It's election day here in the United States, and you know what that means?  That's right, we're going to have to wait a whole two years for our favorite political ads to hit the airwaves again.

It's sad, really.  We get our holidays every year, but national elections only come around every couple years.  With all these Congressmen, you would think we could devise a system whereby a quarter of Congress is up for grabs every year, and break up the seats in such a way that you insure that every state is deciding on a House or Senate race every year.

Until such important legislation is undertaken, however, I have to wonder why we should have to depend on politics for our dirt-slinging appetite.  Are we not bombarded with advertising 24 hours a day?  It's not even possible to take a leak without seeing a product placements.  You would think that people would pay to have their competitor's logos displayed in a toilet, but that's not the case.  They're paying to display themselves there.  You have to believe there are studies underway to determine what goods and services men are most likely to respond to when advertised above a urinal.  

"What took you so long in the bathroom?"

"Oh, I decided to buy some lemonade mix."

With all this advertising you would think a few firms would clue in to the fact that Americans want more dirt.  If simply touting the superior quality and value of a thing were a sufficient way to make us want it, wouldn't politicians concentrate on their own capabilities when trying to win our vote?  Wouldn't positive ads outnumber negative ads?  But that's not the case!  And why?  I'll tell you why:  We don't want to vote for someone because they're good, we want to vote for someone because their opponent is the devil!

It just feels better to vote against someone.  Plus, it has the benefit of distancing oneself from responsibility.  Let's say you vote for the honorable Neener McTurd for Senate, not because you know anything about him, but because he is NOT Suzie Porkshorts, who you know from television ads hates children.  If McTurd wins, and goes on to vote for higher taxes on disabled senior citizens, you can reassure yourself that you weren't really voting FOR that, you were just trying to keep that evil Porkshorts out of office.

It's a counter-intuitive ploy, really.  Considering the fact that even "landslide" political victories rarely exceed a 60% majority, this strategy basically tells 40% or more of its audience that they are idiots, or worse, for preferring their candidate.

So why doesn't this concept translate to product advertising?  Wouldn't you be more likely to choose Coke over Pepsi if you learned that the makers of Pepsi support terrorism?  Picture this:

Fade in on a family of five in their den.  A football game is on the TV.  The father sits with his blond, blue-eyed three year old daughter on his lap.  An eight and ten year old brother and sister play a board game on floor, as a warm fire crackles in the background.  A typical American mother walks in (if measuring 38-22-34 is typical) with a tray of snacks.

Supermom:  You guys want some snacks?

Kids:  Oh boy!

Dad:  Thanks dear!  Gosh, that isn't...Pepsi, is it?  (He says "Pepsi" the way you might ask if the dip is actually a bowl of dog poo).

Supermom:  Uh...I guess it is, honey.  Why do you ask?

Dad:  Well, it's just that, the fact is Pepsi is a large international corporation with quarterly profits of over a billion dollars.

Supermom:  Gosh, that's a lot of money!  But there's nothing wrong with being profitable, is there?

Dad:  Absolutely not.  But do you know how many of those billions of dollars Pepsi puts towards fighting terrorism?  Not one!  Zero.  Zilch.  Nada.

Cut to kids faces.  They look as if their mother has just kicked them in the stomach.

Supermom:  You kids go pour those drinks out - outside!  And not in our yard, either!  I'm going straight to the store to buy some Coke!

Kids brighten up.  Dad smiles lovingly at Supermom.

Voiceover:  The makers of Pepsi are hoarding billions of dollars while American servicemen risk their lives fighting terrorists.  It's time for change.

There are no outright lies, and Coke doesn't bother to mention that it makes billions a quarter without spending a penny fighting terror.  It's just like our favorite political ads!

And doesn't that make you thirsty for some good old American Coca-Cola?  Wouldn't you rather drink a soda because its competitor may be part of a beverage axis of evil, instead of just because it was on sale?  I know I would.  Plus, I'd be able to look forward to the Pepsi ad indicating that Coke execs have never really explained where they were during the September 11 attacks.  That's good TV right there, and by golly, we deserve it!