A lot of our Democratic consultants have fallen into the self-defeating prescription that the candidate that runs the most negative ads wins. I have a new theory: Positive is the new negative.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Political consultants are pugilists, masters in the dark art of negativity. Which is why it's surprising to hear Democrats such as Steve McMahon and Republicans like Rich Galen urging their presidential candidates to be more, well, positive.
I think sometimes negative campaigning, like so much, is in the eye of the beholder, and I don't think we'll ever get rid of it.
It just happened that the course of the campaign went negative we actually went positive for a little over a week and you do the tracking of poll numbers and it hurt us. So the public responded to those type of ads.
Sad to say, negative advertising really works.
People spend money on negative campaigning because it works.
The 2008 Democratic presidential candidates would be wise to note that unwarranted negativism is dangerous and badly underestimates the strengths of the American people to adapt to and prosper with change.
Despite all the public hand-wringing about negative advertising, political veterans will tell you that it persists because, more often than not, it works. But tearing down the other guy has another attraction: It can be a substitute for building much of a case for what the mudslinger will do once in office.
Negative campaigning is wrong.
Political commercials encourage the deceptive, the destructive and the degrading.
People hate negative tactics, but the fact is, as the 3 A.M. ad demonstrates, they can be very effective.
No opposing quotes found.