

She's gone libertarian from what I heard. Carville shows up on CNN on primary nights. I expect he'll show up next Tuesday.

He also shows up on Bill Maher from time to time.

Carville damn sure rocks. I love that guy. He's my guru.

edited to add...Last time I saw him (last night), he was swinging a Claymore and taking heads...

...as he should.

 

[about_average]

Also HRC is an actual child rapist defender, she even celebrated getting a known rapist acquitted.

I don't think you can fault an attorney for defending someone she's assigned, against her will, by a judge. Nor an attorney who does a good job defending her client and is proud of doing her job well. Not that I've seen evidence that she's "celebrated" it.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I don't think you can fault an attorney for defending someone she's assigned, against her will, by a judge.

It wasn't against her will, SHE CHOSE TO TAKE THE JOB.

And fault or not she is still a child rapist defender.

 

[about_average]

Are you seriously saying 1997 was the last time someone accused Trump of sexual misconduct?

I didn't say that. But your implication was that no one did before July.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I didn't say that. But your implication was that no one did before July.

No my implication was that starting earlier this summer the onslaught of accusations came about.

And that accusations aren't the same as proof much less evidence....it's barely probable cause for an investigation.

 

[about_average]

It wasn't against her will, SHE CHOSE TO TAKE THE JOB.

No, she didn't. At least not entirely free will, it was take it or ruin her career, possibly lose her job.
And I never said he wasn't accused of rape.