Do attack adds by political parties hurt or help get them elected?

Attack ads work on a targeted group. Just like a good ad is supposed to. They turn me off.

I would rather see ads on the issues but that is not done anymore.

It does turn me off. I couldn't be any more turned off though.

They are not relevant. Politicians don't put out those ads to change people's minds. They put them out in order to buy airtime from a network and gain the network's support if elected.

They become the network's customer, like any other business.

There's a lot that goes in to these ads. I think it really depends on the experience of the person viewing them. For me, I usually don't care because I know it's going to happen, plus it's a good way for local stations to generate ad revenue.

If the statements are to harsh or outlandish I usually laugh and dismiss it. I won't choose sides, but it always seems one party spends more on these kinds of ads then the other (this statement may be subject to regional differences), and I think there's a lot to be said there.

I am afraid their are too many dips out there ready to believe outright lies and untruths not to work. Like in Canada the News agencies are running segments with documentation proving Liberals have NO coalition, that the Conservatives were the first TOO try and create a coalition against Liberals and still they preach this lie. Yes attack ads work for many a simple soul.

I believe it hurts them, it turns off the voters especially when each year we are exposed to these ads earlier and earlier in the season. Exposing the shadowy side of their opponets politics is pointless because all voters know each candidate isn't much better then the other. It is a matter of voting along party lines and the victorious party is usally the one that did us the least damage the previous years.

These attack ads waste our money, tell us nothing about the candidate or their platform, and make us lose interest long before November.

They work when the right words are chosen for the targeted (dumb and emotional) ear. I believe only in people with good track records and a plan detailing what they, the political hopeful, intend to do and how they intend to realise their plans. Placing their cards on the table.It's all about a plan and the realistic financing thereof.

If those two factors add up then I go with it. Mudslinging is no plan.It's just a cheap way for incompetent people with unsavory (hidden) plans to get into an office where they do not belong an are unfit to run.

I believe it depends on what the party is attacking. If it is something silly - it turns me off themIf it is something they were going to do and are now attacking the other party for doing - that also turns me off them though many voters tend to forget that the attacking party was the first to want to do something they are now attacking the other party forIf on the other hand it is a well thought out and needed to get to the public eye topic then it will definately sway me especially if it is something I believe shouldnt happen (or should for that matter).

For some it does hurt and for others it does help get them elected. It all depends how they run their campaign and package it to the voters. Sometimes slick willy wins and sometimes slick willy lose the election.

WHO LET THE DOGS OUT! ROOF ROOF ROOF!

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.