View this 1964 presidential campaign ad from the Lyndon Johnson campaign. This political ad apparently only ran on TV one time, but was very effective in helping to paint Johnson's opponent, Barry Goldwater, as an extremist.
Your homework (10 points) is to comment to this blog post (first name, last initial, class period) with the following by 11:59pm on Friday 4/13/12:
1) discuss (that means with explanation) whether you feel this ad is: A. effective, and B. fair
2) discuss (that means with explanation) your feelings about negative political campaign ads in general
3) find another presidential (or congressional or state or foreign) political attack ad on YouTube that really gets to you (good or bad, funny or sad) and A. describe the ad (what year, what candidates, what issues), B. explain why it got to you, and C. give the YouTube URL so that others might enjoy it, at least from a non-school computer:(
. . . keep it clean and unique!
Good Luck!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
33 comments:
1) I think that this ad is very effective at scarying people into a negative view of Barry Goldwater, but since it has no real evidence or argument other than, 'Electing Barry Goldwater will cause a nuclear war' I wouldn't call it fair at all.
2) I think negative campaigning is very effective and sometimes necessary when it comes to letting the electorate know about aspects of a politician that they want to ignore or hide. However, these ads are so overused today that they beget disgust with the democratic process and contribute to low voter participation. Therefore, while I think that they are sometimes necessary, overuse of negative campaign ads destroys their credibility and harms the country.
3) In this political attack ad a man in a suit wheels an old lady through a park, while facts about medicare flash across the screen. Then, the man veers off of the path and dumps the old lady off of a cliff, while the video asks "Is America Beautiful without Medicare? Ask Paul Ryan and his friends in Congress".
This ad got to me because it implies that by taking a particular position, Paul Ryan wants to kill old people. This is an incredibly unfair response to a disagreement over medicare policies. Much like LBJ's ad, this video makes a sweeping accusation that paints the opposition as radicals who are actively trying to either start a nuclear war or kill your grandmother. I think people with political positions different from your own deserve more respect.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGnE83A1Z4U
1)The ad is effective in scaring people into thinking that Barry Goldwater would cause a nuclear war. However, like Greg said, there is no supporting argument. I agree that it isn’t fair.
2)I can see how they can be useful, but I think they’re overused. It’s almost as if they attack just to make themselves look good, but to me they make themselves look desperate and unable to come up with what’s good about themselves.
3)This ad it shows Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich contradicting themselves on war or antiwar, abortion or pro-life, stimulus no stimulus, and more. It was saying Ron Paul isn’t like that.
I found it funny because it’s so true how candidates contradict themselves just so they can win a vote. Stay with a stance people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppbPSm4MAxg
1. I think that this ad is very effective at getting people to vote for Lyndon B. Johnson, but I don’t think it’s fair to say that his opponent would surely destroy the world with a nuclear war, unless he had said something of starting a war with Russia.
2. While I feel that they can be very effective, I dislike negative campaign ads because I feel that candidates for president should focus on themselves and their policies, not those of their opponents.
3. This is another campaign ad by Lyndon B. Johnson in the 1964 campaign against Barry Goldwater. It is claiming that Goldwater was connected to the KKK, although he really wasn’t, because some member of the KKK had expressed support for Goldwater. This showed the issue of the tensions of ethnic and religious differences that were still present in the United States, which were particularly strong during the period of the Cold War. I found this ad funny because it seems a little ridiculous to say that a candidate who is endorsed by voters must also endorse the views of all those who vote for him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_i9Bq2tntY&feature=relmfu
1) The ad clearly promotes Johnson and depicts Barry Goldwater in a very negative light, but it seems to be an incredibly dirty campaign move. It effectively takes a pleasant image and then, literally, drops a bomb on it. Not only does it attack Barry Goldwater, but it essentially claims that his election would be the end of the nation. Not fair at all, because it does not take any of his words into account and Barry would have not only made the nation worse, but he would have ruined the union as a whole.
2) Attack ads are effective. We all like having a bad guy to destroy as much as we like having a good guy to promote. However, in recent years, attack ads have become the norm. Context is a thing of the past and often ads will be extended slams of one candidate and a slight blurb promoting another. This isn't how it should work. Instead of placing the importance on electing a certain candidate, it puts the burden on the people to not elect other candidates. It boils the election down to "who is good enough?" rather than "who is the best?"
3) Rick Santorum Attack Ad
This ad clearly places Mitt Romney in an extremely negative light, economically speaking. Among all the attack ads that I have seen, government spending appears to be the big issue. People want to see the debt go down and their own wallet grow fat. Thus, the perfect idea is to pinpoint any and all negative decisions supported by an opponent and amplify them. A nice touch to this one is the claim that Romney turns his back on workers, something that could easily be taken out of context; Romney may have not actively assisted the average worker, but the ad wants to make the moderate stance look extreme. Great example of mudslinging.
1) I think that this ad is effective at striking fear into people that if they don't vote for Johnson, the world will end in a nuclear war. However, I think that this is totally unfair because it provides no evidence towards the other party's ideas.
2) My feelings toward negative political campaign ads is generally unfavorable. Negative ads (to me at least) are like a pessimist's view as opposed to an optimist's view. Just like there are 'rules' of warfare, there should be some honorable 'rules' of political campaigning.
3)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPy7RnHwvmA
This political ad supports Obama in the 2008 presidential election against Bush, and covers the issues of jobs and wages, healthcare, schools and education, foreign policy, and retirement. This ad gets to me because it is mostly a positive campaign. For mostly the entire part, it lists everything which Obama will accomplish (optimism!) instead of attacking and downgrading the other candidates (pessimism, you don't want that! :( ).
1. I believe that while this ad was successful in the past, it he would fail in todays campaign because the ad lacks real evidence or proof of anything being accomplished in Johnson's campaign.
2. To me negative campaigning needs to be used, but i am not a fan of it. My reasoning behind the matter is that without attacking others, your campaign hopes would be run to the ground because people would think you have no backbone, while other candidates would demolish you with all the negative facts they could dig up against you. This being said, I still am not a fan of campaign ads that seem to diret their message at their opponent for why they shouldnt be elected, rather than saying their own views and plans on how to improve the USA.
3. This ad really caught my eye for the vote in Texaxs for 2012 for Ron Paul because of how it thoroughly is biased just for Texas. Some of the things done right in this ad in my view was how Ron Paul chose someone with a southern deep texas like accent, and showed why the other candidates were inferior, not by their failures, but by comparison to Paul's successes and plans. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUO84t1H9Tg
1) I feel that this ad is extremely effective - I mean, we're discussing it today, aren't we. I was a little freaked out when I saw it, I am not even living under the threat of nuclear war. But fair...I would say no, it's not fair. I mean, it's not as if Goldwater intended to blow up the world. And the fact that Johnson would be willing to threaten his constituency that way would worry me as a voter.
2)I hate negative campaigns! The fact that some politician is saying "Hey, look how hard my opponent will screw things up!" doesn't reassure me that he will do a better job. It's like saying "Hey, vote for me, I'm the lesser of two evils!" I personally would like to vote for someone who is not an evil at all. I want to hear about what the politician will do, not what they disapprove of.
3) A political ad that really got to me was one from Rick Perry, of this year. It's discussing how Perry will (though we all know he won't now) "stop Obama's war on religion" because "there's something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can't openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school." I'm not in any sense against religion or Christianity, but what really got to me was that he was hating on people who have volunteered - volunteered!- to fight for our country, just because of their sexual orientation. I understand that he is against homosexuality and all, but honestly, I think he should be on his knees thanking every military member, gay or not, for showing such dedication to this country. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PAJNntoRgA
1) I believe that this ad is very effective because it hits home. It depicts a young child playing, something almost every voting American can relate to. However effective, the ad is not fair because I'm sure that Barry Goldwater did not run on the "nuclear Armageddon" platform.
2)I think negative campaigning is overused and given too much attention in today's society. Instead of pointing out the good in a candidates platform, it calls out the negatives in their opponents. I believe that the only reason people put up negative ads about their opponents is because they do not believe that they can beat them on positives alone.
3) The characters in this ad are Chuck Norris and Mike Huckabee during his presidential campaign in 2008. The major topic covered in the ad is border security, but also things such as the IRS are covered too. This a really got to me because it used a popular cultural icon to help endorse Huckabee's campaign in a funny yet serious way. Despite this commercial's positives, I find Huckabee's comments idiotic and they probably hurt him in the long run.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDUQW8LUMs8
1) I believe that negative political campaigns are fair, but not effective. I believe that ads that promote one candidate do a better job than ads that tear one down. It is also illogical, statistically. For example, if 4 candidates are running for political office, and one uses a negative ad for the other, then an undecided voter who believes the ad would have 3 other candidates to consider. If chosen at random, the candidate that ran the ad only has a 33% chance of receiving their vote. A positive ad would promote one person only, therefore, if the same undecided voter believes the ad, the candidate will always get the vote. Is it fair? Yes- this is politics, and anything (unfortunately) goes.
2) Negative ads are just something candidates do when their politics are not strong enough to be promoted. If we are willing to dig deep enough (and care enough), we will find skeletons in every closet. We can argue back and forth using negative ads, but the ability to criticize does no good when the candidate takes office.
3) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjV2AWzBQNo&feature=related
Call me biased because I straight up despise the Second Amendment... but seriously? This commercial claims that guns are not a major part of this man's life, but he is choosing who to vote for only based on firearms policy! If the ability to own your weapon of murder legally is the sole deciding factor when voting for a president, then you must be politically slanted and misguided. I would choose who to vote for based on something, oh I don't know, IMPORTANT!
1. This ad is extremely effective and in my opinion, fair. It instills fear into the hearts of all who watch, something universally touching, and at the end of the commercial, it shows the solution to the disastrous future; Johnson. I feel this ad is fair, even if it is sad that this means politicians are selling themselves. I think that at this point, to win an election and make an impact, advertisements like this were the only way to reach the guarded hearts of the country.
2. I personally greatly dislike political ads and propaganda. It’s a cheap and immoral way for politicians to sell themselves and their “beliefs”, painting a more often than not, negative image of their opponent, or a false representation of the American condition. With political commercials, there is rarely a median, and I feel the extremes are convincing enough to hook some people, proving their effectiveness. Even as much as I dislike this form of campaigning, it is clearly essential to a winning campaign and without it, politicians would have very few ways to spread their ideals to the general public.
3. This ad has a completely different vibe from the LBJ add, in that it shows the goodness of the American people and the beauty and happiness Ronal Regan has achieved as President. It convinces through the multi-racial scenes of a wedding, small town life, raising of an American flag, and a family moving into a bright new suburban home that America is in the perfect place, where the American dream is not only alive and well, but completely attainable.
4. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU-IBF8nwSY
1) This ad is effective in trying tarnish Goldwater's character and ability to be president. However, since it basically says that if he becomes president nuclear war will ensue, I do not think it is fair. This accusation is based on no supporing facts and even if Goldwater was going to cause nuclear war, the sources of the claim are not in the ad.
2) Although they can be effective, I personally do not like attack ads. They are far overused today and it just seems like they are in poor taste. Whenever I see an attack ad, I think less of the person it is supporting as well because you would think someone with good character would focus on advancing their own campaign, not on other candidates'(even if the ads were not made by the candidates themselves). I wish we could go back to the good old days before mud-slinging began, a time when candidates were dignified and had enough class not to clearly attack their adversary.
3)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMFbcZ6WhEw
This is yet another ad from the 1964 presidential election between LBJ and Goldwater. The thing that got to me about this ad was that it listed the sources from which its claims came from. I think this type of attack ad is acceptable because it is not baseless and is not absurd (definitely not as much as his other one!).
1. I do believe that this ad would have been very effective at the time because it played off of the fear that Americans had that there would be a nuclear fall out. Seeing as how little justification or reasoning for this, I do not find it fair at all.
2. I just do not like or appreciate negative political ads. To me, it brings up the worst in people, mudslinging. It does not give democracy a good face. I believe that political ads should focus more on what that particular candidate plans to do rather than bashing his or her opponent for taking their planned actions. I feel like a lot of the negative ads and adjectives used during them are very subjective, just the opinion of the people who wrote that ad, and only to make the other sound better. Is it really important that we are shown how mean that the candidates would be? I would prefer a candidate who was humble, not focused on putting the others down.
3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU-IBF8nwSY
I honestly feel like this ad is more humble mainly because it does not point fingers at other people in the running. It simply suggests that by voting for Ronald Reagan and his vice president George H. Bush, that America would continue to prosper. The ad addresses such issues as the unemployment rate, inflation, and the housing market. This ad utilizes soothing music, a smooth voice, and patriotic scenes so that people can relate and really feel good about Ronald Reagan.
3. Well Taylor just posted the same thing I did. So here's another one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8pcMb8QuAg&feature=related
This one also included Ronald Reagan and George Bush. This showed real scenes from American life and utilized that same voice and same music to elicit that same patriotic feel. It stated that the economy was up, inflation and taxes were down, and that more people are working again.
1. The add that was shown is a effective way to scare people into believing that with out Lyndon Johnson the country would be destroyed by nuclear weapons. But to be honest I dont think that it was the most fair advertisement only because the cold war was still cold at that time.
2. My personal opinion on negative campaigning ads is that they are way to over done and really just upset me more than make me wanna support any of the candidates. Most of the negative ads are as crazy and outlandish as this one, just that they don't say that were all going to die of nuclear weapons.
3. The add is for Obamas election in '08 and its the guys from the superbowl whats up commercials talking about how the policies of President Bush sank out country into troubles and how Obama was bringing change to the nation. I think its so great because it is showing real issues that people are facing in a funny way that almost all americans can understand.
Enjoy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qq8Uc5BFogE
1. I think this ad is rather ineffective. It's lack of support and cliche climax screams "trying to scare you", and in my opinion loses some of Johnson's credibility. As far as it being fair, I say sure, why wouldn't it be? If people chose to believe it, that is Johnson's opponent's fault for not providing the public with true and correct information. All is fair in public publicity.
2. I think that negative campaign ads are perfectly acceptable, but I feel like they don't really work. From my own personal experience, bashing the competition doesn't work. This is similar when looking at marketing techniques. Bashing the competition doesn't make you seem any better, it makes you seem pathetic for having to use someone else's faults for your leg up. Also, I feel ads shouldn't be trying to scare the public. I feel that with politics, people want to feel hope. Making them scared of one candidate doesn't make them trust you more. If anything, it could make them just as scared that you in the lead could come to the same fate.
3. A. In the Ad (At 15 minutes) the campaign puts a twist on Old Mack Donald Had a Farm and pretty much claims that all of the problems of the era were due to the previous president. It was in support of Eisenhower.
B. The reason that this one gets me is because in Eisenhower's time, a lot of the problems weren't soley president based. A lot had to do with many messes leading up to the presidency before him, but he blamed him anyway. Since the Public was so sore, they believed it all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnTvFd7PGFE
I believe this ad is extremely effective in it's purpose. First, it draws you in with the little girl and the flower. It stays focused on her for quite a while. When the nuclear countdown starts, at first you're surprised but you soon can realize what's going on. When the bomb goes off, LBJ is saying not only will Goldwater start a nuclear holocaust, but that he can prevent it. It also is entirely unfair, because how could LBJ possibly know what events would transpire in order to cause a nuclear war? Kennedy almost caused a nuclear war with the Cuban Missile Crisis, but no one knew that would happen before it did.
Negative campaigning is a necessary evil in today's society. If you don't negative campaign, you're a coward and you don't stand up for your actions. If you do use negative campaign ads, then you cause the election to just become an argument between two old guys. I personally don't find them effective at all - I hate it whenever I see a negative campaign ad. You should play to your strengths as a politician, not base your strategy off someone else' strategy.
This ad is from the 2008 McCain presidential campaign, against the to-be president Obama. The commercial plays on Obama's education issues. It got to me because it just took all of Obama's quotes and bad-looking pictures of him (it makes me think that they just have a huge file of bad pictures of opponents) and made them into what they wanted it to look like. If you read all of those articles that the quotes were taken from, I'm sure you would find that many of them were taken out of context. The last line especially got to me, that they suggested that Obama wanted kids to learn about sex before they learn how to read. Of course no one would ever want that, but the fact that they suggested it means that people will believe it. Propaganda at it's finest.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVLQhRiEXZs&feature=relmfu
A. I do believe that this ad was effective because in the end Johnson did end up winning the presidential election.
B. I also believe that this is fair because as a United States citizen you have the right to freedom of speech.
C. In general I do not like negative political campaign ads because I feel that you should be voting for someone because you believe in what they believe. Every human makes mistakes and I believe that a campaign should be based on the positives that person can bring to the table, not what other people have done wrong.
D. Mike Huckabee Ad: "Chuck Norris Approved"
This ad talks about securing the border. This video was absolutely hilarious because who doesn’t love a good Chuck Norris joke?? This video for 2008 and supports Mike Huckabee.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDUQW8LUMs8
1. I think that the ad is extremly effective by making Barry Goldwarter seem like , if elected, would bring an end to the United States. I would deem this unfair but very effective. It does not show a fair comparison between Johnson and Goldwater rather it shows Goldwater destroying the United States as people knew it. So i believe that althought unfair it made Johonson have a bigger impact on people's votes.
2. Although negitive campagin ads are a unfair becuase they just bash the opposition; they prove to be very effective. The negitive ads, this being the overal intention, exploit the bad side of the canidate with out showing the good side. While exploiting the bad side the end of the ad always ends with how the runner of the ad could fix it or do it better. So by making people aware of an issue and then solving it with a plausible solution makes the ad effective but unfair.
3. So for the ad, I chose the very first televised one for Eisenhower. It was run in 1952 with the catchy slogan "I like IKE". It was a TV add that came with a catchy song of bringing IKE to the white house and kicking out the donkeys, Democratcs. There was a long procession of people that was led by an elephant for the Republican party. The song was catchy and intresting. It is that type of song that you remember the rythms and title but not the words except for "I like IKE". This ad was the first of its kind and surely would have won my vote.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zB2rqaLXP4
1) I do believe that this ad is fair for it's not a slander campaign or a negative ad against any person. On the other hand, I feel as though this ad was ineffective as there was no true correlation between any of the topics in the video leaving the viewer without a clear path or direction as to why they should vote for Johnson.
2) Personally speaking, I think negative campaign commercials are not fair or right (morally) if they target someone personally. I believe that campaigns should be won by true, honest campaigning and not by mudslinging the other candidate. If a candidate has to mud-sling his/her opponent in order to win, then he/she shouldn't win the election. However, I believe that campaigns that simply outline the flaws of a certain politician are ok because they are simply sharing with the public why the opposition candidate would not make a good choice- provided that the information is true.
3) The ad I chose was from the Mitt Romney campaign (2012) which argued that Obama did little to nothing to help the economy during his past 4 years in office. I found it interesting AND effective because it clearly outlined the situation and what the issue was. I believe that negative ads like these should be permitted because it's not attacking someone personally, it is attacking their previous politics.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZFr-LbWeMU
1. I find this ad very funny in acutality! It totally exemplifies how biased and outrageous these campaign ads are. It is basically telling the American people that under Goldwater, American children will be dumb and that nuclear war would be inevidable. However, this is not effective because LBJ never talks about any of the REAL issues and never states his stances in the ad. For that same reason, that ad isn't really fair because he's just using pathos to win votes and not his actual views on the issues.
2. I think negative ads have there place in campaigns, which is to get voters to recognize a candidate and want to learn more, not to gain votes. I would NEVER vote for a candidate based on a negative ad, because it doesn't give the other a fair chance at deffending his/her-self. I think negative ads are only useful at inspiring voters to learn more about candidates in order to make an informed decision.
3. This is an attack ad against Tom Cambell by Carly Fiorina. This was over the 2010 midterm Senate election. This is admitedly even more ridiculous and crazy as LBJ's in 1964, but it really got to me through the "creativity" of the demon sheep. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRY7wBuCcBY
1) I believe that this ad is very effective. It's so short that it doesn't allow people to actually think about what it's saying. It basically just scares you into thinking that Goldwater kills children. However it's not fair because it provides no supporting facts or reasoning behind it.
2) I think that negative campaign ads are completely wrong. I think that people running for office should be good enough on their own. I think that attacking other people just shows how unprofessional you are and that you can't stand on your own two feet and be good enough.
3) The ad is for Robert Kennedy's campaign for president in 1968. The main issue is that Robert Kennedy would do the best job at educating the next generation. B) This ad got to me because first of all I LOVE Robert Kennedy and because it was actually RFK that was talking and not some voiceover. I like how personal it was.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YoHJIpM_oA
1. This ad is effective because it draws in the viewer. At first they see a cute little child and think "aww" as they reflect back on their childhood or their children. It is very nostalgic. Then suddenly a bomb drops and full attention is on the commercial. When political commercials air now, I completely tune them out. This different approach draws in the viewer because at first it is completely unrelated to politics. I don’t think this ad is fair. Using children as bait in the first place is not fair then it portrays something pretty unrealistic and extreme. I think political ads should only represent true facts in rightful context.
2. Negative political campaigns are the worst. I dislike them for many reasons. I think politicians should focus on their selves. To me mudslinging is dishonorable. The most important thing is being able to stand up behind your policies.
3. This ad took place in 1980. The candidates were Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter. Reagan criticizes Carter’s weak leadership and indecisiveness. Peace is majorly discusses in this ad, Carter is incapable of peace because he does not have the leadership abilities to do so. This ad caught my eye because of the beginning images, it is similar to the other video we watched for this blog post. It pulls you in at the heart to see such images then launches into political ramblings. Also I imagine at this time (1980) the people of America were tired of fighting so Reagan’s angle of keeping peace was probably a good one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VXXwyl5G0A&feature=BFa&list=PL030502B26EA50149&lf=results_video
1)In my opinion,this ad is extremely effective in its goal of painting Barry Goldwater as an extremist but in no way fair because it is feeding on the fear of the age, that being total nuclear domination in the hands of the Soviet Union, and not really using concrete facts suggesting what the benefit to the voter would be in voting for Johnson.
2) As far as my opinions regarding negative political ads in general goes, I think that they are in no way fair and should be mutually abolished because in a way they hurt the nation as a whole. I say this because if you tell a voter without much education say like in the example above about Goldwater and nuclear war, they will be blinded to cold hard facts of what the candidate's true political doctrines are and simply vote based on their fears, which is almost never a good decision.
3) The ad that I chose was for Ross Perot and came out in October of 1992. I got to me because of its being overdramatic at the beginning saying that as the Cold War is ending another war is upon the nation and then lists all sorts of economic issues the country is essentially facing at any given time,such as the national debt,and using that to scare people into thinking that some big mythical disaster was upon the nation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcEMDks9_Vw
Note: There are three political ads in this political video all pretty much along the same lines but the one I'm referring to is the first in the series.
1. I think this ad was very effective in convincing people to vote for Lyndon B. Johnson because it was basically saying that if he wasn't elected, nuclear war would ensue. However, I don't think this ad was very fair because there was no discernible evidence presented that actually proves the point the ad is trying to make.
2. I personally do not like negative political ads. When election season comes around, it seems like those are the only ads on TV, and they get very old very quickly. Not only that, but they really don't prove anything for the candidate that they are promoting. They never state what the candidate will offer for the country or state that they are running for, it only bashes the opponent by stating what they have done wrong, which I do not like.
3. This ad is from 1988 and it is promoting George H. W. Bush while attacking Michael Dukakis. It is about the politicians views on crime, and it involves criminal Willie Horton. I felt that this was an extremely negative ad as it juxtaposed the opponent's picture with the picture of a murderer. I felt that this ad was very extreme and unfair and it portrays Dukakis as someone who just hands out free passes to murderers so that they can escape and commit more crimes, which just simply isn't the case.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io9KMSSEZ0Y
1) I believe that LBJ'S political add was very effective. It used the concept of fear to make Americans care a little more about the issues of the election. I would say its fair because i dont think it is suggesting that we will all die if LBJ is not voted, the bomb was just used to make the American people more interested.
2) In a nation where people have the ability to look up information and to voice their own opinion i dont see whats wrong with negative campaign adds. Although It would be a problem if adds were the resorce avalible.
3) A) This add was used by republican Tim Burns while seeking to become a house member for the state of Pensalvania in 2010 the add bashed the liberal policys, high taxes and big government spending of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelocy.B) I thought this video was hilarious. I thought is was very over the top yet i liked it because it was arguing agsinst big government.
C)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnHiN6Pwwos&feature=player_embedded
1) I think this ad is very effective in that it is able to manipulate the minds of the voters at that time. It is unfair to the campaign of Barry Goldwater because it makes a bold statement against Barry Goldwater and claims he will cause nuclear war.
2) When I see negative campaigns I am generally disheartened to see that someone would do that. The thing is, the campaigns that utilize negative campaigns will fare better because the voted need to know what they're voting for as well as what they are voting against. So yes, it is cruel. But it is necessary in a powerful political campaign.
3) This ad features the governor of Michigan Jennifer Granholm by making fun of her "failure" as a governor so far during her time in office. It's funny because the ad displays her campiagn as a trailer for a movie called "Granholm II: Lost in Michigan". In effect, it promotes Dick Devos' campaign and succeeds as a funny and a negative ad at the same time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAHzq-CMtC0
1) I think this ad is very effective in that it is able to manipulate the minds of the voters at that time. It is unfair to the campaign of Barry Goldwater because it makes a bold statement against Barry Goldwater and claims he will cause nuclear war.
2) When I see negative campaigns I am generally disheartened to see that someone would do that. The thing is, the campaigns that utilize negative campaigns will fare better because the voted need to know what they're voting for as well as what they are voting against. So yes, it is cruel. But it is necessary in a powerful political campaign.
3) This ad features the governor of Michigan Jennifer Granholm by making fun of her "failure" as a governor so far during her time in office. It's funny because the ad displays her campiagn as a trailer for a movie called "Granholm II: Lost in Michigan". In effect, it promotes Dick Devos' campaign and succeeds as a funny and a negative ad at the same time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAHzq-CMtC0
1.) This ad is effective because it uses a white American child that America can relate to or emphasize with and draws the viewer immediately in. It grasps the audience's attention immediately and makes them question was the remaining time of the ad is going to be about. I don't feel like this ad is fair because the message/overall point seems really blurry and confused...It doesn't seem like an ad based on fact...The ad seems like someone's opinion taken way too far without the support of any sort of concrete fact to support the opinion.
2.) I generally feel like political ads should be focused more on the positive on the canidate that they are for as opposed to being too overly focused on the negative of the opposite candidate. I do think negative political ads are okay if they are 100%, absolutely, positively, focused on true FACTS that are unquestionably true. This way they get the concrete facts out to viewers. General slander of the opposing opponent based on no factual support however is annoying and wrong.
3.) This ad is an ad put out by Santorum to put down Obama in this upcoming 2012 USA presidential election. This ad got to me because it was just overall funny...It was a bit over the top but Santorum was right when he said an Obamaville takes away freedom of religion because Obama's 'Obamacare' healthcare bill impends on freedom of religion!!! But overall it is a little ridiculous and it makes most people dislike Santorum.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDGORiD82rQ
1. I think that this ad is extremely efective. It was a simpler time back then, people were scared easier and believed what they heard on the television. Yes there was yellow journalism but television was different. No it was not fair, simply calling your opponet a nuclear war activist does nothing to help support an argument against them.
2. I guess that it is just all part of politics but that is not how it is supposed to be. Politics and campaigning are supposed to show your own ideals and messages, not degrading someone else. Politics should be honest, but they never are.
3. This is an ad against the current president, Barack Obama, in 2008, because he had at one point been associated with some people who turned out to be bad people. People change, and it cannot be forced on Obama the choices of his ex associates actions, which has nothing to do with his policis. Politics these days are so scumy and low lifed. Politicians should not be allowed to say such awful things about each other.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKfmcZFhyzw&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PL3C3C0A6ACE3769FD
1). I think it is very effective in trying to persuade people into voting for him (against Goldwater) because it scares people to view him as a bad person. It isn't really fair because it only shows that he will cause a nuclear war and nothing else about how "bad" he is.
2). I think negative campaigning is ok to use, as long as the things that are being told to the viewing audience are truthful. If the ad starts pointing out facts and flaws that end up not being true in any way whatsoever, I personally would feel hurt because a person trying to run my country just told lies to try and win the presidency. The number one thing in those kinds of commericals that I value is honesty.
3). In this politcal campaign ad from 1964, Goldwater is portrayed as the man that voted against not having nuclear bomb testings and that he was in favor or testing these nuclear bombs when he became president. It says that voting for Johnson would stop the stakes from getting too high. This ad got to me because the picture of the innocent little girl was once again seen in a political campaign ad. Also, I hate when any commercial puts innocent children in the vision of harml; I find it completely unfair to use children in a "negatively innocent" way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDGORiD82rQ
This ad is for the 2012 election, and is an attack on Obama by Rick Santorum. Topics that are discussed are gas prices, small bussinesse4s, and healthcare. This got to me because with the background music and scary pictures shown it makes people think that they are in real trouble.
I believe that it is an effective tactic to scare people in what the possibilities of what the other candidate might do. But on the other hand it is not fair because these types of ads are extremely bias and just puts the person accused on the defense and causes more negative comments rather than focusing on the positive.
Negative campaign ads are essential to politicians because it says this is why you should not vote for this person, vote for me! And can work to show that they are better than the person they are running against.
This political ad I found was for the election in 1988, George Bush against Michael Dukakis for how he let a murderer go on ten weekend passes from jail. It got me because it made me think I wouldn't vote for a guy who let a guy who stabbed little kids and raped women go on weekend passes. It was effective to make me think he was a bad guy when I didn't know anything about him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io9KMSSEZ0Y
1. The ad was completely effective in terms of scaring someone into not voting for Goldwater. It cast Barry as a horrible person who, if elected president, would end the world in a nuclear war. This is an unfair tactic because there is absolutely no evidence toward the statement that Goldwater would do such a thing. It is claiming that Goldwater will end the world without a single bit of evidence.
2. I think that negative ad campaigns are completely appropriate. Part of a debate is not only forwarding your point, but setting back your opponents. Without negative ad campaigns or muckraking, presidential debates would be a fight between 2 "perfect" candidates.
3. I saw a presidential campaign ad for Ron Paul (2012) that talked about how Ron Paul wouldn't repeat the mistakes of previous presidents. It really got me going because the ad was EPIC! the music was going and it really made it seem like Paul was the man that could help America out of its slump through change. It also attacked democrats by saying that their plan is to "increase spending".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgcvb8htQyk
Post a Comment