May 31, 2004

News flash!

Dubya is running an 'unprecedentedly negative' campaign against Kerry.

We are oh-so-very surprised to find this out.

Scholars and political strategists say the ferocious Bush assault on Kerry this spring has been extraordinary, both for the volume of attacks and for the liberties the president and his campaign have taken with the facts. Though stretching the truth is hardly new in a political campaign, they say the volume of negative charges is unprecedented -- both in speeches and in advertising.

Three-quarters of the ads aired by Bush's campaign have been attacks on Kerry. Bush so far has aired 49,050 negative ads in the top 100 markets, or 75 percent of his advertising. Kerry has run 13,336 negative ads -- or 27 percent of his total. The figures were compiled by The Washington Post using data from the Campaign Media Analysis Group of the top 100 U.S. markets. Both campaigns said the figures are accurate.

Via Washington Post.

Posted by Magpie at May 31, 2004 10:26 PM | Elections | Technorati links |

It's the only kind of campaign he can run. He can't run on his record, all bad. He can't run as a war president, he lost 2 wars. He can't run as a diplomat, the rest of the world hates him. Running on the economy will only help him with 2 - 5 % of the population.
All he can do is try to make people think that Kerry would be even worse than he is and he has to lie to do that.

Posted by: Ron In Portland at May 31, 2004 11:36 PM

This is like the pot calling the kettle black. Both candidates have been tremendously negative. Note the data you cite doesn't count the PACs' negative ads, which make the figures a lot closer. Neither candidate is worth voting for, so they're very busy trying to help us decide who to vote against. What a surprise alright.

Posted by: Gordie at June 1, 2004 12:31 AM

so gordie, do you have figures about the PACs' negative ads? unless those figures show democratic PACs being far more negative than the GOP ones (which i doubt is the case), it's very unlikely that including the PAC figures would make much difference to the study's conclusion.

as to whether neither candidate is worth voting for, i have two words for you: supreme court.

[for the record, this magpie voted for kucinich in the oregon primary.]

Posted by: Magpie at June 1, 2004 02:17 AM

Magpie, you can't look up, Soros's PAC, or the other biggies yourself? If you've been following the elections at all, you know that the Republicans get far more donations directly and the Democrats get way more via PACs. Have the PAC ads been generally positive? As positive as the Bush ads.

What does the Supreme Court have to do with two mudslinging candidates who aren't worth voting for (at least yet)? Did you get the incorrect impression I wasn't going to hold my nose and vote?

Posted by: Gordie at June 1, 2004 02:53 AM