[Sola Veritas]

I don’t like Guiliani and I don’t want him to represent the GOP.

However, the kind of person that will vote for him won’t care about the stuff posted here. They already know he has low morals and they obviously don’t care.

Most have already made up there minds, regardless of what candidate they support and all posting “negative” stuff will do is to further solidify them in there choice.

I’m convinced it is folly to try and switch someone on this forum from thinking they way you do, so I’m pretty much out of the biz of slamming a candidate and praising another. It is a no-win scenario.

[steel_resolve]

Agreed. The same type of people that would vote for Billy C. again a third time if they could.

[stillonaroll]

Most have already made up there minds, regardless of what candidate they support and all posting “negative” stuff will do is to further solidify them in there choice.

I’m convinced it is folly to try and switch someone on this forum from thinking they way you do, so I’m pretty much out of the biz of slamming a candidate and praising another. It is a no-win scenario.

It's true that FReepers, being better informed than the general public, tend to have already made their minds up about who they will vote for. In the larger population, however, negative attack ads are effective, as a well communicated negative message can devastating to a campaign.

I read somewhere, I think about online restaurant reviews, that one negative review has as much impact as ten positive reviews.

[highball]

However, the kind of person that will vote for him won’t care about the stuff posted here. They already know he has low morals and they obviously don’t care.

The point is not that he had an affair. The point is that they cooked the books to hide the affair (and continue to lie and mislead about it).

In other words, this isn't that he has low personal morals, but that his administration was corrupt. Huge difference.