What Does Negative Campaigning Really Mean?

“So to answer the question what does negative campaigning mean? It doesn't measure tenacity or taking the punch. It proves Machivalean shrewdness. It proves un-Bono like altruism. It means power hunger and no sense of purpose outside the corridors of power.”

Haha. Does this guy really know what negative campaigning is all about? …Machiavellian shrewdness? Un-bono like altruism?

You see simpleton and child-like article by people who don’t even understand what politics is all about.

Unbelievable! He must be proud of this analysis….. Un-bono like altruism…hahaha!

“It means power hunger and no sense of purpose outside the corridors of power.”

Politics is all about power. It is not about sainthood or social work. You achieve some personal goals, some common goals, and some economic goals by going in to politics and running for offices. Only a chu-tia would believe in some kind of a noble mission to change the world. Negative campaigning is bad but it is bad only for the losers.

If a politician does not have a devil or a villain to fight against, he or she can’t even sell his/her own program. Learn to think instead of being ridiculous all the time.

You can always trust HP to weight in with a full-throated defense of what's opposite of Chowk motto: unflinching cynicism.

Thanks for introducing 'politics' to kaka. We all engage in politics, even Bono. The point is WHAT DOES NEGATIVE CAMPAIGNING MEAN? Your answer is to make youe bones and some other BS.. kaka diagnosed what it REALLY means.

'If a politician does not have a devil or a villain to fight against, he or she can’t even sell his/her own program.'

What does the above mean? Cannot sell a program based on the non-existence of an enemy. In any case, why does it have to be so negative?

What u call -ve campaigning is really the obverse of saying i'm better qualified - the other person is less qualified, 4 a host of reasons

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

#5 Posted by AmbeeKhattee

Thank you AmbeeKhattee for exposing the real face of this retard. This is my last post to this bund marani ka!


#3 Posted by hamzaad

'If a politician does not have a devil or a villain to fight against, he or she can’t even sell his/her own program.'

“What does the above mean? “

This means that you are so stupid that you can’t figure this out. Anyone with a wee bit of political knowledge, gleaned from newspapers alone, would know what it means.

“Cannot sell a program based on the non-existence of an enemy.”

No gadhay. It has never happened in this history of mankind. If there is no enemy create one…ever heard of straw man?

“In any case, why does it have to be so negative?”

What is negative about telling how bad you opponent is? How could you win anything by raising your opponent to the sainthood level? You might as well campaign for your opponent.

Gadhay, clearly you have not looked outside of your cubbyhole all your life, try it now. It is never too late to learn something.

Remember to rummage around for your dinner from the garbage dump outside…

shoreshaeb,

Thanks for reading the write up and writing the long response. kaka will read it on the weekned..

HP,

Let's take this slowly... You must know what you are saying is not rocket science but needs to be hashed out to see the fallacy..

In order to sell a program.. you have to have a villian. Why? This is like saying.. in order to get a job.. you have to wear pink underwear. Both statements independently make sense, but unless you are applying to be a stripper the color of the underwear does not matter.

Same with selling your agenda.. If you want to point out the dangers of ending war (something your opponent is advocating), that's fine. That's not doing negative campaigning. But if you attack his associations with people, socialism, middle name etc... then really you are power hungry. It does not mean that your program is hollow. It may well be that too. Now kaka can guess that you may root for candidates with hollow programs because of your background, but all kaka has been arguing is that what negative campaigning inidicates is not how good or bad your program is but power hungry you are.

Now kaka may even grant that it is not a bad thing (being power hungry) but lets atleast call it that.

kaka, I don't disagree with your premise that a program can be sold without a villain.
But,I have issue with treating candidates as extra human corporate-like entities ,wherein the only permissible criticism is of their manifesto and mission statement.
I think this is another liberal canard that background , or the kind of a person that one is,does not matter if they have the capabilities to do a job,which is hard to define in most cases.This is specially true in jobs where you have to do a lot of decision making;since every decision you make is product of your value system.
From the examples you have given..
Associations with people -should matter
Middle name - shouldn't
Socialism - should
This is not an argument against any type of association or ism,but this should be transparent to the public so that they can make their decision based on that information.

Kaka Sahib, the strategists and campaign staff often times do things without the consent or even awareness by the candidates. As long as Negative campaign is only about the Candidate’s past (and not about his or her kids, family, etc.) it is Kosher. If some people are stupid to connect a candidate and hold him guilty by association, then it is their problem. People who are dumb deserve a dumb president. People who are bright will vote for one on his or her merit. That’s why in the US sometimes there are dumb presidents, elected by dumb people.

Here is the gist one more time..

People can go ahead and consider whatever they want to and elect whoever they want to. All of it is justifiable and whatnot.

kaka now is laying forth a (new?) spectrum: one extreme is Bono and the other is Nixon in the 50's or similar. kaka is not even saying that one is better than the other. And kaka is certainly not saying that in order to be elected, you should do the Bono act (this lays to rest HP's paranoa about how politics NEED be).

So what is the most un-Bono like thing to do? It is to attack the candidate.. not in terms of positions and ideas but persona (past, present & future) like marital status, # of divorces, sexual orientation, friendship with and admiration of Hitler's cooking (now if the candidate's position about race relation is whacked, then that can be criticised). Please note that regardless of what our negative campaigner does, people have the right to reject someone based on the size of the nose.

kulharee brought up a new point that the campaign staff (or outside the campaign vested interests) runs things without candidates permission. This is a classic place to point out is ALL KAKA IS INTERESTED IN IS LABELLING A CERTAIN CANDIDATE AND CAMPAIGN AS NEGATIVE OR NOT NEGATIVE. It really doesn't matter if the candidate signed up for it. The only extra corollory kaka is adding is that the closer you are to the negative spectrum, the more power hungry your are. There is nothing wrong with that either. And you can also be a power hungry, without having failed the Bono test.

This is the thesis kaka would like chanllenged.

1."(now if the candidate's position about race relation is whacked, then that can be criticized). "
If there is no explicit data through which the candidates position can be determined,the circumstantial evidence is perfectly valid.For eg. Concluding from Obama's long association with Wright (among other things) that he is a grievance based left liberal is at least as valid as ignoring the association altogether.If you can prove that the second option is more valid than the first,I'd like to hear that.So,the opinion of what is negative is subjective.
2."The only extra corollory kaka is adding is that the closer you are to the negative spectrum, the more power hungry your are"
Don't agree with that either.
If you think pointing out associations or trumping up any kind of circumstantial evidence to establish an ideological position is negative campaigning,then this kind of thing is very likely to be done by independent columnists who are ideologically opposed to the implied position of a candidate.For example,a lot of conservative columnists are writing about Obama's associations,and they have no direct stake in the power struggle.

Let's look at it from the focus of power hungry. kaka is interested in pointing those out. Though it is possible for some power hungry to pass the negative campaigning test, any CANDIDATE who inches towards the negative end of the campaigning spectrum is correlated with power hunger.

rahul, u r continously falling into the trap of the legitimacy of personal/background investigation by non-candidates. Even though kaka can claim that a certain candidate was a victim of negative attacks (lost/won elections is another matter) by the press, vested interests, the Pope or whatever, it does not mean IT IS UNJUSTIFIABLE to engage in negative campaigning. In fact, kaka would agree that it is most legitimate. Obviously in the case of non-candidates, the question of power hunger does not arise. In the case of a candidate who is doing negative campaigning.. all kaka is saying that s/he is power hungry. Having said that there is nothing wrong with being power hungry. It is what it is.

kaka,

neembu is glad you posted those two-three explanatory posts because neembu didnt what the freak you were talking about. often, while doing drudge work such as folding 50 pairs of socks or running a dustrag over the bookshelves, neembu would find herself turning kaka's tangential piece over in her mind. "Bonologue?.....negative capability?....campaigning.... is kaka a hil supporter? oof! time to make dinner!".

but Neembu is sad to report having read the last two three posts kaka has provided for reader edification, all she thinks is "so what?" She is behooved to remind kaka that students in her classes are reminded to explicate why a particular dynamic matters and to not just explain the process but also the significance of this process. Neembu also wants to remind kaka that politricks are the last place one looks for postivity, ethical behavior and transparency, Bono, Angelina Jolie, and Leonardo di Caprio notwithstanding.

Re: # 70
"don't know you and don't care to!"

Read #68 first.

Nadeem beta, you have amazing arrogance for a Muslim! Are you really one? Have you too moved west where they communicate with the rest of the world in this manner?

I have my own theories which when put to test, on this rocket-science site called CHOWK, invariably prove themselves sound.

Do watch this space for more.

Peace.

Sorry this post didn't belong here...

Sorry this post didn't belong here...