I don't agree Jim. Case in point, George W Bush's campaign for a second term was successful in part because it was able to mobilize the gullible by playing on their fears of terrorism and teh gay. And they successfully turned Kerry's honorable service in Vietnam into a liability by convincing the gullible that he didn't really earn his medals.
When your opponent is trowing pots of money into negative advertising you have to have the money to counter that narrative. Look at Sherrod Brown's re-election campaign. Josh Mandel shouldn't be close to him in the polls. Sherrod is an experienced legislator with a positive record of working for Ohio in both the House and the Senate. Mandel has very little experience, and has been regularly putting his foot in his mouth up to the knee. Heck, he called Brown unAmerican in a public debate. But he is still eating away Brown's lead.
The reason Mandel's campaign is performing so well is all the outside groups that has been pouring an avalanche of money into negative advertising against Brown. Where is Sen Brown going to get the money to counter this drek unless some of us donate to his campaign? Should he rely on rich donors? Would that leave him beholden to their agendas if he does?
Honestly Jim, your argument sounds a little bit like putting your fingers in your ears and saying "La, la, la I can't hear you." The reality is that lacking real public financing of campaigns we've got to put our money where our vested interest lies.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2012-09-17 02:53 pm (UTC)When your opponent is trowing pots of money into negative advertising you have to have the money to counter that narrative. Look at Sherrod Brown's re-election campaign. Josh Mandel shouldn't be close to him in the polls. Sherrod is an experienced legislator with a positive record of working for Ohio in both the House and the Senate. Mandel has very little experience, and has been regularly putting his foot in his mouth up to the knee. Heck, he called Brown unAmerican in a public debate. But he is still eating away Brown's lead.
The reason Mandel's campaign is performing so well is all the outside groups that has been pouring an avalanche of money into negative advertising against Brown. Where is Sen Brown going to get the money to counter this drek unless some of us donate to his campaign? Should he rely on rich donors? Would that leave him beholden to their agendas if he does?
Honestly Jim, your argument sounds a little bit like putting your fingers in your ears and saying "La, la, la I can't hear you." The reality is that lacking real public financing of campaigns we've got to put our money where our vested interest lies.