Post #3: Campaign Ads
This is the season for campaign ads. Find a campaign ad to analyze. Places you can search for ads include youtube, candidate webpages, or news articles about campaign ads. Include a link to the ad you analyzed and answer the following questions:
1. What techniques is the ad using to try to persuade voters to vote for their candidate?
2. Are these techniques successful in the ad?
3. Fact check at least 1 piece of information in the ad. Does this ad accurately or inaccurately reflect the candidate or their opponents' record?
You will need sources for the third point at a minimum.
You can analyze any current campaign ad you want. It has to be from 2010 but it can be for any local, state, or national race. It can be from a candidate or from an interest group.
Have fun with this! Due Friday, 10/8th.
posted by M. Aby @ 12:19 PM
32 Comments:
Ad I'm analyzing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlrQ1MiLkk4
This is a campaign video for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D, Nevada), attacking his conservative Tea Party opponent Sharron Angle. In the video, it shows how Reid secured $83 million in federal funding to help out Nevada schools and teachers facing layoffs and budget cuts. It also attacks Angle, who would have voted no on the emergency funding for Nevada schools, and then goes on to play a soundbite from an interview in which Angle expresses her desire to eliminate the Department of Education. To gain support for Reid, who has been a large target for Tea Party anger, the video tries to cast Reid in a favorable light to parents, teachers, and school-age people, portraying him as on their side.
The techniques used by the video were successful in my opinion, because besides the economy and national defense, education is a large concern for voters, and in showing Angle's extreme beliefs on education, not many swing voters will be attracted to voting for her this November.
According to Politifact, the ad is telling the truth and not pulling Angle's soundbite out of context. In the interview used in the Reid ad, Angle makes it clear as day that she supports eliminating the Department of Education, because she believes that education is the responsibility of the states, not the federal government (1). The Department of Education has a budget of approximately $64 billion (2), almost half of which goes toward Pell Grants, which help put disadvantaged students through college (1).
(1) http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/sep/01/harry-reid/harry-reid-says-sharron-angle-wants-eliminate-educ/
(2) http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/index.html
This comment has been removed by the author.
Campagin Ad:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/22/campaign-ads-2010-election_n_683047.html#s143229
The Campaign Ad I chose regards Republican Sean Duffy running for State Representative of Wisconsin’s 7th district. The former representative of this district who has served since 1969 is retiring, so both Duffy and his opponent are new to the campaign process for Congress. In his ad, Duffy uses his background in lumberjacking to help make his point by saying “I’ll bring the ax to Washington.” His main focus in the ad is to attack the Liberals and their extreme spending, causing the national debt to be outstanding. His ad is optimistic, using bright colors and “pretty” pictures. The thing that bugged me regarding this ad is that yes, the ad has an optimistic view, but Duffy focuses more on his heritage rather than the issue. He claims he’ll “bring the ax to Washington”, but how? I do applaud him for focusing on why he would make a good Representative rather than attacking his opponent, simply because I’ve never been fond of ads that attack other candidates. Still, I think Duffy could have done a better job of focusing on the issues rather than painting an attractive picture of himself.
The main issue Duffy addresses in his ad is the economy, particularly excessive government spending. Duffy, like many conservatives, despises spending by the government and would rather have small businesses generate the nations wealth (1). He didn’t agree with the passing of the stimulus bill and believes it hurt more than helped the nation. At his official website, Duffy declares that he “firmly believes it isn’t too late to turn things around.” Duffy’s prime reason for the changes is to be able to send a healthy, prosperous nation on to the next generation (1).
One major criticisms of Duffy is that Democrats accuse him of supporting privatization of Social Security (3). This is untrue according to Duffy’s website. Although he makes it clear that Social Security isn’t the ideal plan for Americans, he very clearly states that he does not support the privatization of Social Security because he does not see that as a way of solving the situation. While researching Duffy I also came across some information that stated in 1997 he was on MTV’s The Real World (2). This is one of Julia Lassa, his opponent’s, main criticisms stating, “Duffy lives large, but the Hollywood lifestyle and powerful D.C. friends mean Sean Duffy’s out of touch with Wisconsin” (2). Despite this, I think it is important to realize that his stint on MTV was over ten years ago, and that he wouldn’t be running for State Representative if Republicans in his district didn’t have faith in him.
Duffy has received endorsements from Governor Pawlenty of Minnesota’s Freedom First PAC as well as former Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin (4). In general, I think the particular ad that I chose of Duffy’s wasn’t the strongest, but I don’t think campaign ads sway a huge amount of people, especially those who already have their set beliefs. Therefore, I don’t think this particular ad will have a huge effect on the people of Wisconsin’s seventh district. Never the less, because there aren’t an incumbents in this particular race, it is very important for Duffy to get his name out there as well as thoroughly stating his beliefs regarding policy in government during his campaign.
(1) http://www.duffyforcongress.com/issues/economy
(2) http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/17/sean-duffy-takes-an-axe/
(3)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUd5qwuzzJc&feature=related
(4) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/29/sean-duffy-former-mtv-rea_n_628269.html
Campaign Ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFLTkbN968Q
Minnesota Forward uses children to try and make the case that gubernatorial candidate Mark Dayton will increase taxes by 5 billion dollars on Minnesota families. They claim the increased taxes will kill jobs and increase the amount of money family’s pay by 2300 dollars. The ad then points out that Dayton’s family has money in South Dakota where there is no state income tax. Lastly the ad says that he is just another Washington politician. The whole point of the ad is to try and convince Minnesota voters that a Dayton victory in November will be bad for Minnesotans.
I think the ad is successful in scaring voter into thinking that Dayton will further hurt Minnesota economy with his increased taxes on families. The economy is a large issue for voters this election season and with ads like this it will make voters think twice before voting for him. The ad also does a good job attaching the label him that he is just like all the other Washington politicians. Voters are also anti-incumbent this election season so linking Dayton with incumbent policies is a good way to drag him down.
This campaign ad has lots of problems with it. First, Dayton proposes raising taxes on only the top income earners in Minnesota not all Minnesota families (1). The revenue from this tax would only total 1.9 billion dollars not 5 billion dollars (1). Minnesota Forward claims that the facts in the ad are what it would look like if Dayton raised taxes on all Minnesota families and Dayton does not plan to do that. Dayton’s family does have money in South Dakota, but it has been there for nearly 80 years and came from a trust formed by Dayton’s Department Store. Dayton says he has no control over it and claims he pay Minnesota and federal income taxes (1). Overall the ad seriously distorts Dayton’s policies by stretching and distorting the truth to fit Minnesota Forwards agenda.
(1) http://wcco.com/realitycheck/mn.forward.ad.2.1946373.html
The ad that I will be writing about is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEf09PWl71o, also known as one of the now infamous "Taxin' Tarryl Clark" ads that was created and endorsed by Michele Bachmann and her campaign.
The most obvious technique that this commercial employs is that of name calling,and the second most obvious has to be the exaggeration that the Bachmann campaign uses to create doubt and negative feelings in voters who were considering voting for Bachmann's main opponent in the Congressional elections; Tarryl Clark. The ad includes a narrator who appears to be an 'ordinary' American, and he is simply using the nickname "Taxin' Tarryl" whenever he mention's Clark's name. He also says that Clark has supported taxes every year that she has been in office and focuses on the fact that Clark supports a sales tax at a very busy time of the year- back to school season.
I think that this technique is only effective on swing voters who don't look very heavily into the issues at hand during election season. Otherwise, this attempt is shameful and pathetic on Bachmann's part. The only thing this ad truly does is annoy Democrats and Independents when their favorite shows are on on commercials, and reinforce the views that Republicans and Tea Party members already have. Therefore I think this ad is pretty ineffective. People are not dumb enough to simply base their vote off of a single commercial that has the same amount of merit as Watergate did (or at least I really hope that they don't).
On top of the poor excuse for a decdent ad, Bachmann was not even accurate in her claims against Tarryl Clark. Clark has done more for Minnesota citizens than just irresponsibly cutting taxes that we obviously need to some extent (they do fund education, folks). Clark cut her own office budget and pay (1). If more government officials would do this our state government would have much more money to spend in areas that are underfunded. Clark also authorized legislation that HELPS homeowners by increasing the maximum level of allowable property tax refunds and advocates reducing our federal deficit to ultimately create a better and stronger economy (1). The next time Bachmann decides to make an immature commercial about an opponent, I hope she is at least accurate in her accusations.
source 1 is www.tarrylclark.com/issues by the way
The campaign that I focused on was Tom Emmer’s.
VIDEO LINK: http://www.emmerforgovernor.com/connect/videos/2010/10/tom-emmer-commercial-balance.html
1. The techniques used in this ad were to use a great deal of ethos. He tried to get to the heart of people by using a calm voice. He kept on talking about how we need to get back on track and create jobs for people. He also had visuals of families and businesses smiling and everything seemed to be cheerful. He also said a key aspect, spending money that the government has, not money that we will eventually have to pay off. I thought that he made a great point when talking about that.
2. I felt that his techniques were very successful because he is trying to appeal to the voters. His tone of voice and the way the whole video was laid out, made it for a successful ad. His slogan was “A New Direction”, in my opinion isn’t that good of an idea because I feel like our current governor is on the same page as him. Other than that I felt that this was a successful ad because he mainly focused on himself, except for the initial jab at the beginning.
3. He says right in the beginning that the other candidates are promising to increase spending and increase taxes. He is correct. The argument that he had is completely legal because when I went to Mark Dayton’s website, he clearly states that he will have a tax increase. If he is elected, he says that he will add on a 4th income Tax Bracket. He says that this will raise an additional 1.899 billion dollars for the Department of Revenue. (1) He also says that he will add a 3rd property tax bracket, and that he will increase enforcement to find tax frauds. This will raise the tax totals to reach 2.834 billion dollars. (1) Even though he says that other candidates are trying to increase taxes, he doesn’t mean all of them. He is simply attacking the Democratic Party, because in his latest interview, he said that he thinks that Dayton is his only competitor.
Source:
1. http://markdayton.org/mainsite/issues/taxes/taxes-plan/
This is the actual video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jU7fhIO7DG0
This is a spoof video that you may like http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/05/inevitable_spoof_of_alabama_ag.html
This ad is supporting Dale Peterson for the Alabama Agriculture Commission. From the very beginning he came riding in on a horse, describing his leadership credentials in the marines, police force, and as a businessman to persuade the constituents that he is their man. During his second argument, he states vaguely that “thugs and criminal” have been keeping people in the dark about the true nature of the Agriculture Commission. Peterson then continues to accuse his opponent, Norman Grace, a Democrat, that he was bragging about receiving illegal money on facebook. In this instance, he tried to tear down his opponent with libel describing Grace’s lack of integrity and even going so far as to call him a “dummy.” In his final statement, Peterson vows to be tough and get down to what is important. Throughout the 60 second ad, he appeals strongly to the ultra-conservative part of Alabama by riding a horse; gun in hand, while playing patriotic music to inspire confidence.
The techniques used in the ad would only be successful to the lowest of the educated in Alabama. He works the phrase “thugs and criminals” into his speech, but when played back, those words don’t work with what he’s trying to say. If by chance he means to be calling Democrats thugs and criminals, the message wasn’t accurately portrayed. He also resorts to using attacks that might be considered distasteful. Peterson calls his opponent a “dummy” and those who support him must also be dummies. I would hope that at least slightly educated people would be able to see above this tactic. The only thing he did successfully was portray the ‘American’ attitude by using a horse and a gun; he reached into the roots of America to get the vote of the patriot. As a whole, the ad is flawed and offers up little reason to vote for him based on his platform.
Peterson lays out many broad and true facts that don’t really offer something concrete to his position. He did however say that Alabama’s unemployment rates are at an all time high, but since January 2010, unemployment has decreased by 2% (1). He also says that illegal immigrants happen to be coming in by the thousands. This fact turns out to be true, it is projected that 10,000 illegal immigrants come into the U.S. every day (2). Peterson stays safe by not saying that immigrants are actually taking American’s jobs, but it is implied when he said that farms are being lost daily. One of the only facts that he said was that the Alabama Agriculture Commission is in charge of 5 million dollars, but alas, the number is closer to 30 million when taking into account the employees of this branch (3). He makes it hard to fact check some of the things he says because either it’s too vague or completely absurd. At one point he said that his opponent was stealing his lawn signs out of people’s yards. It is an unsubstantiated claim which cannot be proven, casting a shadow of doubt on the entire advertisement.
1) http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=usunemployment&met=unemployment_rate&idim=state:ST010000&dl=en&hl=en&q=alabama+unemployment+rate#met=unemployment_rate&idim=state:ST010000
2) http://www.theamericanresistance.com/ref/illegal_alien_numbers.html
3) http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/2010/05/18/dale-peterson-alabama-agriculture/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/22/campaign-ads-2010-election_n_683047.html#s152658
I decided to analyze an ad that was in support of Sharron Angle. Angle is running for the Nevada Senate and friends of hers put out an ad that pointed out all the horrible things her Democratic opponent Harry Reid has done in office.
Throughout ad they have a middle-aged woman talking about how Reid is “out of the loop” of what is good for the state of Nevada, the examples they showed were: spending $787 billion dollars on a failed stimulus, how he voted to illegal aliens special tax and social security benefits, and how he wanted to use tax payer dollars to pay for Viagra for convicted child molesters and sex offenders.
They purposely tried to pick stories about him that were obviously important on people’s minds right now, for example: how he spent $787 billion dollars on a failed stimulus plan this shows to voters that he wouldn’t be very good at fixing the horrible economy since he wasted so much money on a stimulus plan that didn’t even work. Also how they talk about illegal immigrants and social security together is another example of how they were trying to get the voters outraged about Harry Reid’s decisions. Illegal immigrants and social security is a very big issue to voters these days and how Reid wanted to give them benefits is just another example why voters would not vote for him since it sounds like he doesn’t care about actual U.S. citizens.
The last statement against him was how he voted to use tax payer dollars to pay for Viagra for convicted child molesters and sex offenders. I decided to look this up and see if that statement was actually true. The vote description for Bill H R 4872 on The Washington Post is: Motion to Table Coburn Amdt. No. 3556; To reduce the cost of providing federally funded prescription drugs by eliminating fraudulent payments and prohibiting coverage of Viagra for child molesters and rapists and for drugs intended to induce abortion (1). And it states that Harry Reid voted “yes” (1). This means that Reid never voted to have federally funded Viagra for child molesters; it was actually the complete opposite of what Angle’s ad stated. This makes me wonder what other “facts” campaign ads have are actually complete lies.
Not only did Angle use stories to make Reid sound like someone who is backwards on what to do with current events but the imagery she uses in the commercial also helps make voters dislike Reid. The ad shows dark black and white photos of Reid, and pictures of criminals that match up with the supposed things he supported.
If I hadn’t done the research about whether or not the statements said against Reid were true or not I would have been convinced that Reid was a horrible man that was clearly not ready to be a senator, but now that I have found out the truth I think that maybe Angle is really the one that isn’t ready.
1. http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/111/senate/2/votes/73/
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
YouTube Video Link : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZACou_kCCA
1. This Campaign video is promoting Mark Dayton for governor and it's going against other candidates who want to raise taxes. In the ad Mark Dayton is giving is opinion on Education, Jobs, and Taxes. Dayton's standpoints is that he wants to invest in education to help people succeed, Dayton also wants to improve job training to create jobs and get Minnesota moving in the economy, and incentives for small business. Dayton is main issue is taxes and how high they are for Minnesota. Dayton promises that he will not raise taxes for the middle class and he will cut taxes to help people and for a better Minnesota. Dayton covers a lot of issues in this ad and stating why he should be elected governor. His focuses on large issues faced by many Minnesotans is a tactical advantage for Dayton and this ad covers all the issues and Dayton's opinions.
2. I Think these techniques were successful because Dayton is presenting issues that people are facing today and promising that he will resolve them. In the ad he is talking to people about the issue and what his plan on them. Dayton is covering lot of issues in a 30 second commercial than other candidates who usually focus on one issue in one ad.
3. In a recent Star Tribune Article it states that Dayton is planning on cutting taxes for people by increasing taxes for high earners his plan also is about cut in spending by reducing paper work, private contracting, and coordinate state purchasing. Dayton's estimates indicate 1.2 Billions cut in spending. His plane is also to increase tax on the top 10% Minnesotans, which would raise 1.9 Billion, so it can cover up the gap from middle class tax cuts.
Star Tribune Article Link
http://www.startribune.com/politics/103446929.html
Campaign Ad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oFrj3l1RkA
One of the most memorable ads I have seen on TV regarding the midterm elections this year was an ad by the Alliance For A Better Minnesota that had to do with Tom Emmer and drunk driving laws. In the ad, a mother described the time when she was told her son had been killed by a drunk driver. She then said that Tom Emmer supported legislation that reduced penalties for drunk drivers and mentioned that he had gotten a DUI twice himself. The ordinary mother in the commercial is used so people feel that they could be in the same position and want there to be harsher penalties for drunk driving, which is the opposite of what they said Emmer supported. Also, they attacked Emmer's image when they said that he had received two DUIs. Many voters would not vote for someone that has gotten a DUI because it shows that he/she is not responsible and considerate of others' safety. Before I fact checked this ad, the primary reason why I was somewhat turned off by Emmer was because of this ad. I think the mother in the ad made you interested in it and I really was appalled that Emmer would want to reduce DUI penalties. I think that many people take drunk driving seriously and it was a good thing to attack him with.
According to WCCO, it is true that Emmer got 2 DUIs, one in 1981 and one in 1991 [1]. Although I don't think DUIs are ever acceptable, I don't think something he did 20 years ago should have a large impact on whether Minnesotans vote for him or not. Tom Emmer did sponsor a bill that had to do with drunk driving, but its purpose was to make it so that accused drunk drivers are punished only if they are found guilty [2]. It depends on the source, but most say that the accusation is misleading, and I personally think of the bill as one regarding individual rights rather than DUI penalties.
1) http://wcco.com/realitycheck/tom.emmer.dwi.2.1830372.html
2) http://www.factcheck.org/2010/08/corporate-labor-smackdown-in-minnesota/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/22/campaign-ads-2010-election_n_683047.html#s152669
The campaign ad I chose to do is Republican Christine O’Donnell’s political ad titled “She’s Still You.” In this ad, O’Donnell is using techniques to appeal to “ordinary” Americans who are “just like her.” She tells constituents in one message that she may not have gone to Yale or IB league colleges like many of her opponents did and that she didn’t inherit millions of dollars like many of her opponents did. She also tells us that she knows how “tough it is to keep a dollar.” She shows that she is competent by telling us that rival candidates have tried to push her away from the race but she has shown what she was made of. She also makes a promise to show the Senate what she is made of if they increase taxes “one more dime.” She uses a technique of appealing to voters by showing that she is not much different from them: she desires for herself and others the liberty of being able to keep a dollar with lower taxes in hard economic times. She focuses her ad on one specific issue that she feels strongly about. Plus, she looks well put together while she demonstrates that she is a thoughtful person just as you and I are.
These techniques are quite successful in the ad because it is easy to see how she could potentially rake in many Republican votes just from this political ad alone. She would rake in many Republican votes perhaps because this message is so vague and addresses an issue that many republicans agree with: lower taxes. She appeals to everyone because she says that she will fight for lower taxes. Without analyzing this statement, this sounds to be a good deal. Who doesn’t want a little extra cash in their pocket to make them financially secure? She doesn’t ask questions about heated topics such as abortion or gay marriage that would alienate some voters. She aims her campaign at a large group of Republicans with the same views as her. The techniques are successful, however one suggestion I would have for her is to make her campaign more noticeable. This ad gives me a reason to consider her because she seems well put together and to be the type who can uphold a promise, however it is too vague and I feel as if she is only specifying what a small part of her campaign will be focused on. She is staying on safe middle ground to gain voters approval.
When fact checking Christine O’Donnell, I found a few key things that I wished to highlight. Firstly, she has not been to such a school as Yale. However, she has had a class or two at Oxford (1). Also, I found it interesting that she is endorsed by Sarah Palin and the Tea Party movement and that that is providing a boost for her campaign. the Tea Party generally supports the more conservative idea of lowering taxes. This is something in which Christine O’Donnell’s political campaign ad and policies are consistent with thus far (2). Lastly, when it comes to money issues, I cannot imagine how at least currently she feels connected with the people who are being nickeled and dimed to their very last cents. She recently sued her formed employer for $6.9 million dollars based on gender discrimination (3). Maybe at one time she felt exactly of how many feel now, but it seems to me that she is financially secure. Still, she is a politician. She seems sincere and all at the same time to be as any other politician would be: a political thinker designed to get as many votes as possible.
1.)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_O'Donnell
2.)http://news.spreadit.org/chris-o-donnell-bio-christine-o-donnell-for-senate-pushing-the-gop-right/
3.)http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100915/el_yblog_upshot/who-is-tea-party-sensation-christine-odonnell
Ad
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUpDAGHCxHA
In this ad Tarryl Clark takes something Michelle Bachman said and blows it out of proportion. Bachman said that, “we need to wean everybody off social security”, Clark takes this and accuses Bachman of comparing senior citizens with addicts. Tarryl Clark is using exaggeration to make Bachman look bad. The ad contains phrases like “your money” Which leads the viewer to believe that Bachman is stealing from them. Tarryl Clark also chose to talk about social security which affects senior citizens. Senior citizens tend to take extreme interest in politics when issues that affect them are brought up. If the senior citizens believe that Bachman is against social security then Bachman would lose a large group of voters. I think most people would say it’s a stretch to say that Michelle Bachman compares senior citizens to drug addicts, but this ad does point out how Bachman feels about social security which could sway some voters so the ad could be somewhat affective. I think that some of the techniques could get the viewers attention, but hopefully most of the viewers realize how exaggerated some things are. The quote “we need to wean everybody off social security” is a real quote from Bachman. She said in a speech that explained her thoughts on reorganizing social security.(1) This phrase in Bachman’s speech seems completely legitimate, but taken out of the speech and put with some assumptions make it seem a lot worse.
1. http://thinkprogress.org/2010/02/08/bachmann-remove-socialsecurity/
I decided to go boring and analyze a Tom Horner campaign ad....
http://www.youtube.com/user/Horner2010#p/u/7/V9OYqcJvCP0
1. The ad uses the setting, a nice warm looking home, and Tom Horner sitting in a chair to appeal to the voter. Horner also isn't wearing a super dressy suit, instead wearing a sweater. Someone watching the ad may think, "Wow, he's just like me! He's an average Minnesotan who's running for governor, I should vote for him." The ad also shows that Tom Horner has owned a business before, so he can relate to small business owners. Horner also takes shots at the Democrats and Republicans by stating that he will "focus on what's right, not who's right." The ad tries to project Horner as the average Minnesotan who is relatable to middle-class Minnesota, I think that the ad is very successful at what it aims to do.
2. I thought the techniques were successful. Horner does not take any straight/specific shots at the Republicans or Democrats so he maintains his image as nice, respecting, and middle grounded. He also reaches out to members of both parties by discussing small business, and job creation. Horner also walks the walk by appearing middle class and not like he is better than everyone else. The only thing that is missing is a strong MN accent...drats.
3. I visited Tom Horner's webpage and found out that he actually does own a business (1), and that Himle Horner Inc. "has earned a reputation for creating the strategies and coalitions that promoted solutions for Minnesota’s future in economic development, health care, transportation, the environment, agriculture and other critical issues."(1) So Tom Horner is pretty much legit. Although it is interesting that recently Tom Emmer has begun to criticize Horner for having massive "lucrative" contracts with the state during his time at Himle Horner Inc. These contracts included writing speeches for government officials, rehabilitating the Department of Transportation's image after the 35W bridge collapse, and working on the Northstar commuter rail project (2). I personally feel that Emmer needs to target Dayton more than Horner because Horner's firm did a very good job in all the tasks that Emmer mentioned, and as of now, Horner is trailing Emmer in the polls.
1.http://www.horner2010.com/meet-tom-horner/
2.http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/polinaut/archive/2010/10/emmer_goes_afte.shtml
Ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUpDAGHCxHA
I chose a campaign ad that supports congressional candidate Tarryl Clark. The main focus of the ad is to show what incumbent Michele Bachmann wants to do with social security. The ad immediately grabs the viewer’s attention by accusing Michele Bachmann of referring to older people as addicts to social security. The ad has a strong main voice and uses capital red letters to emphasize words Michele has said, and to highlight reasons why she would be an ineffective representative. This ad is persuading people not to vote for Bachmann, and warning the audience what will happen with social security if they do.
The commercial was done in a creative form that definitely attracts the attention of viewers, and in some cases is successful. The attention it attracts however depends on the background the specific person has. This ad is primarily aimed at an older demographic. It shows how re-electing Michele Bachmann would specifically affect them. An uneducated viewer, who most likely came across this ad in the middle of a TV program, would fall for the techniques it uses. If they didn’t know Michele Bachman’s policies, after viewing this commercial they would become a bit suspicious of her and what she would do as representative. Many Democrats are already suspicious of Michele Bachmann and the ad may attract the attention of a few people, but for the most part they already know her policy. All the commercial does for Republicans is get them more disgusted and frustrated with the Democratic Party accusing their candidate of being untrustworthy.
It is true that Michele Bachman said that she wants to “wean people off social security” (2). She believes Medicare and Social Security need to be given out differently. The way the system works now Medicare and Social Security can’t be maintained without increasing debt on future generations. One crucial fact the ad didn’t mention was that she won’t change Social Security for those receiving the benefits now (1). Seniors need to know that fact because the way the ad was presented many of them would think that they would lose the benefits they were promised. The ad is deceptive when it comes to seniors. The creators exaggerated when they “linked drug addicts to grandma” (1). Michele’s opponent used accurate statements while making the ad, but took some of her words out of context and twisted them around.
1.http://wcco.com/local/bachmann.social.security.2.1942814.html
2.http://www.alan.com/2010/02/08/michele-bachmann-end-medicare-and-social-security/
3.http://www.youtube.com/user/TarrylClarkDotCom#p/a/u/1/gUpDAGHCxHA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QTRZmItUUQ
The ad I’m using is the Tom Emmer Balance commercial in which he talks about his plans for the budget if he becomes governor. Emmer begins the ad by insulting his opponents’ plans for taxes and spending (increases in both). He then goes on to introduce his basic plan to “create jobs and get us back on track.” Emmer makes himself look very relatable and family oriented in this ad by having shots of him walking down the street with his family. Emmer then goes on to talk about how he will limit spending and balance the budget if he becomes governor. In the ad Emmer comes off as very friendly and concerned for the individual watching the ad.
I think that some of Emmer’s techniques are effective, like the way he presents himself as a plain, friendly guy. The vibe of the ad is very positive and Emmer does seem incredibly relatable. However, I think that the reassuring language he uses when talking about the budget is only effective if you aren’t really paying much attention. In the ad Emmer doesn’t actually say anything even moderately concrete. All of the plans he presents are either incredibly vague (“get us back on track”) or else aren’t supported by anything (“I’m going to create jobs.” How?). However, overall the ad is pretty effective.
At the very beginning of his ad, Emmer talks about how all of his opponents are planning tax increases. This is mostly true, but the connotations of this statement are not really accurate. Tom Horner, this year’s Independence Party candidate, does plan on raising taxes (since that seems to be the only reasonable way to try to get out of some of our defecit), but Emmer makes it sound like he is just going to bump up everybody’s income tax and be done with it. In reality Horner wants to raise the sales tax and raise the taxes for upper income citizens (who are not the ones upon which the greatest burden falls now anyway) (1). So, while Emmer is technically not misrepresenting his opponents’ positions, he is making them sound much more negative than they probably would be.
1. http://www.horner2010.com/issues/taxes/
This comment has been removed by the author.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7tgNKxpNrU&feature=related
The link above is to advertisement by Tom Emmer, Republican candidate for Governor in Minnesota. The ad, titled “Work,” uses three primary techniques of persuasion: First, it primarily pictures of and statements by Emmer’s children to deliver the message that the candidate wants to increase employment by cutting taxes and reforming government. It is a nice- and friendly-looking family, and it is designed to make you like and trust Emmer. Second, the ad relies on humor. It says Emmer wants to help people find work, and one of the children says his dad is good at finding work for his kids. The humorous line is meant to be memorable. Third, the ad is simple. The message is lower taxes plus reform equal more jobs, which is most important issue to most people in this election.
I think the ad is successful. It portrays the image of a reliable man with a nice family who supports traditional values of hard work and good jobs. The message is easily understood, keys in on economic issues, and does not negatively attack Emmer’s opponents.
Emmer in the ad says he supports tax cuts. His voting record shows he has consistently voted against bills with tax and spending increases while in the Minnesota House of Representatives the last few years[1]. However, voting against tax and spending increases while in the minority party is not exactly the same as successfully getting legislation that cuts taxes passed. So while I would not say that Emmer’s ad is wrong on the facts, his record is not established enough to conclude he would focus on tax cuts if he was elected as Minnesota’s Governor.
[1] http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=38894
Ad analyzing:
This is a campaign ad made by the Minnesota's Future organization, a conservative leaning group, attacking Mark Dayton in the governors race for Minnesota. It talks about how Dayton was named one of America's worst Senators and how he earned a zero rating in wasteful spending. It goes on to talk about Dayton's plan to increase the income and property taxes and to also propose an e-mail tax. All of these tactics are extremely negative and attack Dayton for his beliefs.
The tactics used in this ad were very successful. When I first saw this ad I thought, "Wow, he's gonna jack crap up!" Bringing up his bad ratings was a good negative tactic because it shows the viewer what other people think about him. His beliefs on taxes were a good move too as most people don't like taxes too much. This may swing voters away from Dayton as he has been badly rated and plans to increase taxes.
Almost everything in this ad is a stretching of the fact. Mark Dayton was named one of America's worst Senators but by one writer in the Times (1). He was rated a zero on wasteful spending but by a conservative leaning group called Citizens Against Government Waste (1). Dayton does plan to increase the income and property taxes but on people earning, individually more than $130,000 and married more than $150,000, and on homes valued more than $1,000,000 not on all of Minnesotans (1). The supposed e-mail tax was proposed in Congress as a way to fight spam and was never brought up in the governor's race (1). This ad does not do a good job of telling us the negative views of Mark Dayton as they are stretching the facts to try and get people to turn away from Dayton.
(1) http://kstp.com/article/stories/S1765938.shtml?cat=89
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUKfYnxVtME
In this video Alan Grayson is using things that he has done in the past such as his pay for performance act introduction to get votes. At the start of the ad he shows the quote that says “a watchdog to watch.” He also tries to demonize Wall Street banks by accusing them of taking 700 billion tax dollars from Americans and trying to keep it. He then tries to show how much money that is by saying its enough to fill a giant football stadium. He has a calm confident tone to try to give views the impression that he is comfortable in office and that he is the man for the job. His biggest goal is to paint a picture of himself as a football loving good guy. He ends the ad with him kicking a field goal to try and show viewers that voting for him is a good idea.
Grayson did not do a particularly splendid job on his ad. To me he seemed a little phony and cocky. He uses the 1 million dollar case to say it is more money than people usually see in a life time. The million dollar case is totally useless to this ad. If anything it makes him seem a little pompous and like he is flaunting his wealth. It also seemed that he was sneaky with his wording and that he was trying to be tricky. On top of all that, the quote he showed in the beginning could be taken negatively or positively. I personally would not vote Alan Grayson to congress based on this video.
In the ad Representative Grayson claims to have headed the pay for performance act. This is a true statement. The biggest part of his strategy is to focus on American tax dollars. He makes it well known that his primary goal is to make sure that American tax dollars are not being wasted by any means. The pay for performance act was one of the ways he has worked toward accomplishing this goal [1].
[1]http://grayson.house.gov/ConstituentServices/accountability.htm
I analyzed an ad for Mark Dayton called “Fair Share.” It was made by his campaign. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mI5jLe77dvM
Some techniques that the ad uses are that he shows a lot of smiling children to make people want to spend more money on schools. He also is just casually sitting in a small shop talking to people so he appears to be an everyday man. Dayton says fair share a lot to emphasize the point of the ad. He attacks the rich by saying they are not paying enough taxes Dayton also attacks the Republican party by saying negative things about the Republican Governor Pawlenty.
The techniques that he uses are successful because when mothers see the smiling children they can relate and they care about their own children’s education. When he says that the rich are not paying their “fair share” of taxes, he appeals to low income voters. These low-income voters are a very important part of his voter base. Sitting around in a small shop talking with normal people makes Dayton appear friendly and honest. This technique is very useful because a lot of people vote at least partially based on the perceived character of the candidate. The negative reference to Republicans is effective because a lot of people do not even check facts. Putting the opposite party in a bad light increases Dayton’s chance of winning.
This ad is not completely accurate. Dayton says that Pawlenty cut spending for education, but Minnesota’s Consolidated Fund Statement, which shows the government’s spending, shows that spending for education actually increased while Pawlenty was in office(1). Dayton mention’s numerous times that the rich aren’t paying their “fair share” of taxes. For example he says, “If the richest Minnesotans paid the same percent of their income in state and local taxes as everyone else that would be over 4 billion dollars in additional revenue. However, the income tax rate is much higher for the higher income brackets than it is for people with a low income(2). Also, one should consider that the group of people who use programs like welfare, public health care and other government services paid for by taxes are almost always used by those with a low income. For example there is one program in Minnesota that actually pays people with low incomes out of taxpayer money(3). The wealthy are not getting nearly as much back from the government for what they pay. Many people would say that the rich are paying far more than their “fair share.”
1. MN Management and Budget http://www.mmb.state.mn.us/budget-cons-funds
2. Minnesota Revenue http://taxes.state.mn.us/individ/pages/filing_your_taxes_filing_requirements_inctxrates.aspx
3. Post Bulletin http://www.postbulletin.com/newsmanager/templates/localnews_story.asp?z=12&a=471004
In Tom Horner’s campaign ad, “The Picture”, he is using a picture to demonstrate how the democrats only see the left side of the picture and the republicans only see the right. Then the whole picture becomes visible, and Horner says that Minnesota needs a Governor that can see “the whole picture”.
This tactic is effective because it clearly tells voters that Horner is a moderate, independent candidate that will not have radically left or right policies. I believe that this appeals to a great number of voters in Minnesota. Especially now, with the suffering economy and issues like health care and gay marriage, the people of Minnesota will want someone who can see both points of view, and can make sensible decisions.
In this ad Horner claims to be a moderate candidate who can see both sides on issues. This is definitely true of Horner. One of his moderate views is taxes. For example, he believes we should have a tax reform, not just a tax increase. He wants to only raise revenue needed(2). Another very moderate view Horner has is his stance on abortion. He does not believe it should be against the law, but he is definitely for reducing abortions and increasing the amount of sex education and contraception(1). One example of how Horner also has views from different sides of the picture is his position on the GLBT issue. He supports same sex marriage. This is normally a very liberal view. An example of one of his conservative views is his view on health care. He believes Minnesota should pay for outcomes not procedures, and he says that Dayton’s proposal of a government-run, single-payer system will not work(3). All of these examples clearly show that Horner can clearly see “the whole picture”.
Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LAx2oLr1N0
Sources:
(1)http://www.horner2010.com/issues/abortion/
(2)http://www.horner2010.com/issues/taxes/
(3)http://www.horner2010.com/issues/health-care/
On Tom Emmer's Commercial: Balance
Tom Emmer's balance ad describes his plan to limit government spending by balancing the government's budgets. He uses this ad to appeal to Minnesotan families by comparing balancing state budgets to balancing family budgets. He plans to do this by only spending as much money as the state collects through taxes. This technique is effective because it doesn't promise to cut taxes, but to level out the spending with the amount of taxes collected. He also mentions the other candidates' promises of “massive spending and higher taxes” to frighten viewers away from them. This is effective at pulling people away from the other candidates because of it negative connotation. It implies that the other candidates would take the peoples' money and use it on things that the people don't want (1).
This statement about the other candidates spending is not completely true. In fact, Emmer's biggest threat, Mark Dayton's, website states that he only wants to put higher taxes on the richest Minnesotans, and to invest in “excellence in education.” In addition, Dayton references cutting taxes and balancing the state's budget (2). Emmer also mentions using government money to increase investment in education on his website (3).
All in all, I thought that the add was rather effective. He relates to the public, comparing government to family, while also denouncing his opponents. Though he doesn't mention his opponents by name, he does have a small inconsistency in his information.
1.http://www.emmerforgovernor.com/connect/videos/2010/10/tom-emmer-commercial-balance.html
2.http://markdayton.org/mainsite/issues/taxes/
3.http://www.emmerforgovernor.com/issues/education/
“Don't Let Mark Dayton Knock Us Down” - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvHBkUQirIU&feature=player_embedded
First off, the main points in the advertisement are to point out Mark Dayton's alleged tax policy and how he would be a poor choice for Governor of Minnesota. The tagline for the advertisement is “Don't let Mark Dayton knock us down.” The advertisement emphasizes how Dayton would increase taxes by 5 billion dollars, increase income and property tax, and how he is even in support of an e-mail tax. While an unidentified female voices these claims, video of children doing reckless acts and making discouraging faces plays with a cartoonish audio track in the background. The advertisement appeals to viewers' humorous and playful side, all the while making a direct case for why Dayton should not become Governer of Minnesota. It also makes assumptions about what the majority of Minnesotans believe with claims like “Feel surprised? A bit frustrated? Scared? That's how Minnesotans feel when they hear Mark Dayton's bad ideas.”
As long as the viewer decides not to further research the claims made in the advertisement, the techniques used are very successful. They attack Dayton's fiscal platform which viewer's likely identify with quickly. In addition, negative connotations created by the advertisement's use of funny and cutesy video of children and music suggest to the viewer that Dayton's policies are immature and unintelligent. The advertisement is quick (around 30 seconds) and effectively to the point which makes it much easier for viewers to digest and agree with.
This ad inaccurately depicts Mark Dayton's public policy. Minnesota Forward, the conservative organization responsible for the advertisement, skews reality and misrepresents many of the claims made of Dayton in the television spot. Dayton has never been in support of an e-mail tax, only of a proposed Computer Owners' Bill of Rights [1]. Dayton does support higher income and property tax but only on the wealthy [1].
[1] http://wcco.com/realitycheck/email.tax.dayton.2.1922781.html
The advertisement I analyzed was Tom Emmer’s new “Balance” video. Emmer’s whole campaign audience is the “family oriented” population. Even in this particular ad, you see Emmer and his family walking into a store together. With Dayton not being married, Emmer definitely has the upper hand in being the “family man” on the ballot.
Emmer is also talking directly to the camera, a way to feel more in touch with the viewers. The video is also short and to the point, which is a definite plus in many people’s eyes.
Within the first three seconds of the campaign video, Emmer states, “The other candidates are promising massive spending increases and higher taxes.” This is a well-placed line, for it starts off the ad with a blow to the other candidates, propelling Emmer to a higher stance in viewer’s minds.
In the advertisement, Emmer says he wants to have the government only be able to spend within their means. He plans on taking over one billion away from Education. How is that balanced one might ask? Emmer’s budget also takes away a little under a billion away from Job Creating Tax Relief (1). Emmer is also incorrect in his first statist of “the other candidates are promising massive spending increases. The biggest pieces of Horner’s budget are proposals for $2.45 billion in spending cuts (2). Horner has also proposed a lower sales tax rate; this shows the mudslinging that can be revealed by candidates around this time of year.
Overall, I do not think Emmer's new ad will convince anyone to vote for him, but it will reinforce the ideals that his supporters already have for him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QTRZmItUUQ&feature=player_embedded
(1) http://www.emmerforgovernor.com/budget/chart/
(2) http://www.horner2010.com/issues/horner-mulder-budget-outline/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFiocNdWNf4
The main technique this ad uses to persuade voters to vote for Tarryl Clark, as opposed to Michele Bachmann, is by telling people that Bachmann does not care about the people she represents as a Congresswoman, but rather that she only cares about appeasing the special and business interests who financially support her. The ad cites several examples, such as Bachmann voting in Wall Street’s interests 100% of the time, standing up for BP during the oil spill, and voting against Wall Street reform. Conversely, as Bachmann is having all these negative things said about her, Clark is implied to be better than Bachmann in these issues and, thus, better for the people.
In terms of effectiveness, some of the ad flies through; the facts seem reasonable enough and, giving the ad the benefit of the doubt, do seem to say that Bachmann cares a lot about special interest groups and corporations. However, there are a few problems that stick out when the ad is looked at more closely. The first problem is maybe a silly one, but for an ad that talks completely about her opponent, the music is rather upbeat, creating a dissonance between the content and the mood set by the music. This hinders the effectiveness. Another problem is the inclusion of a swear word in what amounts to the summation of the ad itself. While it is bleeped for censoring, and it does get across the supposed forcefulness with which Bachmann does not care about average people, it still seems starkly out-of-place and is extremely jarring. Perhaps the biggest problem with the ad, though, is that the main point of the ad, that Bachmann does not care about average people, is not strongly supported by all the points made. That she stood up for BP is probably the strongest point; BP made an inarguable mistake that was affecting thousands of average people but Bachmann sided with BP. The other points, though, don’t stand; that she supports Wall Street doesn’t mean she does not support average people, and the issue of reform is so presented with so little force that it carries no effectiveness.
Regarding the support of BP during the oil spill, it would seem that not only did she support BP by saying they “shouldn’t be chumps,” but she also attacked the fund the government got from BP to pay for the damages caused by the oil spill by calling it a “redistribution of wealth fund” (1). Also, she did indeed oppose Wall Street reform, implying it had socialist motives and using the term “czar” when referring to it (2). The fact check of the reform also brings to light how this reform would have benefited the people more than Wall Street, by preventing traps and abuses aimed at unsuspecting citizens taking part in Wall Street (3). With these things in mind, not only does the ad accurately portray Bachmann, but it actually effectively argues a solid case against Bachmann.
1. http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/06/bachmann-blasts-redistribution-of-wealth-escrow-fund-says-bp-shouldnt-be-chumps.php
2. http://host.madison.com/ct/news/opinion/column/john_nichols/article_a7173815-4d19-56b8-a606-6d339ece8ea1.html
3. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/40027.html
Ad: Michele Bachmann’s “Meet Taxin’ Tarryl” Ad, critiquing Tarryl Clark’s tax policy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOK7Mps7QZQ&feature=related
This ad uses very simple language that most Americans will understand, to convey the simple message that Michele Bachmann believes that Tarryl Clark “loves” taxes and spending. The ad portrays Tarryl Clark as a Congresswoman who only votes to support taxes and government spending, without explaining how Michele Bachmann’s votes differ or coincide with Tarryl Clark’s. By using simple language and talking about a topic that is sparks debate over how much the government should play a role in taxes and finance, Michele Bachmann is trying to get to the core voter beliefs to gain support.
The ad is not very effective in critiquing Tarryl Clark’s tax policies because it doesn’t mention specific cases where Tarryl Clark voted in support of increased taxes, it would have been more effective to list off some of the taxes and government spending that Tarryl Clark supported and then state how much money Minnesotans had to pay as a result of her actions. Michele Bachmann is basing her entire ad on the idea that the viewers will believe that “Tarryl Clark loves taxes,” but she is unsuccessful at actually explaining to the audience what Tarryl Clark’s actions were and how they affected Minnesota.
The premise for Michele Bachmann’s ad is her claim that her competitor, Tarryl Clark, “loves taxes.” What Michele Bachmann doesn’t say in the ad, is that she originally supported the same bill to raise the state sales tax, but then she changed her opinion, against the tax. Tarryl Clark did in fact support the sales tax increase and other taxes, but she also votes for financial aid to schools and low income families to improve the quality of education in Minnesota. Michele Bachman may not agree with all the taxes that Tarryl Clark supports, but that is a result of Michele Bachman’s philosophy that the government should limit spending, taxes, and regulations, and instead give more power to local businesses. Tarryl Clark may support increased taxes, but she is willing to put that money into important uses, like helping low-income families pay for education and financial aid to seniors.
-http://tarrylclark.com/about
-http://www.michelebachmann.com/2010/07/13/issue-1/
Ad I'm analyzing:
http://www.youtube.com/user/TarrylClarkDotCom#p/a/u/1/gUpDAGHCxHA
This is a campaign video for Tarryl Clark. She is running for the 6th district Minnesota seat in Congress. She is running against Michelle Bachmann, who her ad is directed at. In her message, Clark attacks Bachmann for her views on social security.
Clark uses deceptive techniques to attack Bachmann. She opens the message with pictures of drug addicts, labeling them addicts as they appear on the screen. then a picture of a grandma appears, and she is also labeled an “addict”. The narrator says then Bachman has said that we need to wean everybody off of social security, then attacks her saying that Bachmann doesn’t say that Social security is our money, and that it is an “addiction” that we need to break. The Ad also says that Michelle Bachmann cannot be trusted with protecting social security, that she’d rather protect her pay raises then promises to seniors.
The technique is very effective. even though it is not accurate, the ad paints a picture that Bachmann doesn’t care about senior citizens and views them as no better than drug addicts. Older people who see this commercial could be worried that they might loose their benefits if Bachmann is elected.
Although Clark accurately represents what Bachmann said about social security, she uses deceptive imaging to confuse voters. the ad exaggerates when it says “If Michelle Bachmann wants to wean people off of social security, she cant be trusted to protect it.” This is false. Bachmann has said that she would not reduce benefits for anyone who is getting social security now. She would however, be open to a plan that reduces benefits to those 55 and younger. [1] Clark tries to show that social security is a big issue for Bachmann, but Bachmann has never come up with any sort of plan for social security or even has any stances on her website.
[1] http://wcco.com/video/?cid=14
[2] http://www.michelebachmann.com/issues/
I'm analyzing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVAnyP9Gj0o
This is an ad for Christine O'Donnell from Delaware. The ad first makes the opponent, Chris Coons, look ridiculous and unfit for the Senate. It's followed by positive images of O'Donnell, standing up for Americans. The main technique is comparing her to her opponent, and emphasizing her conservative opposition to government intervention. The ad makes it seem like O'Donnell is on the people's side, and will do everything she can to serve them.
I think these techniques are very effective. Showing Coons as a dumb-looking little dog definitely turns voters off. The concrete promises made about O'Donnell will definitely appeal to voters, as will the bright, colorful, happy images. That's not to say that I'd vote for her, but the average citizen who knows nothing about either candidate would probably be drawn in by this ad.
The ad's claim that O'Donnell's opponent is Harry Reid's "pet" is a little out of context. Though it was a poor choice of words, Harry Reid threw in the quote when he was talking about Coon's actual qualifications, such as being a Yale graduate and a debate champion, and perhaps got too excited (1). Coons has emphasized that he is NOT anyone's pet, and that he intends to act independently if he wins the election (2). Reid's comment was phrased unfortunately, but it shouldn't be used against Coons or used in any way to represent how he will function in the Senate.
1. http://www.mediaite.com/online/harry-reid-odonnell-opponent-chris-coons-is-my-pet/
2. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/16/chris-coons-harry-reid-pet-independent-voice_n_720160.html
This comment has been removed by the author.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home