A Quote by Ed Rendell

I hate negative ads in general. — © Ed Rendell
I hate negative ads in general.
A lot of our Democratic consultants have fallen into the self-defeating prescription that the candidate that runs the most negative ads wins. I have a new theory: Positive is the new negative.
In our case, we focus on quality, and we have a very simple model. If we show fewer ads that are more targeted, those ads are worth more. So we're in this strange situation where we show a smaller number of ads and we make more money because we show better ads. And that's the secret of Google.
There's a reason people run negative ads... it's because they work.
Well, I mean, I think all campaigns run negative and positive ads.
There is no evidence that super PACs have led to a greater percentage of negative ads.
Being the one person out there committed to not running negative ads - voters respond to that.
Other Republican candidates may retort to personal attacks and negative ads.
I don't think anyone would object to Facebook selling ads or having ads directed at me, as long as people didn't think those ads were manipulated by personal data.
I think that the best approach would be if the American people ever insist that we cut down on the massive amounts of money that moves into the campaigns from special interest groups, and if we resist publicly by saying "No more negative advertisements that destroy the reputations of one's opponents." In the meantime, just don't pay any attention to negative ads, if you can avoid them, and try to focus on the issues.
One of the most overused phrases in political commentary is that someone is running a 'negative' campaign filled with 'attack' ads.
When you're reading a newspaper and you're seeing ads on the page, it's not kind of invasive. Like, it's on the page next to the article. You can look at it or not. You can turn the page when you're ready. On the internet, the ads - many of the ads - just are so controlling. They insist that you see them.
No one`s dropped a cent - there`s no negative ads up against Donald Trump in Iowa which is crazy to think about.
It's a matter of fact that Senator Obama has spent more money on negative ads than any political campaign in history.
Sooner or later, people are going to figure out if all you run is negative attack ads you don’t have much of a vision for the future or you’re not ready to articulate it.
I liked writing the negative ads more than - because it's more minor chords.
During the Second War, the U.S.O. sent special issues of the principal American magazines to the Armed Forces, with the ads omitted. The men insisted on having the ads back again. Naturally. The ads are by far the best part of any magazine or newspaper. More pains and thought, more wit and art go into the making of an ad than into any prose feature of press or magazine. Ads are news. What is wrong with them is that they are always good news.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!