Do you think people will vote for candidates who launch personal attacks against

1. 81

   Marcy Goodfleischposted 8 years ago

   Do you think people will vote for candidates who launch personal attacks against their opponents?
   
   Without commenting on specific candidates, how successful do you think that tactic is in election campaigns?  Again - please don't name names.

   replyreport
2. 61

   fpherj48posted 8 years ago

   Marcey,  HELLO! so good to see you~~it's been a while.  I surely will not name names, no doubt about it!  (deep breath)....One might think it is a simpler thing for an Independent to answer such a question since we vote for person-not-party, but I can tell you it's no easier.
   We can count on the personal attacks.  Never in the history of our elections has there been a campaign without an overabundance of insults and accusations.  So, how do we react to them? 
   Allow me to put it this way~  I imagine that for a voter who has their mind firmly made up and no doubt as to whom they will vote, their disdain for the opponent launching a personal attack would prove to solidify their decision & bolster their loyalty. 
   Frankly, I don't think that  "personal attacks" themselves can steer a voter in one direction or another if they are undecided.  It's such a given & we've become almost immune to the mud-slinging.  I should speak for myself, yes, and I am immune to it.
   Take care Marcy!  Peace, Paula

   replyreport
3. 90

   lions44posted 8 years ago

   Personal attacks and negative campaigning work.  Otherwise it would not be done.
   Benghazi criticism worked for a while but then nothing came of it for the GOP. The Dems have been very successful in negative attacks against Trump.
   
   Every time HRC or Kaine make a speech, they always mention a prior scandal. To me, it shows discipline as a candidate. Trump U, not paying contractors, Miss Universe, etc. etc.
   Granted, he walks into every trap they set.  Every week there is a new negative attack on him. It keep HRC just ahead in the polls in almost all swing states.  In fact, the Democratic Party ads are very well done, whether I agree with them or not. I have to admit their skill at negative attack ads is unrivaled.
   So you can go back and look at every election since 1988 and see vicious ads against each candidate. You can even check the primaries, it's even worse.

   replyreport
   1. 88

      Jackie Lynnleyposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      There are still 4 Americans dead that Hillary refused to help. No one is forgetting that or that she put our country at risk with this email thing & had 13 phones, hammered them & whitewashed them, she has nothing to hide. It will 1 day come

      replyreport
   2. 81

      lovemychrisposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      that is a lie and people know it. and people can see that no republican was ever concerned with embassy deaths until clinton was sec of state.nor do we forget how they stalled investigating 9/11 for over a year.that was 3,000 dead. at work. prewarned

      replyreport
   3. 90

      lions44posted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Jackie, you are correct. However, it is not helping the GOP win.  Her husband was impeached and it only made him more popular.  Sad fact.  Time for the GOP to be smart, be more pointed in the criticism and talk about the future.  And spend $ on ads.

      replyreport
   4. 90

      MizBejabbersposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      C.J. during the debates, every time Trump answered his question by attacking Hillary. When Hillary's turn came, she presented a plan for the question. You must have been standing on your head to get it reversed.

      replyreport
   5. 73

      Shyron E Shenkoposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Help had arrived and was detained in the Benghazi airport, maybe you should ask GWB about the Embassy's that were attacked when he was in office, there were THIRTEEN and SIXTY (60) died, Ms. lynnley,  SIXTY, count them your fingers and toes 3 times.

      replyreport
   6. 88

      Jackie Lynnleyposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      True enough CJ but I just cannot believe how blind ppl are! I never liked Trump but he looks good compared to this country being part of 3rd world gov't. Anyone should know that is where Obama is headed & Hillary right in on it has sold her soul!

      replyreport
   7. 73

      Shyron E Shenkoposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Sold her Soul? You should research these stories instead of listening to the gossip mongers, I think their/your souls are more in jeopardy than hers.

      replyreport
   8. 88

      Jackie Lynnleyposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Who else is getting millions from terrorist Muslims and why she will fill this country with them. Maybe you should find some facts. You certainly will if she is elected. I won't be happy to be right believe me.

      replyreport
4. 90

   Rangoon Houseposted 8 years ago

   Personal attacks are never a good sign of leadership or statesmanship, and hopefully most people recognise that.

   replyreport
   1. 88

      Jackie Lynnleyposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      And which one is not making personal attacks? Please...

      replyreport
5. 73

   Shyron E Shenkoposted 8 years ago

   Marcy, it is a terrible ugly thing to sling mud at each other. Unfortunately we the voters are stuck in the middle and so many voters will no only vote for the mud slinger but will join in slinging it.
   It is the nature of politics to dig up dirt on opposing opponents to discredit them, when it should be about who is best equipped/experienced to handle the problems our great country faces.
   God help us choose the best candidate. 
   
   Blessings

   replyreport
   1. 88

      Jackie Lynnleyposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Indeed, God please open American's eyes! Amen.

      replyreport
6. 84

   SANJAY LAKHANPALposted 8 years ago

   It is a fashion in India. After a tirade of corruption charges, the leaders launch personal attacks on each other. Instead of giving reply to these charges, the leaders try to divert the attention of the public by launching a fresh volley of charges against their opponent. This vicious cycle goes on till the votes are cast. Then there is no inquiry, because the ruling party fears the retaliation after next 5 years. If the rulers start punishing the corrupt ones, then both ( the ruling party and the opposition) would be behind the bars, within 5 years. The leaders should be made to prove the charges in the court. But it is a different story.
   The option left for the Indian voters is to choose the less worse or those, against whom the fewer charges are launched by the opponent.
   I think at present the Americans are facing the same dilemma.

   replyreport
   1. 88

      Jackie Lynnleyposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      May be but as far as prison only one of the candidates let people die she could have saved and destroyed top secret materials and what she was really up to which of course everyone knows, making money in play for pay and selling out to terrorists.

      replyreport
7. 77

   teaches12345posted 8 years ago

   I think the debates attract people due to the personal attacks on opponents. People comment on the remarks and defend views for days afterwards. I am not sure how much persuasion is evident from these debates. It would be interesting to see statistics.

   replyreport