personal political negative attack ads
First, I know you have a very broad definition of what constitutes a negative ad. Thus, I believe you believe any criticism of an opponent is a negative ad. Based on that definition, I completely understand why the "electorate" views those kinds of adds "negatively". However, I believe if a so-called negative add is substantive, it would not be viewed the same, by reasonable people. Thus if I were to list an opponents voting record, we would know what an opponent believes and would support. Thus if such a candidate voted for bans on abortion, any ad including that would in my view be a legitimate use of information.
Using your broad definition a candidate who was a mass murdering, pedophile, fraudster would be exempt from any "negative" ads mentioning his proclivities. Does that seem like a good use of campaign ads?
The difference between whether Trump is a danger to Democracy and Pres Biden is a danger, is one of substance. I can list many substantive true and valid things which would make Trump a danger to Democracy, while I can not thing a substantive, true or valid thing which would make Pres Biden a threat to Democracy. Now, I can think of a number of policy issues for which people object and would hyperbolically believe would be a threat, but in each case Democracy is not in the balance.
MAGA would believe God is a threat to Democracy if God was Trump's opponent. So any polling which includes MAGA is skewed and clearly leads to inappropriate and inaccurate conclusions. While there is certainly a core group of Democrats who would view Trump as a threat, they would not view Liz Cheney as a threat. That is the difference. What explains the independents? Ignorance!
Let me explain. If you lay out a table and compare what Trump has said and done (as a threat to Democracy) and what Pres Biden has done and said (which someone could view as a threat), there would be no equivalency. It would be clear one list has policy issues, while the other has actual threats.
In the movie "An American President" there is a line which goes, the presidency is all about character. If that is true, and I believe it should be, then everything a candidate does and says should be considered. Thus, we have one candidate, who has been convicted of fraud, has led several fraudulent enterprises, sexually assaults women, defames people, and has been indicted on a number of charges for crimes against the country. All of this should be considered for the question, is this person fit to occupy the WH? The other candidate has none of those "problems". What he does have is some questionable decisions in the public arena, after which he has evolved and changed his positions, but he is not a fraud, he has not been indicted for criminal activities, and he doesn't assault women. He is old, but so is the other candidate. Fitness? How can there be any question, who is fit?
I believe current polling has been so skewed by the polarization of politics, it has become useless to understand and explain anything politically. See my arguments above. How could any reasonable person in normal times select a criminal as a viable candidate for the presidency? This can only happen today, and that is precisely why Trump is a threat to Democracy. He has an actual chance of winning outright (and certainly may invoke his sycophants in state governments and in the House to subvert the elections results and anoint trump as president). The courts don't have any power to set the ship aright. The military may intervene on behalf of the Constitution, but I am not holding my breathe. I watched an interview of John Bolton, who believes Trump is not a threat to Democracy but is unfit. All I can say is Bolton is delusional. Anyone who believes Trump will not do whatever it takes to become president has been drinking kooky juice.
I am the mad man from the mountains shouting for anyone to hear ... for I know I will become an enemy of the state should Trump win
