Discussion History Horrible / Advertising

\\\"As research suggests, attack ads in political campaigns are mainly effective because they contribute to citizen education and engagement, and only rarely have negative impacts. Voters often look to negative information to find reasons for supporting one candidate over another. However, there have been times when attack ads become too controversial in society and backfire against a candidate...In the United States, researchers have consistently found that negative advertising has positive effects. According to Finkel and Greer (1998), negative advertising “is likely to stimulate voters by increasing the degree to which they care about the election’s outcome or by increasing ties to their party’s nominee.” This is an important feature of negative campaign advertising because it can solidify a candidate\\\'s support going into an election. Negative advertising, then, can be very beneficial to a candidate during a campaign to not only win votes but also get out the vote.\\\"

If people are getting out to vote \\\'\\\'more\\\'\\\' based on these ads, then it doesn\\\'t count, regardless of whether people think they\\\'re annoying. They serve their purpose.

As I had noted in my original second important note, merely being annoying isn\\\'t enough to qualify for this page. It has to be something so bad that 99% of the people who watch it are turned off by it. That isn\\\'t the case with political ads.

That said, there have been a couple of Canadian political attack ad campaigns I know of (especially the 2006 Liberal Party ads that implied Stephen Harper was going to police major Canadian cities with armed soldiers) that were roundly blasted by every political party and the general public. If you can find an ad campaign like that, then it would qualify.

\\\"As research suggests, attack ads in political campaigns are mainly effective because they contribute to citizen education and engagement, and only rarely have negative impacts. Voters often look to negative information to find reasons for supporting one candidate over another. However, there have been times when attack ads become too controversial in society and backfire against a candidate...In the United States, researchers have consistently found that negative advertising has positive effects. According to Finkel and Greer (1998), negative advertising “is likely to stimulate voters by increasing the degree to which they care about the election’s outcome or by increasing ties to their party’s nominee.” This is an important feature of negative campaign advertising because it can solidify a candidate\\\'s support going into an election. Negative advertising, then, can be very beneficial to a candidate during a campaign to not only win votes but also get out the vote.\\\"

If people are getting out to vote \\\'\\\'more\\\'\\\' based on these ads, then it doesn\\\'t count, regardless of whether people think they\\\'re annoying. They serve their purpose.

As I had noted in my original second important note, merely being annoying isn\\\'t enough to qualify for this page. It has to be something so bad that 99% of the people who watch it are turned off by it. That isn\\\'t the case with political ads.

That said, there have been a couple of Canadian political attack ad campaigns I know of (especially the 2006 Conservative Party ads that Prime Minister Stephen Harper commissioned that implied his rival was going to police major Canadian cities with armed soldiers) that were roundly blasted by every political party and the general public. If you can find an ad campaign like that, then it would qualify.

\\\"As research suggests, attack ads in political campaigns are mainly effective because they contribute to citizen education and engagement, and only rarely have negative impacts. Voters often look to negative information to find reasons for supporting one candidate over another. However, there have been times when attack ads become too controversial in society and backfire against a candidate...In the United States, researchers have consistently found that negative advertising has positive effects. According to Finkel and Greer (1998), negative advertising “is likely to stimulate voters by increasing the degree to which they care about the election’s outcome or by increasing ties to their party’s nominee.” This is an important feature of negative campaign advertising because it can solidify a candidate\\\'s support going into an election. Negative advertising, then, can be very beneficial to a candidate during a campaign to not only win votes but also get out the vote.\\\"

If people are getting out to vote \\\'\\\'more\\\'\\\' based on these ads, then it doesn\\\'t count, regardless of whether people think they\\\'re annoying. They serve their purpose.

As I had noted in my original second important note, merely being annoying isn\\\'t enough to qualify for this page. It has to be something so bad that 99% of the people who watch it are turned off by it. That isn\\\'t the case with political ads.

That said, there have been a couple of Canadian political attack ad campaigns I know of (especially the 2006 Conservative Party ads that Prime Minister Stephen Harper commissioned that implied he was going to police major Canadian cities with armed soldiers) that were roundly blasted by every political party and the general public. If you can find an ad campaign like that, then it would qualify.

\\\"As research suggests, attack ads in political campaigns are mainly effective because they contribute to citizen education and engagement, and only rarely have negative impacts. Voters often look to negative information to find reasons for supporting one candidate over another. However, there have been times when attack ads become too controversial in society and backfire against a candidate...In the United States, researchers have consistently found that negative advertising has positive effects. According to Finkel and Greer (1998), negative advertising “is likely to stimulate voters by increasing the degree to which they care about the election’s outcome or by increasing ties to their party’s nominee.” This is an important feature of negative campaign advertising because it can solidify a candidate\\\'s support going into an election. Negative advertising, then, can be very beneficial to a candidate during a campaign to not only win votes but also get out the vote.\\\"

If people are getting out to vote \\\'\\\'more\\\'\\\' based on these ads, then it doesn\\\'t count, regardless of whether people think they\\\'re annoying. They serve their purpose.

As I had noted in my original second important note, merely being annoying isn\\\'t enough to qualify for this page. It has to be something so bad that 99% of the people who watch it are turned off by it. That isn\\\'t the case with political ads.

That said, there have been a couple of Canadian political attack ad campaigns I know of (especially the 2006 Conservative Party ads thsy Prime Minister Stephen Harper commissioned that implied he was going to police major Canadian cities with armed soldiers) that were roundly blasted by every political party and the general public. If you can find an ad campaign like that, then it would qualify.

\\\"As research suggests, attack ads in political campaigns are mainly effective because they contribute to citizen education and engagement, and only rarely have negative impacts. Voters often look to negative information to find reasons for supporting one candidate over another. However, there have been times when attack ads become too controversial in society and backfire against a candidate...In the United States, researchers have consistently found that negative advertising has positive effects. According to Finkel and Greer (1998), negative advertising “is likely to stimulate voters by increasing the degree to which they care about the election’s outcome or by increasing ties to their party’s nominee.” This is an important feature of negative campaign advertising because it can solidify a candidate\\\'s support going into an election. Negative advertising, then, can be very beneficial to a candidate during a campaign to not only win votes but also get out the vote.\\\"

If people are getting out to vote \\\'\\\'more\\\'\\\' based on these ads, then it doesn\\\'t count, regardless of whether people think they\\\'re annoying. They serve their purpose.

As I had noted in my original second important note, merely being annoying isn\\\'t enough to qualify for this page. It has to be something so bad that 99% of the people who watch it are turned off by it. That isn\\\'t the case with political ads.

That said, there have been a couple of Canadian political attack ad campaigns I know of (especially the 2006 Conservative Party ads where Prime Minister Stephen Harper commissioned a series of ads that implied he was going to police major Canadian cities with armed soldiers) that were roundly blasted by every political party and the general public. If you can find an ad campaign like that, then it would qualify.

\\\"As research suggests, attack ads in political campaigns are mainly effective because they contribute to citizen education and engagement, and only rarely have negative impacts. Voters often look to negative information to find reasons for supporting one candidate over another. However, there have been times when attack ads become too controversial in society and backfire against a candidate...In the United States, researchers have consistently found that negative advertising has positive effects. According to Finkel and Greer (1998), negative advertising “is likely to stimulate voters by increasing the degree to which they care about the election’s outcome or by increasing ties to their party’s nominee.” This is an important feature of negative campaign advertising because it can solidify a candidate\\\'s support going into an election. Negative advertising, then, can be very beneficial to a candidate during a campaign to not only win votes but also get out the vote.\\\"

If people are getting out to vote \\\'\\\'more\\\'\\\' based on these ads, then it doesn\\\'t count, regardless of whether people think they\\\'re annoying. They serve their purpose.

As I had noted in my original second important note, merely being annoying isn\\\'t enough to qualify for this page. It has to be something so bad that 99% of the people who watch it are turned off by it. That isn\\\'t the case with political ads.

That said, there have been a couple of Canadian political attack ad campaigns I know of (especially the 2006 ads where Prime Minister Stephen Harper commissioned a series of ads that implied he was going to police major Canadian cities with armed soldiers) that was roundly blasted by every political party and the general public. If you can find an ad campaign like that, then it would qualify.