.

Whose Political Ad Are You Happy to See Disappear?

With the election only one day away, it's time to fess up: Whether it's Akin, McCaskill, Spence, Nixon or someone else, which political ad will you be happy to see go?

You know the drill. 

The somber music plays in the background while a deep voice shares a fearful message about a candidate seeking election. Occasionally, a few seconds might be reserved afterward for an inspiring message from that candidate's challenger. 

These so-called attack ads have grown more prevalent as we've moved closer to the Nov. 6 election. 

In the U.S. Senate race, an ad from Rep. Todd Akin (R-Wildwood) contains a voice that connects Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) to President Barack Obama. The voice references McCaskill's support of the Affordable Care Act and her endorsement of the president in 2008. 

An ad from McCaskill takes a similar approach in connecting her opponent to the 2012 presidential campaign. The ad begins by asking the question, "Is Todd Akin fit to serve in the Senate?" before playing a response from Mitt Romney, in which Romney urges Akin to drop out of the race.  

We have watched the ads in the U.S. Senate campaign (and plenty of others) in Missouri, whether it was on television or before YouTube clips. But now the general election is only one day away. 

Tell us: So, as the election season comes to a close, we're holding a poll of our own on Patch. Which political ad will you be happy to see go, and why? Let us know in the comments. 

c z November 05, 2012 at 08:34 PM
To Caffeinated: Perhaps to you it's false, because you're coming from a place of attacking others, but to me, I'm trying to get to the heart of something. And you speak for "everyone"? Good to know, moving forward. So if I understand you correctly, you refuse to talk nice until others talk nice first? How about setting the bar a little higher from the get-go? How about showing others how it's done? To RDBET, yes, you are misinterpreting what I wrote and I don't claim to be the best writer, so perhaps I didn't state it very well. My point is this: hate/loathe/despise the thoughts/opinions/actions of others, but don't hate them. I didn't call Linda anything, merely pointed out that a point of view could be ignorant. My original comment was directed to Rocko, not Linda. I'm not even going there. I'm concerned with the misuse of the word "hate" when it comes to disagreements. To further beat a dead horse, and this is not directed to anyone in particular, more and more these days, there is no discussion, merely accusations on all sides of hate, disrespectful personal attacks, and it's all about making someone else look bad. Why??? If you really believe in what you believe in, can you not stick to facts and respectful rhetoric without getting nasty? Case in point: the mud slinging over in the Ballwin-Ellisville Patch regarding Walmart.
Caffeinated November 05, 2012 at 09:03 PM
>>To Caffeinated: Perhaps to you it's false, because you're coming from a place of attacking others, but to me, I'm trying to get to the heart of something. What, pray tell, is it that you're getting "to the heart of?" >>And you speak for "everyone"? Good to know, moving forward. I don't know what you're referring to. Sounds like a tangent. >>So if I understand you correctly, you refuse to talk nice until others talk nice first? >> How about setting the bar a little higher from the get-go? How about showing >> others how it's done? You can find such examples in my discourse with others. I may not agree with someone, but if they show some level of thoughtful logic behind their argument I'm game. However, I don't necessarily respect the opinions of others especially when they spew ignorance, stupidity, or nastiness. Why pretend? Linda's a zealot and a particularly insular one at that. I don't think she deserves my respect for her opinion, and I don't think I'll show her the courtesy. As long as I post within the guidelines provided by the owners of this site, I can do so. After all, I'm just giving my opinion as well.
c z November 05, 2012 at 09:23 PM
to Caffeinated: If you read my whole post, you would know what I was trying to get to the heart of. You said "Your false sense of propriety is obvious to everyone." It's not false, and how is it obvious to everyone, if you are the only one saying that? I haven't heard from everyone, just you and RD. You should have said "is obvious to me". So no tangent there. I've seen some, not all, of your discourse with others, and from what I have seen, you tend to stoop to the name-calling and sarcasm. I guess it's just your way, but personally, I don't think it's helpful in getting your point of view across in a debate. It makes people defensive and not open to hearing what it is that you think and more importantly, why. I honestly like how you formed your latest response to me, as it explained your thought process without resorting to name-calling. To get back to the original issue, if I were responding to Linda maybe I would have said something like, "People like you scare me. I don't see the logic in your point of view; freedom of choice is not the same as murder. My personal beliefs don't teach that, and I'd like to know why you think that way." (or not) IMO, these Patch boards are not very well moderated, as name-calling stays on the boards often, even though the rules state that it is not acceptable. Anyway, sincere thanks for the respectful response, and keep it up moving forward! :)
Caffeinated November 05, 2012 at 09:37 PM
"I honestly like how you formed your latest response to me, as it explained your thought process without resorting to name-calling. " I honestly don't care what you like. If you think all I've participated in is name-calling and sarcasm, you're only half right. Like I said before... your sense of propriety seems one-sided to me. You only seem interested in correcting those you disagree with.
RDBet November 05, 2012 at 11:03 PM
cz, Again, if am reading correctly, you are Not criticizing Linda for uncivil discourse with her demonizing baby murderer claim, yet you ARE criticizing those who don't respect her comment and take offense by it. It is just an odd place to make a stand for civil discourse. Or is just a backhanded way of agreeing with Linda's statement? I can respect someone who is pro-life (maybe I am myself, but that is personal, not political) - however you can not expect people to respect someone who calls people baby murderers.
PaulRevere November 05, 2012 at 11:06 PM
I am glad McCaskill's "I AM NOT A WITCH" Ad is Gone.!!
Becca Christensen November 05, 2012 at 11:24 PM
I agree that political ads stink. I'm curious what you mean by "summary polls" though. I'd like to see more unbiased reporting of poll numbers. Instead, all we get is so-called journalists ignoring the facts of the poll numbers and saying "I don't know how to call this election, the Republicans say they're winning and the Democrats say that, no, they're winning."
Becca Christensen November 05, 2012 at 11:30 PM
I hesitate to point this out, because most third-party voters are so vehement that they're right and the rest of us voting for a Dem or Repub are government "stoolies" (yes, I've actually been called that), but the spoiler effect is real. Your third party vote will take away one vote from the main party candidate you'd be most happy/least upset with. Our system of winner take all, or first past the post, voting necessarily always polarizes into a two party system. What we need for third party candidates to be viable is an instant run-off system of voting, whereby the voter chooses a number of candidates and ranks them in order of desirability. Until we have such a system, I'll be voting for the least of two evils, because it's the only way my vote will count. If anyone's interested in more info on voting systems: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo&feature=share&list=PLAA4F93BCA7BEC421 http://youtu.be/3Y3jE3B8HsE
Mary V Gaffey November 05, 2012 at 11:53 PM
I would be happy never to see or hear anything about Todd Akin again.
flyoverland November 06, 2012 at 12:15 AM
Are they dead, RDBet? Why won't Obama answer the question? He is just running out the clock. I was with a very high ranking Congressman the other night. He certainly thinks there something more to it that the YouTube story we were spoon fed.
RDBet November 06, 2012 at 12:58 AM
Ah, more conspiracy theory. Thanks for the heads up. Cue twilight zone music.
Mr. Independent Voter November 06, 2012 at 01:41 AM
Romney's record as Gov. of Mass. for anyone interested. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/01/mitt-romney-massachusetts-budget-_n_2051922.html?utm_hp_ref=politics
Rachel Walker November 06, 2012 at 01:59 AM
I don't know about the Twilight Zone music, RDbet. "I was with a very high ranking Congressman the other night" sounds more Heidi Fleiss than Rod Serling.
Rockwood 25 November 06, 2012 at 02:46 AM
Difficult to determine how Romney's record would relate to him as president. He was in a very Dem state with very Dem legislature. He vetoed much and didn't veto others because knew they would be overridden. What IS his is the healthcare legislation. As president with a far right legislature, it's difficult to say if he'd be the far right of the primaries and rallies or the moderate of the debates. The party will want him to be less moderate; they've pushed other moderates out of office.
Rockwood 25 November 06, 2012 at 02:48 AM
Most tired of Akin's ads, especially since fact finders at KMOV have found at least 4 false (and no true) claims in 2 ads and no false McCaskill ads. Most others are a mix.
c z November 06, 2012 at 03:42 AM
RD and Caffeinated, You 2 don't get it! My point was to discuss the misuse of the word "hate", not get into a debate with Linda. Why am I required to respond to Linda? I made a choice not to get into a debate with Linda. It's my choice. Why can't you accept that? Does it have to mean that I agree? I also haven't responded to everyone else's opinions on this board. Why am I required to get into it with everyone I disagree with? It's not about being one-sided. It's about choice. I don't post often on these boards because I don't feel strongly enough to take the time to do it. But the misuse of the word "hate" has bothered me for awhile, and I wanted to discuss it. >>> your sense of propriety seems one-sided to me. You only seem interested in correcting those you disagree with.<<< Then Caff, by your logic, you are one-sided as well.
Mike K November 06, 2012 at 03:48 AM
Becca is right. Condorcet voting is what we need. It will never happen, as the two party system will never allow a replacement and they will collude to perpetuate it. A vote for a third party is wasted. Vote the lesser of evils is unfortunately the best either the Rep or Dem parties will offer us to choose among. Sad that both parties are too scared of any 'real' democracy to allow it to happen. No coalition governments, no condorcet voting. Only a 50/50 choice between who will do the least damage until the next election.
RDBet November 06, 2012 at 04:04 AM
Gotcha cz. We've got wholesale labeling of people as Socialist Marxist and baby-killers on the Patch and when someone calls them on their hate filled nonsense -well that bothers you. Here's a tissue.
RDBet November 06, 2012 at 04:24 AM
Whoever is the guy running for GOP sec of state. Purely a partisan scab. He labels Kander on all sorts of national issues -nothing related to the office of secretary of state. Peter Kinder's ads. If he did an ad from Verlin's, the CWE, or the strip clubs then they could be interesting and more genuine. The would-be GOP candidate for governor scammed Missouri taxpayers, and paid it back only when caught by audit. And paid more back, when caught again. Makes you wonder how he has all this money. That Tea party GOP still supports him for this meaningless job, in spite of his waste of taxpayer dollars, makes you realize Tea Party is all about political power, and nothing about the taxpayer and limited government. http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/political-fix/kinder-pays-for-hotel-stays/article_7e8ef54e-7052-11e0-81bd-001a4bcf6878.html
Mr. Independent Voter November 06, 2012 at 05:42 AM
Romney paid ZERO taxes between 1996 and 2009, but the rest of us did. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-29/romney-avoids-taxes-via-loophole-cutting-mormon-donations.html
Sally Jones November 06, 2012 at 11:46 AM
I agree with flyoverland!!!! Go away Claire!!!!
Sally Jones November 06, 2012 at 12:11 PM
Mr. Independent Voter, the example you refer to regarding Romney's record as Gov of Mass is from a far left website. The Huffington Post is never going to say anything nice about a Republican. In regards to Obama withholding information regarding the Benghazi attack in Libya, he sure didn't waste anytime reporting the killing of Osama Bin Laden. In fact that's all we have been hearing from him since the day it happened. His only accomplishment in four years.
Caffeinated November 06, 2012 at 01:35 PM
"Then Caff, by your logic, you are one-sided as well." Absolutely. The difference is that I don't pretend to be anything else.
Jim Frain November 06, 2012 at 07:30 PM
The total cost of Federal, State and Local Elections was over 6 Billion Dollars this year....A record, and not one to be proud of. The marketing guru's love elections because they can create and place very expensive ads to tell us over and over and over and over any type of information that their candidate wants to be presented. Think what positive things could have been done with this 6 billion dollars....It's wrong, but sadly, it won't change. In 2016 we will set another "Wasted Political Advertising $ Record" because those who lost want to win again and those who won want to stay there...Total waste of money...
Caffeinated November 06, 2012 at 07:36 PM
Agreed.
Sensible? I think so November 06, 2012 at 08:15 PM
http://obamaachievements.org/ http://www.romneytaxplan.com/
c z November 06, 2012 at 09:58 PM
RD: there you go again, throwing the H word around again. Looks like that's the only way you think you can get your point across. Keep your tissue and give it to your loved ones. Caff: I'm certainly not pretending anything. Just cuz I don't bow down to your bullying and nastiness doesn't prove your non-sensical point.
Caffeinated November 06, 2012 at 10:37 PM
" Just cuz I don't bow down to your bullying and nastiness doesn't prove your non-sensical point." I at no point "bullied" or was "nasty" to you. I looked back at what I wrote, and can't find anything that qualifies. What, exactly, are you talking about?
Reverend Scott E. Lee November 07, 2012 at 06:21 PM
So, when do we start to see the 2014 midterm ads? Or the ones to "Draft Hillary"? I swear that this morning on one of the talking head shows on a 24 hour cable channel, they were discussing whether or not Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is the Democratic favorite in 2016. Not in jest, like a Governor Chris Cristie / President Barack Obama ticket in 2016, but serious analysis of the chances that she would force the other Democrats out of the way before the primary season starts if she announced her intention to run. It never frickin' ends anymore, does it?
janet tucker November 10, 2012 at 07:48 AM
i sooo happy that they are ALL finished.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something