By: Inoljt, http://thepolitikalblog.wordpress.com/

Last night's election exhibited two trends: one positive for the country as a whole, and one more ominous for Democrats. Firstly, Americans rejected negative campaigning and extremism - whether it be in Virginia, New Jersey, NY-23. Secondly, the electorate as a whole shifted quite profoundly to the right. This post will focus on the first aspect.

Negative Campaigning and Extremism

In the most-watched races, voters chose the side that espoused moderation and ran a positive message. The Democratic candidates in both Virginia and New Jersey focused on the negative: state congressman Creigh Deeds of Virginia spent most of his time attacking Attorney General Bob McDonnell's college thesis, while Governor Jon Corzine of New Jersey launched a barrage of negative ads. Both candidates lost.

There tends to be a myth, commonly repeated by the media, that negative campaigning works. They point to former President George W. Bush, whose Swiftboat ads ensured a 2% victory over Senator John Kerry. The truth, as recent elections show, is more complicated: Senator John McCain, Mr. Deeds, and Mr. Corzine all pinned their hopes on tearing down their opponent and all lost.

The other race featured the victory of moderate politics over extremism. In NY-23,  a Republican-represented district since the Civil War, conservatives sabotaged the moderate Republican candidate in favor of hard-line Doug Hoffman. Fortunately, voters in upstate New York rejected the Glenn Beck nominee and instead chose Democrat Bill Owens, an independent turned Democrat.

Thus the election results enforced a positive trend in politics - one of moderation and positive campaigning focused on the issues, rather than divisive personal attacks. For Democrats like myself, however, the other trend - a rightward shift - is more worrisome. Hopefully it more reflects right-wing anger than the true national mood.

There's more...

(cross-posted at Motley Moose and Clintonistas for Obama)

Straight talk.

Apparently it's a dying art.

John McCain was never a maverick. He was a staunch Republican whose positions deviated from those of his party only on occasion. But the one thing he had going for him was honesty and sincerity. He told the country what he believed and why he believed it, firmly and unapologetically. He stood up for his beliefs even if they were unpopular. He defended his principles. But somewhere along the line John McCain gave up. He sacrificed his principles, he surrendered to the sordid tactics of his party, the tactics he once despised and vocally denounced. To fully understand the magnitude of his fall, one must look back -- a glance at the McCain of a month ago, really, is sufficient to understand the duplicity of his statements and positions, but the differences between the McCain of 2000 and the McCain of 2008 are staggering. A brief list compiled by blogger Alex Valentine shows the stark contrast between the two McCains:

There's more...

On the eve of critical primary elections in North Carolina and Indiana, Barack Obama has released his fourth negative ad in six days.

What happened to Barack's pledge to stay positive?  Only a week ago he made a big hoopla about his promise to take the high road, and it was reported on several mainstream media outlets and throughout the blogosphere:

April 28 (Bloomberg) -- Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, attempting to regain his momentum after losing the Pennsylvania primary, promised to shun negative campaigning as his race drags on against Hillary Clinton.

Obama, 46, an Illinois senator, began his drive for the nomination with a message of unity and the pledge that he wouldn't run a typical political campaign. Today, Obama said he realized his campaign had strayed in recent weeks.

``I told this to my team, you know, we are starting to sound like other folks, we are starting to run the same negative stuff,'' Obama told a crowd of about 5,000 in Wilmington, North Carolina. ``It shows that none of us are immune from this kind of politics. But the problem is that it doesn't help you.''   Source.

Hmm...I guess he changed his mind, and now thinks negative campaigning might help.

Or was it just more empty rhetoric?

Here's one of Barack's latest commercials, in which he hypocritically accuses Hillary Clinton of "the same old negative politics..."

Contrast that with one of Hillary's latest, in which she makes her case for a policy initiative, the gas tax holiday...

Now, whether you agree or not with Hillary's proposal, at least she's talking about substantive issues of relevance to the voters.

Why is Barack going against his word, and relying on attack ads to compete against Hillary?  Maybe he should focus more on sharing his own concrete solutions for improving the lives of Americans.

So much for the audacity of hope.

There's more...

Here's an interesting social psychology experiment you can try at home.  

Take a couple who live together and ask them (separately) what percentage of the housework they do.  Then add the totals that each person gives you.

What you end up with is almost always more than 100%.  For instance, the man says he does 40% of the housework, while the woman says she does 70%.

What does this mean?  Does it mean that men overestimate the significance of putting down the toilet seat after they pee?  Or does it mean that human beings are actually not so good at making accurate assessments of this sort?  The evidence suggests it's the latter (though I have to admit, there is a shortage of research about the former, so this is nothing definitive).

All of which leads to me to interesting social experiment number two.  Take a Clinton supporter and an Obama supporter and ask them (separately) what percentage of the overall negativity in the primary their candidate is responsible for.  Then add the totals that each person gives you.

What odds that you'll end up with more than 100%?

There's more...

New NY Times editorial below the fold...

There's more...