I heard this data read on Mark Levin this afternoon, and picked it up from the CNN PoliticalTicker blog by way of Lucianne.
I’ll provide the nothing shy of jaw-dropping stats below… how you choose to absorb this ugly reality about election campaigns and negative advertising is, of course, completely up to you.
Me? To use the “he who dies with the most toys…” old saying, paraphrased, obviously he who has the most money for a campaign, combined with the least scruples, wins.
Statistics provided by the Campaign Media Analysis Group (CMAG).
“I spent much of my academic career telling reporters, ‘Relax, this is not the most negative campaign ever,'” CMAG President Ken Goldstein said. “Well, this IS the most negative campaign ever.”
Numbers from CMAG show a total of 11,586 television spots aired in Florida between January 23 and January 29. [Mata Musing: that’s 1655 per day, or close to one every minute of a 24 hour period… no wonder my relatives were complaining…] Of those spots, 10,633 were negative and 953 were positive.
Of the 1,012 spots Newt Gingrich’s campaign ran, 95% were negative. Mitt Romney’s campaign ran 3,276 ads and 99% were negative.
The two super PACs supporting the top candidates were more divergent in their ad strategies. Restore our Future, supporting Romney, ran 4,969 spots, all of which were negative. The Gingrich-backing Winning our Future ran 1,893 spots, and only 53% were negative.
Correspondingly, the bulk of ads in Florida – 68% – were negative toward Gingrich. Twenty-three percent were anti-Romney spots. Gingrich got support from 9% of ads while pro-Romney spots accounted for less than 0.1%.
With these stats, the lesson learned is that Romney never won by positive campaigning… only by tearing down his opponent. How Obama’esque of him…. I’ve already got a POTUS with this version of ethics. Do I really want to replace him with another, just because he fakes an “R” behind his name?
Romney, of course, was busy playing the victim, whining like a little kid to his Mom, pointing fingers saying “he started it!” in reference to Newt. Unfortunately, that’s not how it went.
It was Romney’s well timed onslaught of SuperPac spending in Iowa that crashed Newt’s momentum there. Romney also outspent Newt 2 to 1 in South Carolina. Florida? Well, the above tells the story.
Needless to say, Romney’s feigned innocence and cries of “victim”, after outspending Gingrich four to one, are somewhat disingenuous to put it mildly.
In fact, as of Jan 10th, 96% of the SuperPACs’ spending on negative ads were targeting Gingrich. It’s amazing the guy’s gotten as far as he has, vacillating between being the front runner and in second both in the state, and nationally. As of the 20th of January, the SuperPAC spending had clicked up to about $33 million (both positive and negative of all candidates), with Romney leading the pack with $11 million, or 1/3rd of all SuperPAC spending alone.
While Mitt’s busy spending money, hands over fists, to destroy his competitor, what will he have left to defend himself again Obama’s massive war chest in the general? If Romney is, today, gloating over a win based on buying a State Primary with negative ads, saying they served him well, he’s got little hope of out spending Obama in the general.
There’s no money back guarantee on a Mittens candidacy if or when he loses to Obama when cast as the heartless, soul’less capitalist pig. The man who is the epitome of everything that Obama rails against. We sure know that health care will be off the table, since Romney was the architect of Obama’care. Mandates that force citizens to buy a product, simply because they live and breathe, are no more Constitutional at the state level than they are at the federal. Our inalienable rights do not stop at State boundaries.
Meanwhile, for some primary return fun, the folks over at ABC have decided to publish their predictions of by just how much Newt would be losing to Romney in Florida, in percentages ranging from 7-8% to 28%. It’s 6:41PM PT, and the cable news has called the election for Romney at 47%/Gingrich with 32% with 81% of the vote in (ever changing). Guess they’ll have to wait to declare the winner.
Wonder if they’re running a pool for cash…
AMY WALTER – ABC News Political Director
Romney- 45%
Newt- 29%
Santorum- 14%
Paul- 12%JONATHAN KARL – ABC News Senior Political Correspondent
Romney – 41%
Gingrich – 28%
Santorum – 16%
Paul – 11%RICK KLEIN – Senior Washington Editor
Romney – 45%
Gingrich – 27%
Paul – 15%
Santorum – 11%Z. BYRON WOLF – Politics Editor for ABC News.com
Romney – 37%
Gingrich – 27%
Santorum – 12 %
Paul – 12 %Eric Noe – ABCNews.com Deputy Managing Editor
Romney: 43%
Gingrich: 29%
Santorum: 16%
Paul: 12%SHUSHANNAH WALSHE – ABC News Digital Reporter
Mitt Romney – 36 %
Newt Gingrich – 29 %
Rick Santorum – 15%
Ron Paul – 13%GEORGE SANCHEZ – ABC News Washington, DC Assignment Editor
Romney – 49%
Gingrich – 21%
Santorum – 16%
Paul – 12%ELIZABETH HARTFIELD – ABC News Political Unit
Romney- 41%
Gingrich- 28%
Santorum- 14%
Paul- 11%CHRIS GOOD – ABC News Political Unit
Romney – 38%
Gingrich – 30%
Santorum – 12%
Paul – 11%MATT NEGRIN – ABC News Political Reporter
Romney – 36%
Gingrich – 29%
Paul – 17%
Santorum – 15%AMY BINGHAM – ABC News.com Reporter
Romney- 43%
Gingrich- 28%
Santorum- 12%
Paul- 9%SARAH PARNASS – ABC News Intern
Romney – 46%
Gingrich – 27%
Santorum – 16%
Paul – 11%ALEXA KEYES – ABC News Intern
Romney -44%
Gingrich – 29%
Santorum -14%
Paul – 11%
We have a problem, folks. While I support the voters’ right to choose via elections, even if not my candidate of choice, the amount of money and the sleazy tactics that have permeated our process are beyond alarming. So you’ll forgive me if I don’t celebrate the primary results, as it’s going now.
It turns out that all we feared may be true, as it plays out before our very eyes and with documented facts… that offices of our central government are, indeed, for sale to the highest bidder with those with the most creative lies.
A “must read” … C. Edmund Wright’s American Thinker article 2/1/12 – “Mitt’s Scorched Earth Win”.
Another “must”…Thomas Sowell’s primary day column, “The Florida Smear Campaign”
George Neumayr’s American Thinker article, “Romney’s Cheap and Empty Win”… tho I might disagree as to how “cheap” it was in a monetary perspective.
Vietnam era Navy wife, indy/conservative, and an official California escapee now residing as a red speck in the sea of Oregon blue.
@ilovebeeswarzone:
I love hummingbirds! I’ve been fortunate enough to watch much of their behavior. The best time came when two adults brought their 3(!) babies to teach them how to drink out of my feeder.
It sounds like you have a special calling, Bees.
Well.. here’s another update. Romney’s overt purchase of the Florida primary has been duly noted by the Obama campaign. From CNN’s Political Ticker blog, Obama’s deputy campaign manager, Stephanie Cutter, says:
I’d add it’s difficult for Romney to claim significant victory since 54% of Florida voters voted for “not Romney”, despite his smear campaign.
Then there’s there’s the statement of Jim Messina, Obama’s campaign manager.
Mittens, drawing first blood by being the beneficiary of SuperPACs – which he says he dislikes, yet thanks – is going to have a hard time living down the “spend and smear their way to the WH” slogan. Then there’s the warning to Mittens that he’s dead meat attempting that against Obama’s campaign war chest.
Newt? Easier to live this down since he’s been the target of at least 96% of the SuperPAC ads… predominantly thrown at him by Romney.
What was what as BS about “electibility” again? Stellar observation of that idiot excuse to sell your principles by Yates Walker at Daily Caller.
Yup.. the ol’ play to the herd mentality bit again.
The same tact is used with women voters, with Romney’ites saying Newt can’t get the women voters. Then, out of the other side of their forked tongue, they say that every one will rally around the GOP nominee.. except we principled miscreants.
I have to assume that includes women (who aren’t miscreants like me… ) who would pull the lever for Newt over Obama, right? Or does only Romney fit that crystal ball litmus test?
Yates is right… this is a liberal tool used to dangle over the Republican establishment and media pundits. And like Lucy pulling the football out from Charlie Brown, they fall for it every time.
johngalt
absolutly, and because also the rise of fast communication where anyone can find any word
a CANDIDATE SAID OR DID IN WORK OR FINANCE, which is also the big problem of the felons who had small errors, paid their times and free but branded forever and drop in the same pit as the hardcore criminals and while searching for jobs are being denied any one jobs, even if they over qualify any other groups, the same for CANDIDATES GETTING BARE UP IN FRONT OF A CYNICAL PUBLIC RENDERED SO MUCH MORE SUSPICIOUS SINCE OBAMA was elected by the crowd listening to A FRAUDULENT MEDIA,
using a propaganda dictated by money. gains where lies are the menu of the day,
Romney is obma light. Newt has some significant warts, but he’s closer to being a Conservative and has a proven track record on reform at least.
I expect obama to chew Romney to pieces in the debates.
Bees, you are just getting in touch with your inner Mata.
I have always wondered why Sowell never got into politics. Now I know.
@Richard Wheeler:
Why? So the democrats get the upper hand yet again? I don’t think so Rich.
This is from a 2010 Washington Post article after the Citizens United case
You want the corporations out, but not the Unions? If a Union is a group of people with similar interests, what is a corporation? Hint: A company or group of people authorized to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law.
That’s a keeper, Aqua…
Need some ointment for that bruise, rich?
@MataHarley:
He’ll need it for both cheeks… :0
Don’t you mean all *four*, HR? LOL
Mata I’m good. Enjoy the SUPERPACS and the whipping Romney will continue to give Gingrich because of them
Btw It seems to me the Repub. Party treats Conservs. same as Dems treat Blacks. They take you for granted as in “where else will they go.” When ya gonna get a backbone? Meantime some salve for your bruises HR?
Mata You keep spinning and carrying Newt’s water. He’s gonna lose the next 5 contests starting with Nevada SAT.He desperately needs wife #1 to attack him.
But of course you will “enjoy the SUPERPACS and the whipping Romney will continue to give Gingrich because of them”, rich. It’s a reality about you that you seem reticent to face, or admit. That your constant push of a Romney candidacy is really all about helping Obama in the general.
If you really believed that we’d lose in the landslide with Newt, you’d be pushing him. Not all of us are as blindly gullible as the Daily KOs and HuffPo crowd, ya know… LOL
And I will remember your happy acceptance of Romney’s and Obama’s use of “America for Sale” SuperPACS when you attempt to take a moral high ground on campaign reform in the future. Bookmarks are a wonderful thing….
And why does HR need any salve?
Hard Right
in MAY I make a big gallon of water boild with one cup of sugar for each 4 cups of water stir in , cool it and put some to fill 3/4 of the feeder, the rest in the fridge, they love it, I also seen the high low circling up and down flying of the small emerald green little male to impress the female looking unimpress from hi dangerous
areal spectacle also.
bye
Mata It’s true. Right now,thanks to Newt, I think Obama can beat either and the longer they go at each other the better
Let’s be clear.I’m against S.P.’S and fine with curtailing Union spending as well.
Salve for H.R.? Isn’t she for Newt or pining for another?
I’ll amend above to read Newt will lose next 4 contests. #5 Arizona a toss-up then another whipping in Michigan.
@MataHarley: ‘a staggering $334.2 bil to buy the nomination…’
Million, not billion. But it comes to the same thing: too much, and more than he has. I actually think this should give his competitors some hope: he can’t keep that up indefinitely. Not that they can necessarily keep going forever either, but if Mitt needs to outspend the opposition 5:1 to win, well, he’s only outraising them (Paul and Gingrich anyway) about 2:1.
Anyway it looks to be a long month for Gingrich coming up. Maine, Nevada, Colorado, Minnesota, Arizona, Michigan, Washington… the only two of those where I think he might be able to pull off a win are Minnesota and AZ (and it looks like everyone is going to be making a play for Minnesota). If he hasn’t been written off by Super Tuesday then things start to look better for him again.
Next month is also the timeframe when I would expect the greatest chance for Paul to win something somewhere. Maine, Alaska and Washington were among his better states in 2008.
Yes, bbartlog… typo and I meant mil, not bil. Ain’t it scary how easy it is to type “billion” and “trillion” as a perspective these days? My math was right. My old fingers and the “usual billion” as being commonplace? Not so much. LOL
I agree, there is no “fat lady” singing on this primary election. Nor do I think she should be ushered out on to the Carnegie Hall stage prematurely. This is no usual election, and all rules and history are flying out the window.
“..thanks to Newt”??? Dang, when you stubbornly bond with a talking point, there’s no budging you, is there? What Romney did was create scorched earth moment for himself. Newt’s been playing defense since the beginning. The guy who stabbed his own butt is Romney, not Newt, for the general.
Don’t tell me you are “against” SuperPACs when you don’t condemn your own Obama SuperPACs, and defend the bad legislation that your party was instrumental in passing as “good intents”. You know I don’t function on the emotional, rich. When you have a consistent and bipartisan barometer for outrage, I might give you some credibility. Now? Not so much.
Still no clue why you think HR needs “salve”. Personally I think – with the American central government being more overtly for sale than ever, not discounting your own party’s and our GOP RINO darlings involvement – the entire nation needs antibiotics.
@Richard Wheeler:
I would be all for getting rid of all the money in politics, as long as it is completely fair. You can’t silence one voice in favor of another. And in all fairness, Unions are overwhelmingly democrat supporters while corporations tend to pick who they think will win that year or hedge their bets and donate almost equally. We have Unions, corporations, and the super rich (I’ll lump Soros and the Koch Bros, et al into this) with a much louder voice than the rest of us. But that is the system we live in right now. If corporations aren’t people, neither are unions or PACs.
Aqua # 66 I absolutely Concur.
@ bbartlog
Much much thinner. I know many on here heads explode with Rep Paul’s foreign policy, but he is the closest thing to a Republican running. With that said the conservatives should have run a candidate if they did not like the field.
blast, since you’re not a “conservative” by any stretch, you aren’t qualified to judge who is a “conservative” candidate. Ron Paul is closer to Dennis Kuchinich and Sheila Jackson Lee on foreign policy than any conservative.
Secondly, the GOP doesn’t “run a candidate”, since they can’t force any individual to file for candidacy. They can attempt to cajole and recruit (not that I’d trust their choices, mind you). But the GOP doesn’t “run” anyone who isn’t stepping up to the plat by their own volition.
But on that point, I don’t think you’d get any argument that many of us are disappointed with those who did decide to step forward… save to give them kudos for doing so. However we are more disappointed with those who chose to hang back. I’m not disappointed with a Newt candidacy, but I’m sure not happy with the other selections as an alternative.
A DEMOCRAT at FOX, WAS SAYING THE PEOPLE over 65 where coming to 1/3 rd of the population,
and I say, yes? is that so? and you better take their sides and listen to them, they spent their life
wiping your bum.
@Bees….. sorry bees… it is impossible to wipe a libtard’s ass… their heads get in the way!
@Richard Wheeler:
I find this to be incredible, and I don’t mean this in a bad way Rich. I have a few friends that are liberal, or at least they vote democrat. But if we start talking about certain issues, I find that we are much closer than the MSM or politicos would lead us to believe. But then elections come along and it comes down to my team vs. your team. And frankly, it’s been that way since the founding of the nation. I would truly love to type out a tome of information on how to fix this, but I just don’t think there is a fix. Politicians must play us against each other. I know there are going to be differences on how to do certain things like taxes, social security, medicare, etc. But we are all still closer than the politicians would have us believe. I know Greg and Larry are hung up on the magic Clinton 39%, but I think even Greg agreed that doing tax reform with lower rates and closed loopholes is something he could agree with.
We should start a movement to have our States recall all representatives and suspend congress and start anew.
Donald Bly
hi, yes and Billy Pilgrim found the wrong guy to tell don’t count, he doesn’t know how much you can count faster than him
bye
@blast: And what have we won IF Romney wins? I suggest not much difference between Romney and Obama except degrees. Obama/Obamacare, Romney/Romneycare. I feel pretty confident we get the Senate with or without Romney. When Clinton won a second term he spent all his time getting investigated and impeached. There is plenty to go after Obama about…Fast & Furious, Solyndra, Crony Bundlers having their companies receive huge subsidies and bailouts.
SCOTUS: The likely retirees will be the already currently liberal justices Ginsburg and Breyer. And they will have to go through the new Senate first.
Just don’t see enough return in going with Romney and encouraging the establishment to keep the politics as usual, entrenched politicians and their cronies in office when I can fight for someone that at least voices change (Gingrich, Santorum, Paul).
@Tercel… well said…
@GaffaUK: Don’t get yer panties in a bunch. Grow up.
@blast: You said:
How?
By saying that he laid the foundation for Obamacare?
Or by playing right into Obama’s class warfare rhetoric?
I mean, how exactly is it that a guy who took three weeks and how many debates to come up with an answer about his own tax return is going to beat Obama?
@Galloway: No, Newt did not start the negative campaigning. It was Romney and Ron Paul in Iowa.
@Billy Pilgrim: You said:
You kiss your Mother with that mouth? Or does it just make you feel all grown up to say those things?
Do you have a point, or are you just having a hard time understanding it?
You can’t deny that Gingrich is a lying adulterer, and so is his wife. Anyone who can’t honor a marriage vow to his previous wives, isn’t fit to lead this country. And, frankly, I’d kiss YOUR mother with this mouth.
“Don’t get yer panties in a bunch. Grow up.”
I’m guessing you must like to pretend you’re the “adult in the room”?
Billy Pilgrim
you talk to fast in accusing of lying and private life, without knowing the story, I’m sure there is a reason why people do thing and it’s not for you to judge a private decision of another person.
it doesn’t take the skill away that he has to take the leadership and protect the AMERICANS on the brink of destruction.
@Billy Pilgrim: You said:
Did I deny it?
So you’re only concerned with his vows to “previous” wives? Interesting.
So you think Clinton, JFK, FDR, LBJ, Harding and Eisenhower were all unfit to lead this country?
Are you so naive that you think Newt Gingrich invented adultery? LOL
Not even close. My Mother has class. It is painfully obvious that this is something you are woefully deficit in.
So far that is really the only intelligent thing you’ve managed to utter – that you’re guessing at pretty much everything is also quite painfully obvious.
Have a nice day!
@Antics
But I’m not upset – I’m very happy:D
Aren’t you? Or is the likelihood of having Romney as Republican candidate upset you by any chance?
@Mata
I see those folks at ABC you quoted were remarkably accurate on average about the percentage difference Romney beat Gingrich by. What they did underestimate is the falling support for Paul & Santorum.
@MataHarley: “I think, gary kukis, you’ll have to enjoy your pile ‘o’ manure and/or sewer digs without my company. I find neither palatable, nor acceptable. Romney for Eight?”
Our presidential elections have been, for many, for nearly every election, choosing the lesser of two evils. What was Ronald Reagan before Ronald Reagan? Calvin Coolidge. Great presidents are few and far between. Goldwater probably would have been great.
I certainly share your frustration, but not your opinion. I hate Romney’s tactics and his taunting. But, I am disappointed in Gingrich’s response, who is often played like a fiddle.
@MataHarley: “Considering that the Romney ads were 99% negative for his campaign ads, and 100% negative for his SuperPAC, and Newt’s were 95% negative for his campaign run ads, and 53% for his SuperPAC”
What Gingrich has to sell is gold. He can say, “Other candidates can offer you promises. I am the only candidate who has ever balanced a budget, and I had to work with a Democratic president in order to accomplish that.” He needs to say that again and again, in many ways as possible.
Although I feel revulsion for Romney’s negative ads; Gingrich’s response has been pathetic. Romney knows how to push his buttons to get the absolute worst response from him.
If Obama was not such a socialist, I would sit this election out.
@Billy Pilgrim: “You can’t deny that Gingrich is a lying adulterer, and so is his wife. Anyone who can’t honor a marriage vow to his previous wives, isn’t fit to lead this country. And, frankly, I’d kiss YOUR mother with this mouth.”
Pure, unadulterated self-righteousness, which is every much a sin as those you have called Gingrich on.
I think that renders you incapable of having a serious opinion.
@MataHarley:
Apparently he’s hoping I’ll apply it for him Mata. Also, it will be only two cheeks. Considering where Rich’s head is, the ones on his face can’t be reached.
Bees, we mix our own for the feeders too. What I usually see is a male claiming both feeders and chasing off all comers. I’ve also seen males dive bombing another male perched in a nearby tree. For as small and as cute as they are, they are aggressive little things.
I even saw one chasing a big dragonfly. The poor thing was flying at maximum speed and the hummer was still right on it’s tail.
Hard Right
yes that is a real unique favor to see that,in such miniature world and so colorful beauty,
I like dragonfly also, there was one hanging out on the tip of her wing, and a big spider was around there disturb by my presence, I tryed so delicately to free her from the web only on the tip, and I did succeed
except the tiny tip stayed on my finger, but she flew away just the same,
some one told me that a spider had caught a hummingbird in a web, and was eating it,
that realy hit my imagination,it stick in my mind for quite a while,
funny how we decide to which we want them to live and which we want to kill even in that miniature world, we are ending by killing them all, because they are so connected to each one,
but that’s who we are, and given the power of leadership it is being used in a big way, by environmentalist being now protected by OBAMA, who is selling the WIND TOWERS IN MULTIPLE WAYS, which will exterminate even the mighty eagle, sucked in their moving giant lapels.
bye
bye
It gets better.
One of Romney’s backers tell us it isn’t about voting for someone we agree with and for all intensive purposes, to shut up and vote for Romney.
Then we have one of Romney’s people say they won’t dismantle obamacare.
Now we have Romney saying he’s all in favor of raising the minimum wage.
Add in his judicial picks, his pro-gun control stance, and his pro-tax increase position and it means I won’t vote for him. Romney is a democrat. I have never voted for a democrat and I’m not about to start.
Look at this:
Reagan Lost First Six Contests in 1976
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/01/31/reagan-lost-first-six-contests
@ilovebeeswarzone:
Unintended, and intended consequences Bees. The middle class being destroyed by the left. Partly unintended, partly intended. They need people to be dependant upon them and people that don’t need them won’t allow them more power and money.
Wind turbines. Spit! Almost worthless and a waste of money.
Bats and other migratory birds, including endangered ones, are being killed off in large numbers by wind turbines. Not a peep from the so-called environmentalists and animal rights crowd.
Spider catches hummingbird? I had to look that up to believe it. Wow.
Missy#91 He also lost the nom. to Ford in ’76. Your point?
H.R #90 That would be for all “intents and purposes” shut up and vote for Romney. Good idea.
You’re not too bright,are you?
If… Romney gets the Republican nod…. be prepared for an Obama 2nd term… if that is the eventuality…. you’ll need to know the following:
1 Begin impeachment proceedings in the House Judiciary Committee, which is a subcommittee in the House of Representatives. The House Judiciary Committee considers evidence for of wrongdoing, and votes whether to pass the matter along to the entire body.
2 Schedule formal hearings. The House Judiciary Committee holds hearings investigating any allegations against the president.
3 Draw up articles of impeachment. The House Judiciary Committee composes articles of impeachment outlining the crimes the president has committed and the evidence of those crimes. According to the United States Constitution, the House of Representatives may impeach the president for “high crimes and misdemeanors.”
4 Take a vote on whether to send the articles of impeachment to the full House of Representatives for a vote. If a majority of the members of the House Judiciary Committee votes to send the articles on, they are then submitted.
5 Vote on the articles of impeachment. The House votes on whether to accept the articles of impeachment. To impeach a president, a majority of the members must vote for the articles of impeachment. The articles of impeachment are then sent to the Senate.
6 Consider the articles of impeachment in the Senate. If the House of Representatives votes to impeach the president, the Senate can remove him from office with a two-thirds majority vote. The senate runs the hearing much like a trial. The president is found guilty of his alleged crimes if two thirds of the Senate votes to remove him from office.
Of course we’ll still probably have to round up a few Democrat Senators that aren’t suffering from Obamanosis in order to get to 2/3 of the Senate! I certainly hope we can find enough Democrats that will put country above party!
I WILL NOT VOTE FOR ROMNEY~!
Mr.Bly#94 A good explanation of the process. Break down ofcourse is in the Senate. As with Clinton trial, a 2/3 majority, for all intents and purposes,ain’t gonna happen.
Waste of time and money and damaging to Repubs.
Rich Wheeler
you pick on the wrong one, MISSY is brighter than you, and more of,
you should pick on me when you answer those comments,
Donald Bly
yes and GEORGIA will be a big factor in it too,
bye
Now is not the time for impeachment…. but … should Obama be re-elected; which is what a Romney nomination will assure. Then the Republicans had damn well better be prepared to pursue justice. Worrying about whether the party is damaged, verses worrying over whether the country is damaged by a corrupt president, is typical Democrat partisan thinking.
Something patriotic Americans find distasteful.
Bees #96 I never suggested Missy wasn’t bright. Comment directed at H.R.
btw For all intents and purposes you get a pass.
@Richard Wheeler:
Still smarter than you. The fact you are a leftist and need to resort to grammar mistakes to attack me proves it.
poor horses abused now okayed slaughtered for their sake, will there be more abused after that law apply,
hell yes, it will not end with a law, until they are exterminated, they will make more laws restricting the ownership of horses, they will exterminate the COWBOY with it,
a real descent into the entrails of the EARTH.
who want to eat abused horse steak anyway, it is one animal that you see alive in your mind while eating it,
Cool ads, you know, positive ones, tend to gush sweet generalities about the candidate who paid for the ad, himself.
Very few people ever bother to ”fact-check” such ads.
But negative ads tend to make an allegation (or more than one) about the paying candidate’s adversary.
Lots of responsible people fact-check such ads.
In a way, then, so-called negative ads are a way to get all of the so-called baggage out there.
Then the primary votes show whether that so-called baggage is real enough to make a difference.
So, we are seeing a winnowing effect by the use of these negative ads.
It isn’t the willingness to ”go negative” that is the issue…..we all know Obama will be negative to the max.
Rather we are seeing how voters respond to learning (verified or not a day or two later) various nasty stuff.
As I see it, there is a real purpose to negative ads, several purposes, some planned, others unintended.
H.R. Your use of intensive purposes was not a grammatical mistake. It was a mangling of the English language. lol
Nan G
is that the way to find a winner, more paid lies attacks on his opponent
because he has more money to do it, he impress the VOTERS?
IS that all is needed to choose a winner? it’s very poor and the same as those who choose OBAMA,
IT is being repeated again
Change your diaper rich. It’s obviosusly full of what qualifies as your brain.
Bees, no way will I ever eat horse meat. Horses are beautiful animals and deserve better.