Televised Ads in Presidential Campaigns- Part 6

The financial crisis feared during the election of 2008 was the reality of the 2012 campaign. The American economy was weak and the unemployment rate was growing. These tough conditions contributed to the overwhelming negativity of the 2012 campaigns. This election exceeded all others in spending on television advertising time and unspeakably high production costs from both candidates. A chart from Washington Post had the Obama campaign’s advertising spending weighing in around $404 Million dollars and Mitt Romney’s campaign spending at a whopping $492 Million. It is estimated that over a billion dollars was spent on television advertisements in this election year proving that the Internet had not taken away from the importance of the tv ad. Obama’s campaign used a strategy familiar from George W. Bush’s second term. The negative ads tried to define Mitt Romney as a candidate who cared more for the wealthy than the common people hurt by the weak economy. The addition of celebrities and pop culture was still present during this election and the use of web ads was higher than ever.

The campaigns of 2012 are an example of what Americans can expect to see in advertisements during the 2016 campaigns. The blurring of popular culture and politics to grab the attention of the youth will continue to increase. More than anything, the spending is expected to increase in future campaigns. The shift from defining yourself as a candidate to defining your opponent is one of the newer attack advertising methods. The integration of social media in presidential campaigns will be increasingly important for candidates wanting to win an election.

Throughout history certain types of advertisements have remained popular in campaigns while others have died off with the creation of new technologies. The use of twitter has sped up the news cycle beyond compare and now Americans expect an instant response from candidates to attacks. Rapid response teams are crucial to staying in touch with the public. Cartoons and jingles are in the past, but the “Morning in America” advertisement is certain to be imitated for years. A few years before the first televised campaign advertisement in 1952, less than one percent of Americans had a television. By the next election in 1956 the amount of American households with a television had grown to nearly half of the population. When the 1960 campaigns came around America was well on the way to becoming a TV nation with around 80 percent of households having a television.  Today the rate has increased to around 97 percent. With practically 100 percent of the population owning their own televisions it is understandable why billions of dollars are spent on television advertising by campaigns.

By following the evolution of campaign advertisements in America it is apparent that there are a few types of ads directly related to the current hot topics in the country. During war-time advertisements focus on portraying the candidate as commander-in-chief. During economic turmoil advertisements attempt to make the candidate relatable to the average person. It is common to see a biographical advertisement focusing on humble beginnings during these types of campaigns. When there is no obvious issue at the forefront of an election campaigns focus on domestic issues and personality based advertisements to win over public approval. Although types of television advertisements are always changing the importance of the ads to a campaign is not.

Television advertisements may not make or break an entire campaign for a candidate, but they make an impact.  Attack ads do not always contain accurate information but they make an impression on the viewer. Some recent research estimates that four out of five Americans receive the majority of their knowledge on a candidate’s positions and character from advertisements rather than the news. The most false of attack ads can leave a lasting memory in the mind of an uninformed voter and hurt a candidate on Election Day. The spread of television and the instant ability to share an advertisement online makes the impact of negative advertisements immense. If a high production advertisement is provocative or shocking it gets free airtime on newscasts. Even if a television advertisement gets pulled from being aired for being false or misleading it can have a second life online. For these reasons and many others, television advertising is more important than ever in presidential campaigns.

Televised Ads in Presidential Campaigns- Part 4

Clinton’s 1992 campaign revolutionized the speed of response to attack ads, which were the focus of Bush’s first campaign. Clinton’s campaign ads focused on the economic issues of the time, which were important to many. Bush’s campaign attempted to release attack ads similar to 1988, but Clinton had a rapid response team that countered these ads and prevented them from hurting his campaign. Clinton’s biographical ad titled, “Journey” made him relatable to the working-class and gave Americans a personal history of his life. Quick response teams like the one employed by Clinton are now a necessity to every campaign.

Clinton ran for reelection in 1996 against the Republican nominee, Bob Dole. Clinton’s television spots had a higher production value in this campaign and focused on associating Dole with Gingrich, a republican that played a leadership role in the federal government shutdown right before the election. These advertisements blamed the federal government shutdown on the Republican Party and presented Dole in a way that made him look like part of the problem. Other advertisements used by Clinton focused on highlighting his first-term achievements and issues he wanted to approach if given a second term. Some advertisements, specifically one featuring children combined the negative and positive approach. These advertisements involved talking down Dole and promoting Clinton in a positive light. These ads are attack-ads of a less aggressive manner. Bob Dole’s campaign produced television advertisements that questioned Clinton’s character, but it wasn’t enough to concern Americans. Clinton’s advertisements touched on issues of major concern to the people and led to his reelection.

The campaigns of candidates in 2000 were more lighthearted than many before them. George W. Bush was running as the Republican nominee against Democratic nominee, Al Gore. A good economy and few major issues of interest for candidates to work with characterized this election year. The Bush campaign focused on promoting the image of him as a genuine and sincere man in contrast to Gore who was stiffer. Advertisements from both included positive images and music to create warmth. The Bush campaign was very concerned about keeping George as a man of good nature in the public’s eye and this influenced their attack ads. In an attack ad titled, “Really MD,” a female narrator makes sarcastic comments while television clips play of Al Gore speaking. The woman questions Gore’s trustworthiness in a comedic manner. The choice of using a woman’s voice to make the comments about Gore was likely to distance George from the harsh nature of the advertisement. Al Gore’s campaign focused on statistics and less emotion. In 2000 statistics and issues were not topics of concern and these advertisements did little to sell Gore to the public.

Chris Christie Mania – Race to 2016

photo from news.yahoo.com

In this post-shutdown/Obamacare-fallout/post-election phase that America is in, it is clear that lines have been drawn between Democrats and Republicans. It has turned into a battle of “us vs. them” for members of Congress. This Democrat VS Republican mentality is stronger than ever thanks to the blame game that has been ongoing since the shutdown.
I am tired of the extreme left/right, old school politicians that are not evolving with the sentiments of Americans. Young voters like myself feel a disconnect with the majority of political officials pushing outdated agendas. The GOP has extremely low approval rates after the shutdown and are rushing to find a candidate that has a chance to win the 2016 election for President. With many Republicans shifting to more liberal views on social issues it is unlikely that an extreme conservative stands a chance in the next election. Republican Chris Christie was reelected in New Jersey (a state that is less than conservative) giving the GOP hope along with a new potential candidate.

Why should you care about Chris Christie?
At the moment many Republicans are disappointed in the role the GOP played in the shutdown. Times are changing and Republicans are still conservative economically but many are liberal on social issues. When it comes to marijuana, abortion, gay marriage, and other issues traditionally thought of as “taboo” many Americans are opening up their minds. Along with the change in outlook, the Republican party has a significantly smaller percentage of Hispanic supporters than the Democratic party. With new attitudes of Americans comes a need for a new type of politician. Chris Christie, who many view as moderate, not only won in a blue state, but he won a large percent of the Hispanic vote in the state. He is known for his personality more than his stance on the issues, but it is apparent that the middle-class and hispanic population are in favor of him despite unfavorable feelings about the shutdown. Nothing is set in stone, but it is obvious that Chris Christie Mania has hit the press with CNN, Washington Post, and many other news organizations publishing multiple articles on his 2016 potential. CNN and The Fix both mention that Chris Christie’s record in government is not pristine which may be a problem in the future as the GOP pushes towards primaries. If anything it will be entertaining to watch a candidate such as Chris Christie who is willing to speak his mind and has a sense of humor. He is definitely one to watch as nominations get closer. I think Chris Christie Mania is just beginning and it probably will not be long until some of his “checkered record” is brought into the media spotlight.