For this blog post, you will be conducting an analysis of two presidential TV campaign advertisements from any election except 2008. You will access these ads from livingroomcandidate.org. Your post must include all of the following:
1. A brief historical background of the election. Who ran? Who won? Is there a consensus on the major determinants of the election? (why did the future president win that particular election?)
2. Two embedded video clips - one from each major party. To do this, copy and paste the embed code (visible when you select "share" from the bottom right-hand corner of the video.
3. An comparative analysis of the two advertisements. A full analysis will consider the following:
- Which ad did you find more persuasive? Why?
- Who do you think was the intended audience for each of the ads? What evidence supports this?
- Which ad did you find more aesthetically appealing? Why?
- How important were images and music in the ads you chose?
- Other thoughts about what makes one political ad better and more effective than the other.
I picked the 1960campaign, between Nixon and JFK. This was the time that the cold war was looming in front of politics and the modern cicil rights movement was taking place. One of the main reasns that Kennedy won was because of the televised debates between him and Nixon. Kennedy simply looked much beter on the televisoin, partly because Nixon wasn't wearing any makeup and sweated a lot.
ReplyDeleteKennedy focused mainly on reaching out to the people in most of his campaign ads. There was one showing him talking to reporters in a crowd, one of his wife speaking Spanish, and one of an ordinary artist talking about how good he was. The main one that I want to focus on is the one called the "Sills Family."(http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1960/sills-family). This one shows Kennedy talking to the Sills family about their economic hardships and what he plans to do for them, personally. The goal of this ad was probably to show that Kennedy was willing to reach out to the people. Many of his ads followed this principal.
Nixon, by contrast, filmed almost every single one of his campaign ads from his office. The one I chose, the "Most Important Issue,"(http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1960/most-important-issue), showed Nixon sitting in his office. He did this to show that he would be a strong leader. The main idea of this ad was just that. We need strong leaders who will keep the peace. He was very strong in foreign policy, so he turned issues to that whenever he could. When asked about civil rights, he would reply with an answer on comunism.
I found Kennedy's ad to be much more atractive simply because it was a whole lot less boring. Nixon's ad was just a camera focused on him the entire time. THere were no different shots or anything. I was just him talking. Kenned's ad, however, moved between the Sills family eating dinner, to them talking with Kennedy, to their little girls playing on the floor. It was much more interesting to watch. Nixon's ad was probably targeted to people who follow politics on a regular basis, while Kennedy's was targeted to a much broader audience.
In 2004, John Kerry took on incumbent George W. Bush, Bush won, and most analysts attribute that victory to his strong stances on the efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as on the war on terror.
ReplyDeleteGeorge W Bush - Victory - http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/2004/victory
John Kerry - Mistakes Were Made - http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/2004/mistakes-were-made-web
In my opinion regarding these ads, Kerry made a more solid argument as to why he would be a better candidate. He featured a clip of a (hilariously) foolish remark made by Bush in a press conference, made some vague yet noticeable references to some gargantuan mistakes of his first term in office, and set it to some ominous music that made him seem more 'evil' than the video could do alone. Bush, however, used airy optimism to attempt to coerce people into believing that he was the better candidate. He did this by pinpointing a success of his presidency, expanded it to connect it to the olympics (an optimistic and hopeful time where the world is united on the same stage, regardless of politics) and set it to some optimistic and hopeful music to put it all together.
Although Kerry probably did a better job of stating why he would be a better candidate by using concrete facts and reasoning, George Bush probably had a better overall advertising campaign during the course of the election. People generally have short memories and would rather see a fluffy advertisement with little substance than a cold advertisement consisting of a grocery list of facts. George Bush gave the people more fluff than they could stomach, and compounded with his strong charisma, character, and sense of humor, it made him seem like a more attractive candidate than the generally pessimistic, sullen, and dry John Kerry.
I picked the 1988 Presidential Campaign. This was a time when the cold war was coming to an end. And this was a time was the federal debt was growing continuously. The two main candidates were George H.W. Bush v. Michael Dukakis. Bush was the Republican candidate and Dukakis was the Democratic Candidate. George H.W. Bush won, and he was Ronald Reagan's Vice President. Bush focused on some foreign issues, and the economy. And Dukakis had some problems along the way, such as some bad negative campaigns geared towards him. Bush won that election for those reasons and because he won the majority of the population with an arguable landslide.
ReplyDeleteBush and Dukakis on Crime- Bush's Negative Advertisement towards Dukakis
http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1988/willie-horton
Bush's Problems with Noriega- Dukakis's Negative Advertisement towards Bush
http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1988/1982-noriega
I found Bush's ad to be more persuasive because perhaps it stretched out the truth a little more. Plus the issue of just letting a weekend murderer out of jail does not make me happy, however Dukakis I think had an effective negative campaign ad with the pointing out that Bush didn't tighten down our defenses on the border. Plus the picture and the info given on Willie Horton was a little more interesting to listen to. I think that both the ads were targeted to a lot of groups and just the public in general. I think the Bush ad was targeted on people who were not sure on their views on the death penalty and those were had opposite views of the death penalty for persuasion, and people who were falling in the middle and had a tough time deciding want candidate to elect. The Dukakis ad was targeted mostly for those who were not so sure of their opinions on the border issues and it was probably used to persuade people who favored Bush for this reason to vote for Dukakis. And for people who supported Dan Quayle (Bush's VP Candidate) The evidence was in the info it gave. For example the Bush ad gave specific facts such as that Willie Horton received 10 weekend passes from prison and he committed acts of violence. And for the Dukakis ad it was supported by when it pointed out Bush didn't do the best, and asked people how they thought Quayle was going to do. Bush's ad was more appealing because Dukakis all he really had was a picture of drugs, and a picture of Bush half smiling. And the Bush one was more appealing because he showed the picture of the criminal who received weekend passes, Willie Horton. It was more appealing to look at the Bush ad in general. The pictures mattered a whole lot. If the ad didn't show the picture of Willie Horton, then people probably wouldn't believe the ad, and people associated Dukakis with Willie Horton's picture. Plus the music in both ads were very quiet, sincere, and serious as they were trying to present very negative info. The Dukakis ad also used pictures effectively I believe to present a point. I think that the more negative they make the ads and sometimes the further the truth gets stretched, I think that the more effective the ad will be because I think people will better associate negative advertising with candidates.
I have chosen the election of 1992 Presidential Campaign of Clinton vs. Bush (vs. Perot). George H.W. Bush was credited with the military victory of Operation Desert Storm and had achieved approval ratings of 90%. Soon the economy began faltering and Democrat Bill Clinton and his running mate, Al Gore, made that his main campaign topic. The independent Ross Perot also ran and focused on deficit reduction.
ReplyDeleteBill Clinton-Second
http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1992/second
George Bush- What I am Fighting For
http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1992/what-i-am-fighting-for
I feel that the Clinton ads were more persuasive than those of George Bush. Clinton took a strong position on the state of the economy and made it known that he had a plan to deal with it. He also was pro-death penalty, a Republican ideology, seeming to remain in the middle so he couldn't be labeled a liberal. He targeted the lower and middle classes, especially when he spoke about welfare reform. President Bush, the incumbent, took a much more defensive stance. He mostly used attack adds against Clinton's inexperience in foreign policy with a threat of some unknown enemy. His slogan was Commander-in-Chief. These ads would have been much more effective if there had been a specific enemy at the time. Ross Perot's ads all focus on the economy which helped raise the awareness that Clinton wanted of Bush's economic policy. Especially if he won almost 20% of the popular vote. This election was truly based on the economy.
Republican Dwight Eisenhower and Democrat Adlai Stevenson ran for president in 1952. In this election Eisenhower won by a very large margin. The main determinants of the races appeared to be Eisenhower's previous experience with war and his want for peace and also his appeal as an "everyday man" in many of his campaign aids and speeches.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1952/platform-double-talk
http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1952/ike-for-president
The second ad (Eisenhower's) seems to be the most persuasive because it makes the viewer more likely to remember the candidate with the catchy jingle, and it also presents Eisenhower as a common man fighting for peace, while the first ad was confusing and didn't seem to get any points across except voting for Stevenson. The ads appeared to be intended for all audiences, because they were presented in a cartoon and would have appealed to men, women and children of any age.
The ad presented by Eisenhower seemed to be the more appealing because it was upbeat and energetic, while Stevenson presented his in a confusing way which he intended, but seemed to backfire on himself. In both the images and music were key factors in both because it presented the ads in a way that made the viewer associate them with the ad in general. Most upbeat political ads such as Eisenhower's "Ike for President" ad tend to be more popular than dark and confusing ads presented by some candidates for president. It always seems better to be the "good guy" in political ads.
I chose the 1980 election between Ronald Reagan and the incumbent Jimmy Carter. Ronald Reagan won because in part because the voters in general were becoming older and more conservative and because things were not going to well in America. We had hostages in Iran, and we could do nothing to get them back, high inflation, and gas shortages during Carter’s presidency.
ReplyDeleteReagan’s commercial
http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1980/podium
Carter’s commercial
http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1980/state-60
I found Reagan’s ad to be a lot more convincing even though it was a negative ad. The ad was dark, gloomy, and talked about things that voters actually care about and things that relate to them. It first brought up how Jimmy Carter wouldn’t debate and made him sound like a coward. Then it talked about how high inflation was, unemployment, cost of housing, and interest rates: all things that that affect the common American. It made Jimmy Carter seem like a failure. Jimmy Carter’s ad talked about how much the president has to deal with every day. It was more cheery and talked about how world leaders respect him, so the voters should too apparently. It was a minute long ad that made him seem like an elite and not the common person. I did not like it.
I picked the 1976 election between Carter and Ford. After the scandalous in-coming of Ford to the presidency due to Nixon’s resignation, the public had lost virtually all faith in our government as a whole and were still weary when election time rolled around. Carter won for two main reasons, Ford made the detrimental mistake of unconditionally pardoning Nixon, which didn’t set well with most American’s. And secondly, Carter came in saying he’d “never tell a lie to the American people,’ which gave him that outsider appeal everyone was looking for.
ReplyDeleteCarter: Secrecy
http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1976/secrecy
Ford: Criswell
http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1976/criswell
I found Carter’s ad much more persuasive. He played to his already formed public face; he was there to be the new nice guy for an America on the rebound. He milked his southern origins for every drop he could and it worked. His target audience was the bulk of the population, “the good old blue collar workers.” Ford’s on the other hand, was of a Pastor advocating him for office on the grounds that he declined an interview with Playboy, resonating with the overly conservative old white folks in the south. Over all, its pretty clear which commercial was more pleasing. Carter actually had some substance however rudimentary and hick-like. My first reaction to the Ford commercial was utter dismay. Why the hell would you make a bid for president with a base statement of ‘Vote for me!.. I choose not to have an interview featured opposite of a bunch scantily clothed women. I have real values, clearly.’ Its so awesomely random I couldn’t help but laugh. As far as bolstering images and music goes, both were pretty weak, but at least Carter’s was right where his target audience was comfortable; a bean field. Ford’s was in a massive church, and he wasn’t even present. It left me only humored. Had I been more than a sparkle in my parent’s eyes, and of age, I would have held a press conference saying that both candidates had the appeal of a sword wielding orangutan, and that I would be completely okay if the American public unanimously voted me supreme ruler of this here country, seeing as those monkeys were inept.
I picked the 1996 election Clinton vs. Dole. The economy at the time was very strong and sturdy and people were content with the foreign policy issues.
ReplyDeleteClinton was the first Democrat since FDR to be elected to a second term. 1994 the federal government was shut down twice because of the intense budget battles between the president and congress. Clinton most likely won because of his way of linking Dole to (former) Gingrich and he covered mainstream causes like Family Leave Act, college tuition credits, and a ratings system for tv. Although Dole tried to get the public to go against Clinton, they cared more about Clinton’s job performance and showed little interest in his scandals (Whitewater, Filegate, and Travel gate.) Clinton used “protecting our values”, but for Dole, with a healthy economy and shrinking budget deficit, a tax cut was not a high priority for voters.
Clinton: http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1996/surgeon
Dole: http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1996/pants-on-fire
I find Clinton’s ad more persuasive because he actually talks about the things he wants to change and how he is going to help the people. Dole’s ad just says Clinton’s “unuuusually good” at lying. And even in Dole’s other ads, the only thing he says that has to do with helping the people is lowering taxes 15%. In these times, the economy was already steady and people weren’t really worried about getting their taxed lowered. Since that was pretty much Dole’s only “look how I can help you” technique, people didn’t really have a reason to think he would bring anything else to the presidency. Clinton promised lowering taxes, lowering tuition, and making opportunity for children. And he focused on education and helping the future, which is what people wanted to see at the time. Clinton’s ad was a combination positive-negative ad that supported him but then “attacked the other candidate. He used bright lively pictures while talking about what he would do to “brighten our future” and when he talked about Dole, he used black and which, murky images to give off a negative effect.
Second go around on this blog.
ReplyDeleteI did the election of 1968. nixon ran as a republican, humphrey ran as a democrat, and wallace ran as one of the most successful third party campaigns since 1924. The year 1968 was very turbulent itself. The tet offensive, Robert kennedy and martin luther king were killed, and many protests including the student take over of columbia university added to the tension in america.
Nixon's campaigns slogan was "Vote like your whole world depended on it". He was trying to appeal to more conservative voters by using startling still frames of protests to portray america as out of control.
http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1968/the-first-civil-right
this ad is a perfect example of the tactics Nixon and his campaign used. still framed photos of bloody protesters and ominous music give the feeling of anarchy.
Humphrey tried to claim the public and wanted to prove he could be trusted to protect america and that he would remember public service.
http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1968/mother-and-child
IN this ad a woman, holding her child, contemplates what kind of world her child will grow up in. This tried to appeal to people who were concerned with the protesting and turbulent events that were taking place in 1968.
Wallace was the alabama governor, and a staunch conservative.
http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1968/businglaw-and-order
His ads were basically boring and simplistic. He stood behind a podium and outlined his conservative views outline a crack down on crime, and that america should just bomb vietnam to end the conflict.
I found nixon's ads to be the most affective and aesthetically . they uses scare tactics to appeal or scare voters. their slogan "vote like your world depends on it" implies that people are voting for anarchy or sanity. The music and symbolism had a huge part in many of the adds of this election.