2012 Election | Barack Obama | Mitt Romney | News

President Obama's Ads Slightly More Negative Than Mitt Romney's


Politico reports that negative narratives are all the rage this presidential election season, and that President Obama's ads are more on trend than Mitt Romney's, but only by a little:

A full 86 percent of Obama’s television advertising and 79 percent of Romney’s has been negative, according to the Wesleyan Media Project, which tracks political advertising. By comparison, Obama and John McCain had spent an average of 69 percent of their TV budgets on negative ads by this point in 2008, and George W. Bush and John Kerry had spent 58 percent in 2004.

No wonder little Abby Evans had that breakdown.

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. If Romney was not so rife with corruption and lies, Obama's ads would probably not have been tracked as so "negative."

    It's like that anecdote about Churchill and Clement Attlee. Churchill's complaints about Attlee drew the response that "Attlee seems like a modest fellow to me."

    Churchill supposedly shot back, "He has a lot to be modest about."

    Posted by: Jeff Kurtti | Nov 4, 2012 1:10:53 PM

  2. I wonder what this would look like if it added in SuperPAC adds...

    Posted by: DavyJones | Nov 4, 2012 1:35:42 PM

  3. this morning on MSNBC the opposite was shown with 99% neg on Romney and around 85% neg for Obama ads. This may have been just Ohio ads. I would perfer statistics on truthfulness of the ads.

    Posted by: terry | Nov 4, 2012 1:58:30 PM

  4. They never define "negative" with respect to ads. From the article itself, it appears that "negative" means that the ad focuses on other persons/things in the race rather than on the sponsoring candidate.
    If that really is the criteria, then given the apparent rise of super PACs and Citizen's United fallout, a higher rate of "negativity" is expected to occur as damage control and countering.

    Posted by: Dicky | Nov 4, 2012 3:53:15 PM

  5. That visual above looks to me like:
    1) Obama learned something from Bush.
    2) Romney learned nothing from McCain.

    Posted by: Jay | Nov 4, 2012 4:29:52 PM

  6. Wow. I thought Kerry lost because he failed to defend himself, but apparently he also failed to go on the attack. Did he just *want* to lose?

    Posted by: BABH | Nov 4, 2012 5:32:03 PM

  7. In Obama's defense... it's difficult to not say something negative about Romney

    Posted by: topdawg | Nov 4, 2012 6:52:17 PM

  8. is a negative ad that is true, negative?

    Politico has a bias and it isn't for Obama.

    Posted by: Cycledoc | Nov 4, 2012 8:18:19 PM

  9. Absolutely not true. I live in NE Ohio, and I've seen ALL the ads. If it was true, I just wouldn't say anything. Romney is twice as negative without question.

    Posted by: NeverEclipsed81 | Nov 4, 2012 10:22:33 PM

  10. what the hell does it mean??? mean because he's pointing out the truth abotu a candidate who wants the white house..just because he's white, rich and heterosexual??? crazy this guy and sarah palin go hand on hand.

    Posted by: Bosie | Nov 5, 2012 10:53:46 AM

  11. I wonder what this would look like if it added in SuperPAC adds..

    Posted by: idateasian | Nov 16, 2012 12:50:11 AM

Post a comment


« «Ohio Voters Praise The Romney They Think They Know: VIDEO« «