Which is better strategy? Positive or negative campaigning?

[LittleLightShining]

I noticed earlier that people are criticizing Deb Medina for not coming out with attacks on her opponents. The conversation went on and points were made to both sides of the issue. The majority of people in that thread believe that she should not run a negative campaign and let her opponents attack each other while she stays above the fray.

I have also noticed that people are getting a little riled up about Bill Johnson in Rand's race, his negative tactics and the effect they could have on Rand. It's apparent that Johnson has no chance of winning but he is serving a larger purpose here.

So my take on it is that if a candidate wants to win, they should probably stay above the negative tactics. The only real benefit I can see to going negative would be if you are willing to be a spoiler in order to serve a larger agenda.

[slothman]

I choose "negative".
I did it because it is more likly to get you elected, not because it is better.

[evilfunnystuff]

hard to say

how is negative defined by honestly and viciously attacking policies and recordsor playing dirty and using smear tactics

it also depends on the specific race and the mentality of the local people

in general im not against negative campaigning if it can be helpful so long as it is honest but hitting below the belt is probly not helpful in most situations though walking a fine line can be

[payme_rick]

I believe it is all about the situation...

Let's say (and hope) Debra Medina is going up against Bill White in the general election... I guarantee you Bill White would attack Medina first with a "I was mayor of Houston, Debra has no experience at anything blah blah blah"... I think Medina would almost have to get negative back... sure, the undecided voters in the state are going to get tired of and annoyed with the back and forth attacks, but at the end of the day they really only have two choices, so it's one or the other...

But in the situation Medina is in now, where the two popular, established front-runners are attacking each other, it does her better to just speak about the issues and not go with the attack-ads... I think it gives the undecided voters who are getting tired of the back and forth attack-ads of the other two a fresher feeling with the other candidate (Medina)... plus she needs to get issues out, she hasn't enough clout to just attack attack attack!

too many diff variables for me to vote here... it's all about the situation...