this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2024
454 points (93.5% liked)

Political Memes

5341 readers
3788 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] multifariace@lemmy.world -5 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

Has she shown regret as a proponent of profits in the California prison system at the expense of humanity?

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 9 points 3 hours ago

Talking about missing the point whilst said point is staring you in the eyes...

[–] xenoclast@lemmy.world 9 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

Has Trump? Is it worth giving up your right to democracy over? Giving up the health and welfare of ALL women. The future of the world over? No it fucking isn't.

Vote, and then you can go back to being a faceless idiot on the Internet or bot or whatever.

[–] i_ben_fine@lemmy.one -2 points 4 hours ago

You're failing to follow the advice of the meme

[–] Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee 0 points 4 hours ago

You're doing it wrong

[–] lemmy_user_838586@lemmy.world 53 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (41 children)

What if I told you... return2ozma is part of the problem. They continuously post negative articles about Harris and very little negatives about Trump...

[–] Mr_Blott@feddit.uk 12 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Um, out of interest I went through their posts of the last week or so. Three were critical of trump, one was critical of biden

Perhaps a bit of cognitive bias going on there?

[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

People had an utter panic attack about this a few months ago. It's just that they post so much stuff that their name becomes recognizable so people freaked out because they noticed some of it, a small percentile really, was critical of Joe Biden. They panicked and tried to ban the user from basically everything they could. Most of them never thought to look and see what you did which is this user basically posts ad nauseam everything they can find. Some of it critical of Biden some of it critical of trump most having nothing to do with politics at all.

I had thought that people calmed down and cooler heads had prevailed. I guess there's some weak-willed people still out there though.

load more comments (40 replies)
[–] Telodzrum@lemmy.world 34 points 18 hours ago (3 children)

Fun Fact: Despite near unanimous claims by voters to the contrary, the data bears out that negative campaigning is far more productive than espousing the positives of your own candidate.

[–] ogler@lemmynsfw.com 7 points 11 hours ago (2 children)
[–] Telodzrum@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago

https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/why-negative-campaigning-works-and-how-fight-it

Ledgerwood and her colleagues have also found that a negative frame is much more persistent, or “stickier,” than a positive one. If you come at an issue negatively, but are later reminded of the policy's positive aspects, you will still think it's a bust. And if you start out thinking favorably about the policy, but are reminded of its downsides, your positive perception will be swept away and a negative one will take its place.
The beauty of negative attacks — from a campaign standpoint — is that they influence everyone. Even a candidate’s supporters will be affected by negative attacks, Ledgerwood and her collaborators have found. Once a negative idea has been planted, it’s very hard to shake.

https://goizueta.emory.edu/research-spotlight/playing-dirty-2020-does-negative-advertising-actually-work-elections

Looking at correlations between the volume of negative ads and the vote shares achieved by U.S. Senate candidates in 2010 and 2012, the researchers found that “while positive political advertising does not affect two-party vote share, negative political advertising has a significant positive effect on two-party vote shares.”

https://www.rochester.edu/newscenter/when-campaign-ads-go-low-it-often-works/

“Negative campaigning has been around as long as campaigning,” Lovett says. “It stays around because it works.”

https://www.cnn.com/2012/01/02/opinion/lariscy-negative-ads/index.html

So if we don’t like negative ads and even perhaps suspect they contribute to political malaise, why are they increasingly dominating candidates’ strategies?
The answer is simple: They work. And they work very well. Gingrich’s drop in polls in Iowa last month was no accident – it was choreographed by negative advertising. . . .
. . . Our brains process information both consciously and non-consciously. When we pay attention to a message we are engaged in active message processing. When we are distracted or not paying attention we may nonetheless passively receive information. There is some evidence that negative messages may be more likely than positive ones to passively register. They “stick” for several reasons.
First, one of the most important contributors to their success may be the negativity bias. Negative information is more memorable than positive – just think how clearly you remember an insult.
Second, negative ads are more complex than positive ones. A positive message that talks about the sponsoring candidate’s voting record, for example, is simple and straightforward. Every negative ad has at least an implied comparison. If Mitt Romney is “not a true conservative,” then by implication the candidate sponsoring the ad is saying he or she is a true conservative. This complexity can cause us to process the information more slowly and with somewhat more attentiveness.

[–] banner80@fedia.io 12 points 15 hours ago

Trump is a miserable moron with terrible ideas. The only reason he wins is because of his negative campaigning. If he didn't do any negative campaigning, he would have no following whatsoever.

While we are busy demanding to know in detail exactly how Harris plans to solve every issue of this country, Trump is out there flat-out making up statistics and boogeymen, inventing conspiracy theories about birth certificates and sexual climbing in politics, and using hate and racism dog-whistles to rally the worst of us.

I hope those of you that hold Harris to the highest standards will remember what you did when we are living in the Trump sewer you helped elect.

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 16 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

How dare you try to bring strategic decisions into this

Stop trying to bully me into voting against fascism

[–] Telodzrum@lemmy.world 15 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

Stop trying to bully me into voting against fascism

no.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›