Listening to a NPR story on the November elections and in particular the race between Harry Reid and Sharron Angle in Nevada.
I’m not a fan of Mr. Reid. I really don’t know anything about his opponent and am not trying to wade into their race with my opinion.
But some comments in the story point to a much bigger and pervasive problem than just this one race.
Two reporters were talking about some recent negative ads and the follow-up polling. A comment, and I loosely quote from memory, went something like this: “Negative ads about Angle are moving her negative numbers up to be closer to Mr. Reid’s negative numbers.”
So the goal is not to get people to vote for Mr. Reid but to raise the negative quotient for Ms. Angle. They might get some people to simply not vote for her. Or maybe vote for a 3rd party candidate instead.
I’m no expert on the whole “oppo” part of politics but this seems so twisted.
I understand that you sometimes need to point out the bad things your opponent has done or their bad ideology etc. But from that I would think you would contrast and compare so voters would then logically choose YOUR candidate.
All this money, all this energy and for what?
Unity March story
3 years ago