Hillary and Bernie ran 206,000 ads - and not one was negative

[applegrove]

Hillary and Bernie ran 206,000 ads - and not one was negative

by Mark Sumner at the Daily Kos

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/6/9/1536540/-Hillary-and-Bernie-ran-206-000-ads-and-not-one-was-negative

"SNIP.............



But when it comes to campaign ads, something happened that was pretty amazing.


But this animosity was entirely absent from one important realm. According to Kantar Media, Clinton and Sanders aired 206,528 spots between them this year—and not one was deemed “negative” by the analysts in Kantar’s Campaign Media Analysis Group (CMAG).

It wasn’t that way on the Republican side. Attack ads were the rule, with Jeb! and TrusTed and Trump and Little … Rubio and several more taking part in the exchange of gunfire. More than $62 million of attack ads were directed against Trump alone. And in case you were thinking Democrats always played this nice?

The absence of negative ads is a marked shift from 2008, when Obama spent $58 million on primary ads, while Clinton spent $33 million. Although CMAG didn’t measure sentiment that year, both candidates aired negative spots.


...............SNIP"

[SwampG8r]

1. Clinton didnt go negative only by clinton standards

Which is to say she went negative often and early.
The auto bailout ads in mi prove me out
She advertised a.lie and then kept.repeating it.

[thesquanderer]

3. True. And this was definitely a negative ad, did they miss this one?

[anotherproletariat]

2. Although Bernie's ads were not negative, the rhetoric he spewed on the campaign trail

was clearly negative and gave Trump lots of fodder for attacking Hillary. You can't find anything similar in Hillary's stump speeches.