I've heard some of them. Don't really seem negative to me. He's not saying anything that isn't true. On the other hand, Obama has been called out several times for ads that not only don't speak the truth but allude to and outright lie. I have no problem with negativity if it's based on truth. But I would rather hear, "This is what I'm going to do and this is how I'm going to do it". I'd like a bit more confidence in the Republican message.

Tammy, I believe ABC News was referring to the ads that were put out by the Obama campaign. For me personally, when I hear a negative campaign I'm completely switched off. No matter who it comes from, I see it the same way as I see a defendant choosing not to take the stand. It might not mean they're guilty, but that's the way I see it. Same with negative ads - if your message is so good, stay on it. If you spend your whole time running down an opponent, to me it looks like you don't have much to say about yourself - and that can't be a good thing. Just my opinion.

Oh, I agree Sharon. Running people down totally turns me off. But if you are calling out a specific thing that doesn't work and putting in a plan that does, then I don't see it as putting down. But, you're right. It does reveal a lot on the part of the person who does it. Especially ticks me off when Obama spews outright lies, knowing that much of the uninformed public will swallow it. By then, the damage is done.
Look at the speech at the NAACP. Romeny was applauded many times, gave a good overview of the school choice plan he wants to implement to give poor families a choice in education and still got run down by some as trying to pander to a racist base, and the booing got front page coverage! Give me a break! Listen to it...it so doesn't do that at all!!! We're really in need of some great reform in our country. Both in policy and in personal integrity.

Having worked a little in the political advertising arena, my experience has been that the negative ads ARE effective. Sure we might tire of them, but they have a place in the scheme of things that they make us think. And informed voters will then do a little research to find whatever truth is there. Otherwise, everybody looks SO good, how could we possibly choose? :)

It's always good for a candidate to know the strengths and weaknesses of their opponents and recognize their own at the same time. It really is very much a popularity contest and all about marketing YOUR strengths and your OPPONENT's weaknesses.

But here's the USA Today link that is included in our Patch Election Gadgets that addresses the advertising specifically. Pretty interesting! http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/political-ad-tracker/index

Speaking of negative ads - how many of you got the anti-Beaudreau postcard in the mail today?

Someone's going really hard after Beaudreau. Does the postcard say whose campaign it is from?

Who ever is responsible for wasting all the money on the attack robo-calls, the attack postcards, etc..pertaining to Commissioner Beaudreau - I certainly don't want them representing my district! That speaks to how they spend campaign money, and it reflects on how they will spend taxpayer money.

Attack ads are very effective in that they require the opposing candidate to spend more time defending his(her)self and less time on message.

I look at the facts to determine validity , if it checks out then its game on , if not i disregard it.

This just in:

Under “The 10 things to do this weekend” brought to you by … Ex-customer

http://www.mikethesleaze.com/

I guess time will tell us, but there are some really sharp knives out there.
Time to view and comment.

Some good connect the dots on here , i can understand why one would scramble the troops on this.

Joe Newton is behind these attacks. He openly supported Bannister's two campaigns and now he claims Beaudreau was part of the Bannister clan? HA!

By the way, Newton is under investigation in DeKalb for harassing a female candidate at her home trying to intimidate her out of a race for House of Representatives.

http://brookhaven.patch.com/articles/roberts-residency-challenge-ridiculous

Roberts' residency was proven and she will be on the ballot. Not only is Joe Newton a thug he's a liar.

I liked the Ricoh copier transaction story .

Im checking each source they provided as back up , and it may just be one of those negatives because it went main stream . Joe may be indeed what you stated or he may have did some reverse lobbying that is not suitable for the incumbents pallet.

Just the FAX ma'am !

Paging EthicsInGwinnett...

Cleanup in aisle 9 please, It seems that we may have been "reamed"

R,

An Administrative Law Judge already ruled that Roberts will be on the ballot. Joe Newton's thugish behavior failed. Now Joe is turning his attacks toward Beaudreau and once again the facts are not on his side. Not that he cares, he's trying to help Jerry Oberholtzer just like he helped Bannister, Lassiter and Heard. The Bannister cabal lives on!

Even though we kinda drifted from the OP, I'm going to go ahead and bring us back to the idea. Negative ads, unfortunately, work very well. People hear negative things and generally believe them, without bothering to verify. It's just the way it is. Truth is, though, Obama's campaign really doesn't have a lot of choice. Not like there's a lot of positive to run on. Still very high unemployment, an unpopular health care bill, ridiculous spending, a proposed budget that not even any Dems voted for, there's really nothing he can throw out there to sound positive. Tried spinning the spending thing to place all the spending done his first few months on Bush, didn't work for him. So in this campaign, it's all we're going to see from that side.

Probably the same thing with Romney, as his accomplishments all sound like a playbook for the liberals, given where he comes from. And we all know that won't work very well with the conservative base. He's got experience creating jobs and a successful business career, so any positives are probably going to center around that, but honestly, how far can it go?

Negative ads that are untrue and for the sole purpose to mislead voters or ads that are true and backed up by records or documents to inform voters of a candidate's record , some candidates would cry foul on this as a Negative ad also because it is brought into the light for all to remember and revisit . ? Which one are you addressing as a negative ad ?

Back in Africa we had a saying, "Take power by the spear - rule by the spear." I have found much the same with candidates who tend to get elected through negative campaigning. Somehow that attitude always seems to following them into office and we end up with deadlock. Once in office, they can't seem to get along with anyone there either. A respectful campaign ends up with respectful winners and losers. I've seen this happen in elections from the top of the ticket all the way down. It's usually not just the "not so negative" opponent who loses, but a whole bunch of taxpayers too.