Photos
Blog
NewslettersCandidate bashing
Over the weekend I talked with two Gazette readers who watch but don't participate in the blogs on beaufortgazette.com. Coincidentally, each had the same observation about what they've seen here recently, although they arrived at that observation from different paths.
The gist of their message was this: The never-ending candidate bashing on this site can actually hurt, not help, the candidate that the person doing the bashing favors.
Both of the people I spoke with are undecided about whom to support in the Catherine Ceips-Tom Davis Republican primary. One said she was so offended by the anti-Davis posts on beaufortgazette.com that she was leaning toward voting for Davis, "out of spite for the person doing the posting," she said. The other person said he thought the negative posts about Sen. Ceips were so mean-spirited that he was strongly leaning toward voting for her.
My observation: You're going to make a much more convincing argument for your candidate if you tout his or her strengths or accomplishments instead of trying to convince others why they shouldn't vote for the other candidate. If all you do is bash your candidate's opponent, you're running a significant risk of losing votes rather than gaining them.
- sblust's blog
- Login to post comments
- 412 reads
I was happy to see this comment. Whether you are for Catherine Ceips or Tom Davis, remember these people have families! There are monmental differences between the two on ISSUES that affect Beaufortonians. Why not become better educated on their approaches to governing? This other stuff is pitifully demeaning to the authors, not the candidates. Now, I'll crawl down off my soapbox.
I agree.....it's very distasteful. However, I'm more struck by an individual who might vote a certain way just to "spite" an anonymous blogger! Maybe some folks shouldn't be allowed to vote?
The woman I spoke with, Lisa, said she couldn't imagine aligning herself with the poster who couldn't find anything positive to say about his/her own candidate and instead was always in "attack mode" on the other candidate.
Different things sway voters one way or the other in an election. And I do believe that people are influenced by what they read on the blogs, although not always in the way the posters intended. If Poster A says vote for Candidate B because Candidate C is a lowlife jerk, an undecided Voter D might just vote for Candidate C. That might not be the right motivation, but it's reality.
Lisa....Honey!!!! We were beginning to get along....! You just made his point!
...over on monkey island there are 3,500 monkeys. Let's take one of those monkeys and put him in an airplane and fly over Beaufort County at about forty-thousand feet. Then, we throw the monkey out of the airplane(with parachute) and then, the first person that the monkey comes in contact with WILL BE OUR NEXT SENATOR from Beaufort.
BTW, this would save all the bickering and bashing.
The sentiments of the two readers you spoke to echo my feeliings exactly. Not only do I think such negativity can hurt the candidate it is intended to help, it is childish, hurtful, and thoughtless. I firmly believe that such behavior fouls a system that is already in need of help. I truly appreciate your post here!
I don't get this one since blogging is a uniquely individual effort. Sure, there are 'organized' blogs and blogging done for a purpose - but at the end of the day, I do not attach any specific candidate to a particular obnoxious person's irrationally exuberant support for one person or their bashing of another. Unless of course its common knowledge that bloggers is in the campaign or with the knowledge and consent of the candidate, e.g. Randy Bates.
You know something, election and politics is a contact sport. If people just accepted that ALL politicians are out for themselves and whatever good they do it a mere byproduct of them looking out for themselves, then you never worry about what they or their supporters say because, well, consider the source.
Steve - negative campaigning works - pure and simple. If it did not work, and was not effective and did not generate more votes than it loses, it would not be used. You need to recall at the end of the day it always seems like an election comes down to the person you despise the least. Thus, if I turn you off with negative campaigning, snide comments about my opponent [Obama seems to excel at this particular vice] and other similar tactics, if you despise my opponent more because they are R or D or whyever, well, you are not going to vote for them anyway.
People like gossip and dirt, thats why it works. I'd prefer an election dominated by issues, but, that is never going to happen. Not even in a local race for school board or dog catcher.
I do not attach any specific candidate to a particular obnoxious person's irrationally exuberant support for one person or their bashing of another.
Joe, my point was that some people do tie the candidate to the overzealous blogger and that can hurt, not help, the candidate. As a voter, I'm no fan of negative campaigning, but I understand why it's done. As an editor, I'm even less a fan of the "one-trick pony" bloggers who think the only way to advance their candidate's cause is by tearing into the opponent. I think that's a misguided strategy and that most readers, who are also potential voters, can see right through it.
I wanted a place to thank Senator Catherine Ceips and this looked like a good place. I have had an ongoing problem getting response from a government agency about a problem I have had with them. I wrote to the Senator about it and she jumped right in and helped me get a solution. It isn't over yet, but I am way farther ahead of the game thanks to her help.
Steve - I understood your point - that person is few and far between - and if they do not vote, even if it is a lost vote for a candidate, ultimately, they do not matter.
Let me ask you a question, given your access to Nexis and your ongoing interest as a media lackey []:
In your years as a reporter and editor, have you ever heard of a candidate losing because voters were so turned off by negative campaigning that they lost the election? I can't think of one.
No, but I'm not sure how that could be determined without interviewing every voter after the election. Exit polls can give a general idea of why voters voted the way they did, but they're often little more than a snapshot of what led to the final outcome.
I'm not denying that negativity in a campaign can be effective. But my point stands that it isn't always as effective as those slinging the mud think it will be.
Steve,
I think you described the blogger I have the most distain for perfectly: a "one trick pony". It seems lately that a new blog username comes on here and bashes one candidate or another mercilessly and then conveniently disappears. I might have a tiny bit of respect for a seasoned blogger who might make a negative remark, but I have none for those who appear out of the blue and have nothing but hate messages to post. There are several bloggers here whose message I typically disagree with, but I do respect their views and on occasion might even agree with them....ask Lisa2. Regardless of what my opinions may be, I absolutely agree with you that candidate bashing is totally counterproductive. We really should maintain our focus on issues and professional capabilities when electing public officials, and all of the negativity really detracts from that.