Dem/Repub Marketing???

[Werewolf]

It might just be me but I've noticed over the years what seems to be a trend.

Generalizing it seems to me that political ads run by democrats appeal to a person's emotions while ads run by republicans appeal to a person's intellect.

Dem ads are perceived as positive and most have little or no real content while Repub ads are perceived as negative.

Which begs the question - why are political ads that provide much needed info that voters could probably not get anywhere else regarding a candidate's voting record, activities that speak to character, actions that indicate likely future actions deemed negative?

Why are ads that are emotion focused and don't inform a voter about anything of substance about a candidate perceived as positive?

[Vinny Barbarino voice on]
I'm soooooooo confused...
[Vinny Barbarino voice off]

[The Rabbi]

I would venture to say the answer is as follows.
Ad time is expensive.  Most issues really cannot be boiled down to 10 second sound bites.  But an emotional appeal can.  And since most voters choose candidates based on things like trust and personal likeability, you can convey that in 10 seconds.  Most people make their minds up about someone within moments of actually meeting them.
I dont see a lot of ads so I'm not an expert by any means.

[Werewolf]

But an emotional appeal can.  And since most voters choose candidates based on things like trust and personal likeability, you can convey that in 10 seconds

Very true and very sad.

If politicians get elected based on emotional appeal what does that say about their ability to make rational decisions over emotion based decisions? Or do we assume that they can make rational decisions and just take the path of least resistance to get votes? What does that say about the quality of US Voters?

[The Rabbi]

Voting for people based on your "gut feelings" about them is as old as Kennedy v Nixon.  Probably older.
Most of the people who generally run for office are actually pretty smart people. They may sound like Rufus McDoofus on TV (think Dan Quayle) but really they are bright people.  They couldn't have gotten as far as they did otherwise.
But we've all known people who appeared to be morons at one time or another and were actually pretty competant.
The quality of debate and campaign has not deteriorated.  Look at some of Adams' campaigns, or Grover Cleveland.  What has deteriorated is the quality of the candidates themselves.  You may not have liked Humphrey, Muskie or McGovern but at least they were principled men with many years of devoted government service.  Can't say the same today.

[roo_ster]

"Negative" ads are decried because they are effective and usually bring data to the table that the target would rather not have widely known.