According to a Wesleyan University study, Democrats are campaigning negatively and levying twice as many personal attacks as the they did in 2008; 21.22% this year as opposed to 11.92% in 2008. Republicans were known for their negative campaigning during the 2008 elections, and look at how it hurt them, badly losing ground in both the House and the Senate and actually giving the Democrats a super majority in the Senate, slowing them to pass nearly anything they wanted to until the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts.
http://www.jacksonsun.com/article/2...tudy-Dem-ads-hammer-out-more-personal-attacks
If we consider the fact that the Democrats are fairly well assured of losing the House tomorrow, and there's a very good chance they could lose the Senate as well, I think we can come to one of two conclusions, or a combination of the two.
1) Democrats were unpopular coming into this election year, and already stood to lose ground, so these negative and personal attack ads are an act of desperation to hold onto their majority, and well... their jobs.
2) The Democrats were closer than they thought to keeping their jobs and majority, but the negative and personal attacks sent them into a tailspin and exacerbated the problem.
In California, a seat that's been widely considered to be untouchable by the Republicans is in the 20th Congressional District. It is primarily a farming district, and most of the farms have been hit hard by the fact that they don't have near enough water to be able to grow crops. Farm workers are out of work, and this area has one of the highest unemployment rates in the entire nation. Despite this fact, the incumbent Jim Costa still had a decent lead over his non-politician opponent, a farmer by the name of Andy Vidak. As Vidak started to gain some ground, Costa stepped up his negative campaigning, including complete lies about Vidak. As of last week, Costa's 5-10% lead has turned into a 10% deficit.
However, that is a local election... when we consider our Senate seat that is up this year, we have Barbara Boxer facing off against the former CEO of HP, Carly Fiorina. As Boxer has poured on the negative campaign ads, they seem to have had little to no effect... either way. Fiorina has been polling anywhere between 5% up and 5% down, making this race a complete toss-up. On the other hand, we have the Gubernatorial race, between former California Governor and current Attorney General Jerry Brown and the former CEO of eBay Meg Whitman. Brown has been running nearly complete negative ads against Whitman, and there was a stunt pulled out with Whitman's former housekeeper claiming that Whitman knew she was undocumented when she hired her, despite the fact that they had employment documents proving otherwise. That stunt severely hurt Whitman in the polls, but the switch between Whitman and Brown's campaign ads appears to have actually helped her. In the last week or two, Whitman has changed her strategy from campaigning against Jerry Brown for the most part, and instead focusing on herself and what she wants to do for California. On the other hand, Brown has stepped up his campaign against Whitman, and we're seeing what was a 10-12% deficit for Whitman turning into 3-5% instead, even by internal Democrat polls.
It will be really interesting to see how this all plays out across the country tomorrow. It is a very high stakes election for everyone in the country. I encourage every American citizen that is eligible to vote to go out and do so tomorrow if you haven't already via absentee or early voting. Personally, I'm not anywhere near being a Republican, but I'm hoping for them to takeover the House and the Senate, because I don't think it's a good thing for this country when one party controls the White House and both sides of Congress. I didn't like it when the Republicans were in charge, and I certainly don't like it now that the Democrats are. I think our country ran the best from 1994-2000 when the Dems had the White House, and the GOP controlled Congress. But without a super majority... it forced both sides to actually try and work together, and prevented any one party from forcing their agenda down the public's throats like the Democrats have done in the last two years since Obama took office.
But if the Republicans do take over the House and the Senate, or even just the House... do you think the negative campaigning did them in? Or was it simply inevitable?
http://www.jacksonsun.com/article/2...tudy-Dem-ads-hammer-out-more-personal-attacks
If we consider the fact that the Democrats are fairly well assured of losing the House tomorrow, and there's a very good chance they could lose the Senate as well, I think we can come to one of two conclusions, or a combination of the two.
1) Democrats were unpopular coming into this election year, and already stood to lose ground, so these negative and personal attack ads are an act of desperation to hold onto their majority, and well... their jobs.
2) The Democrats were closer than they thought to keeping their jobs and majority, but the negative and personal attacks sent them into a tailspin and exacerbated the problem.
In California, a seat that's been widely considered to be untouchable by the Republicans is in the 20th Congressional District. It is primarily a farming district, and most of the farms have been hit hard by the fact that they don't have near enough water to be able to grow crops. Farm workers are out of work, and this area has one of the highest unemployment rates in the entire nation. Despite this fact, the incumbent Jim Costa still had a decent lead over his non-politician opponent, a farmer by the name of Andy Vidak. As Vidak started to gain some ground, Costa stepped up his negative campaigning, including complete lies about Vidak. As of last week, Costa's 5-10% lead has turned into a 10% deficit.
However, that is a local election... when we consider our Senate seat that is up this year, we have Barbara Boxer facing off against the former CEO of HP, Carly Fiorina. As Boxer has poured on the negative campaign ads, they seem to have had little to no effect... either way. Fiorina has been polling anywhere between 5% up and 5% down, making this race a complete toss-up. On the other hand, we have the Gubernatorial race, between former California Governor and current Attorney General Jerry Brown and the former CEO of eBay Meg Whitman. Brown has been running nearly complete negative ads against Whitman, and there was a stunt pulled out with Whitman's former housekeeper claiming that Whitman knew she was undocumented when she hired her, despite the fact that they had employment documents proving otherwise. That stunt severely hurt Whitman in the polls, but the switch between Whitman and Brown's campaign ads appears to have actually helped her. In the last week or two, Whitman has changed her strategy from campaigning against Jerry Brown for the most part, and instead focusing on herself and what she wants to do for California. On the other hand, Brown has stepped up his campaign against Whitman, and we're seeing what was a 10-12% deficit for Whitman turning into 3-5% instead, even by internal Democrat polls.
It will be really interesting to see how this all plays out across the country tomorrow. It is a very high stakes election for everyone in the country. I encourage every American citizen that is eligible to vote to go out and do so tomorrow if you haven't already via absentee or early voting. Personally, I'm not anywhere near being a Republican, but I'm hoping for them to takeover the House and the Senate, because I don't think it's a good thing for this country when one party controls the White House and both sides of Congress. I didn't like it when the Republicans were in charge, and I certainly don't like it now that the Democrats are. I think our country ran the best from 1994-2000 when the Dems had the White House, and the GOP controlled Congress. But without a super majority... it forced both sides to actually try and work together, and prevented any one party from forcing their agenda down the public's throats like the Democrats have done in the last two years since Obama took office.
But if the Republicans do take over the House and the Senate, or even just the House... do you think the negative campaigning did them in? Or was it simply inevitable?
