Quote:
Originally Posted by lwarmonger
Islamofascist? He kills babies? I don't get what you are looking for here... most charismatic politicians can get away with doing pretty much anything (look at our former President Clinton). The best thing I can say about America's young is that they don't vote most of the time. While they may vote in slightly larger numbers this election, I don't think it will be enough to matter significantly.
And being the most liberal senator is not a big feather in your cap when it comes to moderates (whom the democrats actually won in 2004). I think with either Obama or Clinton as an opponent McCain can win that middle ground. The question that seems pertinent to me is how much of that far right will stay home, and how much of that democratic base will come out.
|
Guess I am not explaining it well. I'll take another stab at it.
You know why negative campaign ads work. They tear down an opponent's character in hopes of weakening his image. I could give you a lot of examples. There's the opponent who claims to be a regular churchgoer, but 20 years ago at 18 years old was arrested (but not convicted) for drinking in public. The negative ad breathlessly relates those the two facts and then leapfrog to the question: can we trust someone who claims to be religious and yet drinks in public.
On a lower level, a charismatic, good looking candidate with personal appeal is vulnerable to revelations of a more mundane nature, e.g., he's had a nose job, he has bad halitosis, etc.
Negative ads have to be designed to fit the audience. If the audience is older, the first example works better. If it is younger, the ick factor plays better... See what I mean...what is Obama's ick factor...lol. Of course, I am being a bit facetious here, but what the hell...
