and the end of a campaign cycle. I know I probably said that two years ago, but there was so much negativity that if a candidate from either party had told me that he or she was going to run on a platform of what he or she would do as opposed to all of the skeletons in candidate b’s closet, I would have voted for him or her without blinking. Twice.
TJs Things 
Oh, I don’t know – I can’t say I remember any election where the ads weren’t highly negative, mud-slinging, accusative and generally annoying. I’m not sure the problem is the candidates so much as their poor choices in ad agencies. It used to be that ad agencies used actual marketing tactics such as surveying that used really tailored questions that would elicit real responses. Today, the dependence on polls (which are way too generic in my opinion) is way too heavy and so campaigns are quite shallow, using the time-worn standbys of fear and greed as their main buttons. I’d love to see a campaign dig a bit deeper and truly find out what the voters really want in their representatives.
Writer Chick
Hey Writerchick! I agree wholeheartedly on your opinion on the dependence of campaigns on polling, but I think that the problem of really negative ads also lies with the people the candidates choose to run their campaigns/choose ad agencies, and the fact that television stations cannot decline campaign advertising, regardless of how negative or in poor taste it is.
I’m going to be so glad to see the end of this damn election cycle. The level of sheer nonsense was brutal
http://sherrytalksback.wordpress.com/2010/10/26/caught-in-the-election-crossfire/
Like I said, if anybody would have campaigned based on some real issues, I would have voted for them out of respect alone.