Why I enjoy negative ads...and why I hate the "positive" ones...

Every election, the candidates, the media, and the voters all complain about the proliferation of so-called "negative ads" -- ads that mostly serve to attack the opposing party or candidate, rather than highlight the strengths of the person the ad is meant to represent.  Those that are against such ads claim that they highlight the worst parts of politics, and encourage politicians to be dishonest or misleading.  Supporters of negative ads call them "contrast ads," and claim that they simply serve to point out the differences between viewpoints.

I take a totally different slant to the issue.  Personally, I find negative ads both informative and entertaining.  That's not to say that I actually believe most of the claims that are put forth in such ads.  Quite the opposite in fact -- I assume that all political ads are slanted, dishonest, and often simply untrue.  So how can they be informative?  I've always found that you can learn a lot about someone's beliefs based on how they criticize others.

I may not believe a politician's charge that his opponent is against the death penalty, and as such is soft on crime.  But if he's attacking someone for opposing the death penalty, I can deduce that he himself supports it, even if he doesn't come out and say it directly.

I find negative ads more effective than positive ones because in order to effectively attack your opponent, you usually have to be specific.  Saying things like "Mr. Smith is dishonest" is much less compelling than saying "Mr. Smith thinks that taking money from lobbyists like Jack Abramoff is acceptable."  And as I stated above, you can make some decent deductions when armed with specific information, even if it's about the person making the accusation, as opposed to the victim. 

But positive ads, on the other hand are almost always vague.  Rather than commit to a particular position, politicians tend to talk about generic things like honestly, integrity, and family values in their positive ads.  These types of spots usually contain nothing useful with which to judge anyone in the race.  Who cares if a candidate thinks of himself as a "family man, with a commitment to middle America"?  If you're going to go positive, say something specific like "I plan to increase the quality of the nation's highways throughout the Midwest, allowing for a decrease in shipping costs and more entry-level jobs."  It can be complete garbage with no basis in fact, but at least making a specific statement will tell the voters what your position on an issue is.

People tend to complain about negative ads, yet they continue to be the most effective form of political advertising.   Why?  Because people want to know what their candidates stand for (or at the very least, what they stand against) -- not what they think of themselves.