91热爆

I haven鈥檛, but I know how much they do work for the huge group of people who only get their news from local TV.

Currently, Allen in VA is running an ad about Webb and his position on the Marriage proposal. He has taken little sound bites from a debate they had and totally trashed webb鈥檚 opinion completely out of context.

Allen鈥檚 ads have been 90% negative and totally destructive.. at the same time, he goes on TV looking so sincere and saying how the attacks against him show what sort of opponent he is up against. I nearly choked on my dinner.

This is exactly why money wins these elections. The opponent has to spend big to put up even more TV ads to counter accusations. Allen is slime, and I truly hope that he loses.

their purpose is not to communicate issues and inform as you do in your country but to shroud and obfuscate and disseminate disinformation. The republicans under herr rove are particularly skillful at doing value-free political mud-slinging ads. Ive been swayed by debates, speeches never by advertisement spots.

No I have not seen any adds that had any impact on me at all. They have never changed my mind. I think they mostly serve to bolster already held attitudes. They also waste money. The funny part is the adds themselves are not the point. Politicans buy them, run them a time or two but then most people see them run again and again as part of the nightly news rather than an add in regular programing.

What's the point? You've answered the question in your post: negative ads are aimed at a gullible populace that soaks up whatever they hear on television and "parrots back" what they hear to friends and family.

This is a country where a politician's poll numbers can change on the basis of a single well-delivered speech, or on the basis of a single rumour that flies through the media.

I can't say that I have. Here in Florida some of the nastiest ads came during the primaries. One of the Republican candidates was accusing another one of being a Scientologist and how this would supposedly corrupt our children and schools if this person were elected to the State Senate. From what I understand the person in question was in fact a Southern Baptist who attends her Baptist Church almost every week. Personally I thought that even if she was a Scientologist that attacking a person on the basis of their religion was a low blow.

I am not a wavering voter but I am subjected to these inane ads from both sides. There is no substance to these ludicrous ads, only despicable mudslinging at the other side as if to advertise 'who do you want to win this popularity contest'. I am intelligent enough know who I will vote for w/o trashy ads. I just wish the effort and monies to produce these ads were put to better use....ie., conquering terrorism/wars/hunger/AIDS/poverty, etc.

From what I can tell, these ads are directed at people who are too stupid to make up their minds. It's not very difficult to decide whom to vote for and these ads don't change anybody's mind about anything. I hope the writer understands that most Americans see through this simplistic, manipulative marketing just as thoroughly as she does. We find these hate ads exhausting and obnoxious.

Often the purpose of negative ads is turnout. Either to give the opponents voters a reason to say "why bother" or to give a candidates own supporters a reason to vote. They have almost all been carefully tested with focus groups for the desired effect and they certainly work most of the time. That's why they are used.

It's simple. If they can convince you long enough that the person they're running against is "worse" than them by whatever means necessary (which usually involves gross exaggeration, distortions of fact, and sometimes blatant lying) long enough to vote for them, they've gotten what they wanted out of the ad. Why waste time actually bothering with issues, when you can simply make the other guy look worse than you?

I'm sure there are people who have had their mind changed by ads, since most ads tend to be targeted specifically towards scaring key demographics into action. The major negative byproduct you won't see brought up, (aside from making our country look like it's run by a class of preschoolers) is the stigmatizing fact it has on people. The ads continue to get worse and worse, and some people are turned off to politics completely. The ones that aren't are usually just filled to the brim with misinformation.

I'd assume at this rate, in 5-10 years our senate will have degenerated into showing ads of their opponents using the bathroom.

Forget the ads how many are still repeating "We have to kill them over there, so we don't have to do it over here"
Please! they will repeat what ever is catchy.

I suspect that most US voters who might answer your questions in the affirmative are busy watching sitcoms, and won't be caught reading online news.

That, I take it, is the point of tv campaign advertisements. Like most tv advertisements, they are designed to manipulate basic emotions, rather than to inform; and they have their greatest effect on the least informed audience.

Given the character of the majority of politicians, "likeability" is normally a tough sell without broad cooperation from the major media outlets. Perhaps this explains why most campaign ads seek to promote hatred for an opponent, instead of respect or enthusiasm for a candidate.

I agree with Claire Bolderson. I do not understand the point of 30-60 second political commercial advertising. Most of it negative ad hominem attacks in any case.

I am Indian and like the Brits we too do not have election advertising the way they do in the USA. And I thank our lucky stars for that. But sadly, given that the great Indian middle class (and media) has gone from slavishly aping the Brits to now slavishly aping the Americans, I guess it will not be long before it too becomes a part of our political landscape.

The more I read and learn about USA, the less I understand it. Mark Halperin and John Hariss (authors of 鈥楾he Way to Win) have called this political commercial advertising the 鈥減olitics of the freak show鈥�. How can you have a great nation and a super-power where politics of the freak show passes for political debate? There seems to be a lot of anger and outrage around. But where is the anger and outrage against this politics of the freak show? I guess the 鈥榞reat silent majority鈥� chooses to remain silent because it too enjoys this freak show.

I find the USA genuinely puzzling. There is a President who genuinely believes that he is right at least in part because he has a direct line to god. And 鈥� there is a significant and influential minority that supports him because it too believes that he has a direct line to god! And may be after that, there is nothing else to talk about because we all know we are right. May be which is why the politics of the freak show. You do not need to debate anything in any case.

A few years ago we (in India) voted a party to power because they (the party) felt that it knew where (on this earth) their god (and therefore the god) was born 鈥� and therefore the politics of hate and division was good for them and the country. But you see we are backward and poor. But backward and poor as we are, we still had the good sense to finally vote that party out of power. But here in USA they keep voting this President and his party back to power over and over again. And they are neither backward nor poor.

If USA were not a super power, US politics would be the matter of purely curious intelectual puzzlement for me. But unfortunately she is a super power and casts a long shadow over the rest of us on this globe who want to live in a relatively peaceful world 鈥� and I therefore have to engage with the politics of the freak show.

The ads get pretty lame after a while, I agree. But two caught my attention. One was so over the top negative I had to laugh - all the local politicians don't publish their own party affiliation on the ad, so who knows who I was laughing at.

The other one made me stop. It was a Republican explaining how he didn't know anything about Foley's behavior. It was obviously very serious, but also stood out because he was actually just talking to the camera. That's when I knew the scandal was serious. I don't get it, becuase the democrats just praised one of their own homosexuals who fooled around with pages. But that's the media for you.

The American public has been pretty much brainwashed into having ideas based on sound bites - on glitzy advertising - on appearance (often opposed to reality)...in other words, we've been "sold".. and I'd say down the river.
It's all about who has the most money to make him/herself look good and the other guy look bad.
I think it's partly (hate to admit this) cultural. A culture of Las Vegas and Hollywood and lowest denominator, and it's partly the system. If we had the same funding - coming only from taxes (! gosh instead of blowing it all up in someone elses back yard!), these people would have to talk about real stuff. They would have a lot less to throw away on ad men.
Most Americans think those ads area junk. But just like you can hardly help but look at a tv when it's on (no matter what sort of junk it's playing), the ads often work. They know how to subliminally haul you in - even when you know better.
One way or the other, it makes me puke when I think of the vast amounts of money being spent on sheer garbage to half the time elect some idiot who shouldn't be elected for dog catcher, let alone ? president? or whatever.

Coming from Ireland where I worked for a government political party I cant believe the types of ads that exist over here, so negative and full of easy viscious soundbites- nothing about Policy, ideas or vision, maybe thats just here in Massachesutes but I think the US has a lot to learn from European style democracy on campaigning

You are spot on. Not only have none of the ads informed me none of them have ever swayed my vote. These days it is so hard to swing from one party to another because they are at each others throats to the point most just go with the party they perceive as the best without fully understanding the person they are voting for. Sad but true. We desparately need a fresh start. A Republican that can pick up Democrats (Reagen Democrats) or a Democrat that can pick up a Republicans (Clinton Republicans). Currently there is a split right down the middle and it is ugly.

I'm with the Cincinnati waiter. I'm sick of watching each pair of candidates endlessly misrepresent each other. The ads are never informative, and this time around they have finally caused me to change my mind -- I'm not going to vote for either of them. "Throwing away" my vote on candidates outside the Republican and Democratic parties has never looked so appealing.

The ads work in reverse for me. Anytime I see a clearly malicious ad, I specifically vote against the candidate who sponsored it--even if I don't necessarily prefer the other candidate.

What do the ads matter anyway? I vote, but I am not convinced voting matters anymore.

No, Claire, I have not seen any adverts like that.
What I see are disgusting bits of video and audio geared to sway the opinion of your typical Lumpenprole here in Wal-Mart Nation.
One local ad rakes a challenger for State Assembly who is currently a county Sheriff over the coals for how much money he's spent in the last 2 years. Considering the home-made drug problem we have in this part of the country, I think his $600,000 budget request was justified.
I'd warrant if he had NOT spent that money and was running for re-election that his opponent would be campaigning on how crime had taken over the county because of his tight-fisted fiscal policies...

So you're damned if you do if you try to run on issues. Wal-Mart Nation only remembers the "So, did you marry your sister-in-law after you cheated on your wife with with her?" adverts.

The ads do not influence me in the least bit, but your question misses the point: the ads are not targeting voters like me. I follow politics very closely, pay attention to the candidates position, and never miss an election without voting. The creators of these ads could care less what influence they have on me and voters like me.

Rest assured that if they had no impact, campaigns would not be spending money on them.

Not only do I not watch the ads, but the remote control somehow reflexively switches the channel to something else every time one comes on. What this should mean for the network is that not only do I not watch their program for the next X minutes (until an attack ad comes on the channel I switched to), but I also don't watch all of the other ads for which advertisers are paying the networks. Eventually, they're going to lose all of their ad revenue because nobody will watch anything they show.

I do not find the ads informative, nor have they served to sway my vote (although in some cases I suppose I could say that they have reconfirmed my interest in the candidate I had already decided to vote for, simply by his opponent's ads being so untrue).

I agree with some earlier posters' comments that the ads are aimed at people who are not truly invested in understanding and participating in state politics. If you want to be informed on a candidate's position, you watch the debates, read their websites, blog, debate with peers, etc. If you want to elect the candidate that is most successful at being manipulative, cruel, and low-down and has a penchant for being a mud-slinging fool, then you follow the ads.

Yes, they have changed my mind a couple of times. I have voted against canidates whose ads have particularly disgusted me. But then I do everything I can to avoid the ads since they rarely, if ever, contain any content.

I recently failed in my avoidance tactics for a few minutes. I was amazed at the shear number and pointlessness of the ads for the various California initiatives.

I think that voters are learning to tune them out.

Why do they exist? These commercials are ads, just typical (albeit bloodthirsty) tv ads for products, based on brand-name recognition, nothing more. (By the way, it's not true that just the Republicans are doing it... believe me, if I saw a party to run to that wasn't being abysmal, I would gladly do so.) Someone in my dorm wrote above a list of the issues: "This tells you what the issues are. It is YOUR job to find the real facts!" Here in Ohio, this is pretty true... unless you go on your own fact-finding mission, you will not find out the truth. I agree with Iain above: the US has a lot to learn from Europe in terms of campaigning. But it's extremely hard to know that anything different exists elsewhere... I didn't know until I started following the 91热爆's coverage of the US's elections. (Better than the coverage around here, which is largely party-controlled.)

Isn't the real problem that the hundreds of millions of dollars raised during fundraising ends up with the broadcasting companies, who form editorial opinions which can work for or against parties? Isn't that why every politician (including Blair and Bush) are terrified of Rupert Murdoch? There's serious money to be made here.

Any brand marketer worth his salary will patiently explain that mass market TV advertising serves only to reinforce brand preferences. In other words, beer A drinker will have his preference reinforced by ads for beer A. They know won't be swayed to convert to beer B just because he sees their advert. This is know as relationship marketing.

It works the same way in politics. Precious few voters are legitimately "undecided" and the vast majority of them will not be swayed this way or that on the basis of an single ad. The key influencers in this regard are family, friends and peer groups.

Political ads serve to reinforce long-established candidate preferences by dramatically magnifying distinctions between two candidates. Political advertisers work on the same principle that drives ads for other commodities - Miller vs. Bud, Chevy vs. Fortd, etc.

The primary purpose is to drive turnout at the polls.

As someone has already said, but a reporter covering American elections for the 91热爆 should know (I'm a Brit but it's amazing how poorly informed even professional British observers are about US politics), the ads are designed primarily to depress turn-out, and in this election to turn-off self-styled "independent" voters who are currently leaning towards the Democrats. Rove and co. hope these voters declare a "plague on both your houses" and stay at home. Result: Republicans survive. What underlies this is an extremely cynical (but perhaps accurate) understanding of the electorate, as a group moved more by irrational dislikes than reasoned debate, an understanding that has its roots in the history of the American public relations industry, which has taken over the functions that used to belong to political parties, and still do in Europe and elsewhere. The deeper threat here is the spread of such cynicism in an increasingly "sophisticated" rather than stupid electorate. It's taken me a long time to grasp this (when I arrived from Britain I couldn't understand why Americans didn't vote), but voter alienation is functional to the whole corrupt system, and especially to the politics of the right. Suspicion about politics, government and the role of the state in public life (which is almost as rampant on the left as the right), helps restrict the electorate and make it more manageable, and plays into the anti-government philosophy of the radical right. So negative ads work wonders in all ways. And what they betray are the assumptions and inclinations of a political class that has long since lost (if it ever possessed) any real committment to democratic politics.

I am not sure exactly what to say. I have spoken to far too many people who will not vote in the next election, because there is not an honest person to vote for. Our President lies most of the time as do most of the politicians You can bet that there will be a heavy price to pay for this in the future! I, as 50 year old male am like the rest, ENOUGH! I want someone to just tell me the truth! How can anyone make a imformed decision based on lies!! I blame the U.S. system!!!!

Negative ads work by deterring wavering voters from voting at all, thus leaving the election to be decided by the most rabidly partisan voters (those who possess the strongest stomachs).

My congressional district features a particulary nasty slanging match between Rep. Tom Reynolds (R.-Clarence, NY), a prominent Republican who was caught up in the Tom Foley affair (he is alleged to have been involved in a cover-up), and former Rupublican turned maverick Democrat Jack Davis, an indepently wealthy industrialist campaigning on a protectionist, anti pork-barrel spending, anti-Bush platform. Even under the best of circustances, this is a rather uninspired choice for the voters.

The constant repetition of the candidates'negative ads has left many if not most people in the district ready to vomit in disgust at the prospect of voting for either of them.

Election day cannot come too soon for people who have actually stopped watching tv to avoid the ads. However, even eliminating television does not provide an escape from the dreck--both candidates also employ negative direct mail fliers and automated recorded telephone messages, timed to coincide with the dinner hour.

The torrent of negativity has tightened the race in Reynolds' favor. Reynolds had faced a double-digit deficit in the polls due to the immediate fallout of the Foley affair, as well as disapproval of Bush's Iraq policy. He had won his Republican majority district handily in prior years.

Well, as a teenager, you are impacted by these ads. I, however, maintain my political beliefs. They do not sway me. I think the severity of these messages is because of the vulnerabilty of the Republican party in Congress. They could lose control. Notice that most of these negative ads are directed towards the Democrats and not the Republicans.

I despise ads. The only ones I would be willing to watch are those featuring the individual actually standing for office.Then we would know if the candidate stands by her/his words.

I, too, am disgusted by political ads. Not once has a political ad forced me to change my vote, nor do I predict ads to sway my vote in the future. Ads do not address the issues and it is amazing how much money political parties spend on them. Also, I find it disturbing the fact that there are voters who are swayed by the 30-second spots. Intelligent voters should know better than to believe everything they see on TV.

I suspect that life in America and the country's methods for selecting its leadership puzzle most people accustomed to more civilized discourse. I suggest, however, that the venomous negative campaigning in America actually predates TV by a very long margin. It really has always been the "American Way". The situation does seem to have grown much worse in recent times though. I tend to think this is related to the rise of a new "elite ruling class" consisting of people pursing a "political career". These people have no positive agenda other than to advance that political career. When a nation has access to the wealth and power extant in America, controlling it becomes an end in itself. The candidates for leadership have no desire to lead the nation toward something better, only to serve themselves. Thus, we have lost all the statesmen and leaders and we are left only with politicians. If you are an empty politician with nothing to offer, then your only recourse is to characterize the opposition as scarier than you are in the hope you can frighten the electorate into voting for the less scary candidate. I feel confident in saying that most people in America do not vote for any candidate; rather, they vote against whichever candidate they view as scarier. As for me, I do watch TV but have a preference for cable/satellite networks that do not carry the electioneering garbage. This spares me from most of the vitriol. I still, nonetheless, often fall into the trap of voting "against" a candidate. This is mainly because the alternatives really are too scary to accept. How has it come to this?

hello you and all.
well america is all about money,we all know that and its not gonna get better.
the poor have great ideas, until they get rich then it seems that stupidity takes over.. human nature.

No, I haven't seen any good TV spots. The solution is simply to not watch TV and to make the choice from the candidate's web page. In this light, the 3rd party candidates look better because they provide more facts.

The extreme case is the race for Sheriff of Lake County Illinois. Until recently, the Republican website didn't have *any* information on their candidate.

I try not to pay attention to the ads. However, there is one thing that will potentially sway my vote. If I see a candidate running a smear campaign against his opponent, I鈥檓 less likely to vote for him/her.

If a candidate can鈥檛 take the high ground and win upon his own merits without having to resort to smear tactics, then he/she obviously has something to fear.

I research each person individually and vote accordingly. I don't pay attention to what party a candidate is a member of. I鈥檓 not a member of either party nor will I ever be.

Here in MN - as a Brit it baffles me also - during our nightly news (local 30 minute show) this evening I counted 15 ads - and most of them were out of our district which is annoying - I could count 2 positive ads, and 1 funny ad amongst them...

My favorite so far is the people talking to the bush - and the punch line is you will get no answer from this bush - and then a photo of Bush comes up and says nor will you get an answer from this Bush - it makes me giggle every time I see it...

This morning - I lost count of how many negative ads were shown - and what is annoying is that they are now creeping into every channel - Food Network, Spike, History Channel etc... and you can't escape from them...

My partner has already made up his mind who to vote for and we never get swayed by the ads on any side...

Yes, we need campaign reform, here in the States. Perhaps ads should be treated like tobacco. Any organization that funds an attack ad should be required to allocate equal funds for a balancing response. Then, let's see how much money is allocated on this insipid name calling!

Here in California, we've seen another trend: an increase in political telephone calls. I have been receiving several recorded messages each day, telling me how to vote, for a couple of weeks now. Nearly all the phone calls have a positive message in support of a candidate or issue. Why such a difference between TV ads and phone calls?

None of these ads will change my mind, though it's tempting to vote against those (bleep) who make so many annoying phone calls.

I'm a Brit (and a US citizen) at home in CA. The tactics are so appalling that the voters are disconnecting themselves from the whole process -- what's left is a fight for votes within a decreasing pool of voters. As that voting population decreases, so does the possibility of any "swing" occurring based on the "real issues" that really matter. With the war in Iraq imploding, we may have an issue that will force people out to vote regardless of the ridiculous, petty, and frankly, despicable accusations being aired by the "leaders" of our society.

Many years ago a very wise teacher challenged me by saying, "You are not qualified to place an informed vote." From that day forward I have taken great care in placing an informed vote. Unfortunately the ads we all witness these days are for the voters that do not intend to think for themselves. Most undecide voters want the media ads to determine their votes for them. Our administration is counting on the non thinkers for their votes.

Negative ads are used for two reasons in US political campaigns...1) you can sling a series of heavily slanted attacks with a small nugget of truth quickly, and with any luck, the nugget of truth isn't what the viewer remembers (the more hyperbolic pieces tend to grab the attention). 2) You can't intelligently present any position in 30 seconds in such a manner that it doesn't seem completely superficial. Rather than be thought superficial, American politicians would prefer to engage in distortion and demagoguery.

If P.T. Barnum were alive today, he'd have no reason to revise his opinion of the populace.

Yo, moderators!
The link to this thread indicates how many responses exist. That number has been growing steadily and is now up to 44 responses.
So why has this page been stuck showing only 36 responses for the last few hours?
Where are the other 8?

Greg (#29) hit the nail on the head. TV ads speak to the already converted. I think the mass pamphlet mailings a week or so before the election for local candidates (town council, state legislators) have a far greater impact on voting behavior than TV ads for national figures.

Doug (#36) also makes a good point: we need citizen politicians who will serve a couple of terms and go back to the old job, rather than professionals. Unfortunately, government at all levels has gotten so large and complex because people expect too much from it, and new politicans have to be trained in the system to be effective. That, along with the expense of campaigning, makes the citizen politician ideal impractical. If you can't afford to take years off from your "real" job, you can't be a citizen politician; so if you want to go into politics, you have to make it your career, inherit money, or marry rich. So the system runs for the benefit of the people who run it. What to do? I don't think bringing back a monarchy is going to to popular. Maybe we should insist that candidates for office have to be at least 45 years old (across the board) to ensure that they have achieved something in their lives outside of of politics before entering that realm.

You're not going to get a representative sample here. I see a lot of people posting here that they don't understand these ads either and are not swayed by them. This seems a contradiction to the fact that these kinds of ads do work remarkably well. It isn't, in fact, a contradiction: these ads aren't aimed at those of us who read the 91热爆 online, they're aimed at the majority of Americans who don't bother to do their own research and get all their information from the soundbites they hear on TV while watching sitcoms and think they are informed. We've had a major education crisis in this country for a few decades now, and this is the result of it: most Americans simply don't have the education they need to be able to evaluate claims. They believe Fox News, for example, is "fair and balanced" simply because they say they are don't realize there are ways to actually evaluate these claims and determine the truth for themselves. An earlier poster from India claimed that Americans are not "backward and poor", but I'm afraid that's simply not true.

The reason for the ads are as someone else has pointed out, they work!

The people they work on are not reading the 91热爆 news website, or any non American news website/tv. The VAST majority of people in the US do not go out and research issues and the candidant.

I find it very difficult to explain to anyone outside the US just how many people within the US get practically all of their news and information from local media and TV ads. It really is despressing to think about it..

I think we Brits should be a bit less smug about this nonsense: it's not like our PPB's are any less of an insult to intelligent voters. I do recall one (Labour) that dissuaded me from voting (Labour) because of it's bland invocation of the cheery apolitical "vote for us, we're nice" tosh that seems par for the course nowadays.

There should be a codswallop tax on party ads - take 10% off the cost (or allow an extra free minute in the UK) for each quantified undertaking made - but then give the other side free airspace next time round to point out those pledges that weren't fulfilled.

My radio and television are certainly full of political ads right now, but I always switch the channel when they come on (and don't generally watch television anyway). None of it is useful to any voter, and I think everyone would be better off if they were completely ignored.

For elected positions, I put the candidates statement first, and I hold them to it. I am also influenced by newspaper analyses and endorsements, and by door-to-door canvassers.

For ballot measures (which I have a lot of, living in California) I depend on the state-prepared analyses and the pro- and con- statements distributed by the state voting agency. The state-level advertisements amount to little more than celebrity endorsements.

Most of the Americans don't follow all these nagative ads on TV nor in the Newspaper, it's just waste of time and money. Most of these nagative ads are from Republican candidates. But American people are very smart and educated, they always cast their vote for the candidates who care about the problem right now America is faccing arond the world and specially in Iraq. !!!!

No. Usually we don't have too many ads in Minnesota, because the RNC has given us up for lost, but this year there are several hotly contested seats that could tip the balance in Congress, so we're getting bombarded like Ohio and Pennsylvania. Lucky us. You can't watch t.v.---it's a threat to contented dining. Personally, I make up my mind when the candidates declare, or the day after our primary, at the latest. It's not too hard to do, if you've been paying any attention, and have standards.

Two words as to why negative ads are used. They work. Case in point, in IL, 57% of people have a negative view of the incumbent Democratic governor, and his approval rating is below 40%. Yet he is expected to coast to victory tomorrow. Why? Because he has filled the airwaves since the primaries in March with negative ads about his opponent. 58% of people have a negative view of her.
Negative ads aren't about getting people to vote for you. They are about getting people who might vote for your opponent to stay home on election day.

Akber, you obviously don't live in Illinois if you think most of the negative ads are coming from Republicans. Though it was Republican strategist Lee Atwater who perfected the art in the 1988 presidential campaign, both sides use them. Here, the Democrats at the state level have been using the negative ads the most. A scandal-ridden state Democratic party is about to sweep all state-wide offices on the back of negative ads.

The reason they make pointless advertisements is not to display any real info on the product but to get it to stick in your mind. It seems the more abstract the ad the better today. I cite the new PSP ads. Pointless and no info in the PSP, but it does stick ijn your head.
What is advertising? Well it is simply to get you to buy into their product. So if an ad means nothing that ad may be easier remembered by you because it stuck out in your mind as an ad with no meaning, but the point is that it stuck in your mind.

The consumerist world we live in is all about CONTROL OF THE MASSES!

Sorry to burst your bubble of self-righteous indignation, but the various campaign ads that bombard US voters are the product of this interesting little concept called "freedom of speech". If Europeans enjoy the fact that their governments tell politicians what they're allowed to say, and how they are allowed to say it, then that's wonderful for them. However, in many of these same countries, you can be put in prison for an unpopular opinion (for example Holocaust denial in Germany, or, soon, denial of the Armenian genocide in France). Even in Old Blighty, the government attempts to pass a "religious hatred" bill that would make it a crime to criticise Islam. So, just understand that when you limit any sort of speech, even a negative campaign ad, you are giving the government authority to foreclose other types of unpopular speech.

I'm not sure of the thrust of James N's argument - governments ARE politicians, so control of politicians by governments sounds far fetched. The LAW dictates what politicians can say; if UK politicians were to adopt the style of most US ads, they would be sued for libel. what I find disturbing about US politics is that almost nobody talks about policies or philosophies; how can you judge who will do a better job for your community or country if you don't know what they believe in?
As for the crack about Holocaust Denial being "an opinion", he should know better.

I am curious as to whether this has been addressed before or would merit a story, but I was struck by the opening:

"OK, so I鈥檓 Brit - we don鈥檛 have election advertising the way you do here."

Having no basis of comparison (I was never in GB during an election), I would be very interested in an education on political campaigns and discourse of Brit versus American.

Can anyone elucidate?

The reason all these ads work is there is no debate anymore. What debates occur rarely make it into the media so the public can actually see each candidate express his or her views. There really is no easy way for the public to actually keep up and understand what any candidate stands for unless its a major election like President. All the people running for office realize this; often most of the ads are just blatent exageration and lies. In other forms of advertising you have to have truth to back up a claim - why this is not so for political ads I have no idea. If you say so and so is an adulterer and he stole money from widows and orphans you should have hard proof this is so. I guarantee you if Kelloggs came out and said Frosted Flakes cures cancer they would get busted big time, or if they said a rivals cereal is likely to cause cancer the same or worse. I personally think they should ban all political advertising that is not of a candidates personal views or positions and is created by the candidate. Now all the ads have joe blow on the screen saying he approved this message - another annoying feature I think we could all do without if we had some reform. If something is in the media about a candidate it should be assumed it is done by them and actually represents them. Just as in other areas of life, I cannot just decide I dont like Coca Cola and then start running anti-Coke ads in a smear campaign making stuff up nor could I run fake Coke ads that make the company look bad. Both would probably get me sued and at the very least the company would get an injunction to stop me.