This blog is for students in Ms. Aby-Keirstead's AP US Government class in Bloomington, MN. It is for students to post their thoughts on current events and governmental affairs. Students should be respectful & think of this forum as an extension of their classroom. The instructor has the same expectations for classroom discussion & blog posts. These posts will be graded for both their academic merit & for their appropriateness.
Pick another student's post to respond to. In order to write a thorough response you should also watch their ad. Focus your post on what you think of the ad and what you thought of their commentary on the ad.
posted by maby-keirstead @ 8:43 AM
This blog is for students in Ms. Aby-Keirstead's AP US Government class in Bloomington, MN. It is for students to post their thoughts on current events and governmental affairs. Students should be respectful & think of this forum as an extension of their classroom. The instructor has the same expectations for classroom discussion & blog posts. These posts will be graded for both their academic merit & for their appropriateness.
Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]
29 Comments:
In response to Jesse:
Jesse did his campaign ad on Republican Dale Peterson, who is running for the Alabama Agriculture Commission. Honestly, the first thought that came to my head when I saw this ad was “what the heck”. This ad is very dramatic and Peterson appears to be quite the character. He arrives into the scene on horseback talking about all of his qualifications for the job. There is quite a lot of pathos in his argument, so much pathos that at some parts, his arguments seem unrealistic. He says that government officials are keeping people unaware of the agriculture commission, calling them “thugs and criminals”. These are strong connotations, yet the way they are presented seems almost ludicrous. The fact that he mentions that the other candidate was bragging on his facebook page seems unprofessional, almost like a little kid tattling on another child. Also, him calling his opponent a “dummy” makes Peterson himself sound like a dummy! In general, I feel Peterson makes some good points, but they way he presents the information makes it hard to take him seriously. It is true, for instance that Alabama’s unemployment is at an all-time high. In fact, the state is leading the nation in unemployment with a rate of 9.2 percent in August, though it had fallen from earlier in the year (1). The only reason he mentions immigrants and unemployment are to further his statement about family farms being lost. When family farms go out of business, those people lose their jobs, which ultimately go to immigrants at huge corporate farms. Although none of this is directly stated, it is all implied.
Dale Peterson’s unprofessionalism well as his negative focus on the “thugs, criminals, and dummies” hinders the effectiveness of this campaign by a long shot. I completely agree with Jesse, that although Peterson does bring up some good points, it is hard to fact check them because of their vagueness. His name-calling is very biased and absolutely ridiculous and he doesn’t actually give any facts about his opponents besides going on a rant about facebook. I also agree that the facts he uses don’t really have anything to with the position he is running for. He is only using them to back up his family farm comment. I thought it was interesting that Jesse found that, while Peterson stated that the Alabama Agriculture Commission is in charge of 5 million dollars, the actual number is 30 million dollars. This is a huge difference, and Peterson should fact check his information before putting into a campaign ad! It also leads me to wonder: Peterson says he can deal with 5 million dollars, but can he deal with 30 million? I also liked how
Jesse commented on how educated people could see through Peterson’s use of words. It seems as though Peterson is almost gearing his campaign at the uneducated lower class because of his use of vague and very crude dialect.
All in all, I think that Jesse did a very nice job with analyzing and fact checking this campaign ad. I found his post to be interesting to read and I enjoyed some of the information he presented. I completely agreed with how he viewed the ad and also enjoyed the spoof; though I do think the original ad is better.
oops forgot this!
(1) http://www.49countynews.net/MikeMillican/MikeM.2010929.html
In response to David:
The ad David did his blog on attacked Mark Dayton and was by Minnesota Forward. In the beginning it had little kids that had sad faces and were crying. It then said that Dayton was planning to raise Minnesota's taxes by 5 billion dollars, an average of $2300 per family. It also mentioned that Dayton had property in South Dakota, where was there was no income tax.
I personally didn't think this ad was effective. The crying babies were over the top and the woman's voice in the background sounded weird and unintelligent. The background music was very childish and added to the appearance of unintelligence. Also, I thought the argument about how much of Dayton's property was in South Dakota was a weak argument and mostly irrelevant.
Besides the over-the-topness of the ad, I think it did bring up some valid arguments about taxes. I know Dayton isn't planning on raising taxes by 5 billion dollars, but he is still going to raise them a lot. This may not even help Minnesotans very much because in the past, he has been known to be an out of control spender and a waster of money. It may be true that "Minnesota can't afford Mark Dayton."
I agree with David that the ad may have scared away some voters because most people are generally against a raise in taxes and they might have thought their taxes would be raised even if they made less than $130,000. The economy is a huge issue in this election even more than it usually is and many people think that the government should not be spending so much money and they think that taxes are "job-killing," as mentioned in the ad. I think the best point that David made was that it will hurt Dayton if he is connected to incumbents in Washington. When the ad said that Dayton was just like all of the other Washington politicians, it may have turned off many voters because they are not happy with the current situation in Washington and want new leadership.
There are definitely some problems with this ad, as David said. He said that Dayton is only planning on raising taxes by 1.9 billion dollars, which is a major difference from 5 billion. It is also important to point out that the average family's income won't raise by $2300, though the higher income ones will have their taxes raised much more than that. Dayton's property in South Dakota has been there for over 80 years and again, it is an irrelevant argument. Overall, this add did more than stretch the truth.
Nice Job David!!
I think Mark Dayton’s ad is appealing, especially to the public. In the ad it shows Mark talking to some Minnesotans in a business like environment. The people sitting in the room are all diverse. He has different races, ages, and men and women all listening to his short speech. He has older people to even children nodding their heads yes as he is speaking.I think he did this on purpose to show that it would be in everyone’s best interest to vote for him. I especially like when Mark Dayton emphasizes education, there are shots of the kids listening intently in the audience.He is definitely the center of attention in this commercial, and speaks in a confident voice that helps voters gain his trust. The commercial ends with the audience members all clapping and cheering, which shows viewers that he is receiving a lot of public support.
I agree with ARAvinthan, when he says these techniques are successful to Dayton. He does cover a lot of material in the thirty second time slot Dayton was allotted. The material he covers was obviously thought over, because he chose the ideas that are the most controversial right now in the race. I partially disagree with ARAvinthan when he says that “other candidates usually focus on one issue in their ad.” When I was looking through commercials for the post, it seemed to me that all the candidates wanted to stuff as much information as they could in the little time they had.
I liked the backup information he had on Mark Dayton’s plan on cutting taxes for the middle class. The Star Tribune is a reliable source for information. In my search I found the same information about how Dayton is increasing taxes on the upper class. “Dayton, who already proposed increasing income taxes on Minnesota's top earners, said he has no secret plan to raise taxes more” (1.) ARAvinthan had a great post with a lot of details about what Mark Dayton wants to do, and the evidence backing him up. Awesome Job!!
1.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZACou_kCCA
2.http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/polinaut/archive/2010/10/dayton_tax_plan.shtml
In response to Lexi:
I completely agree with what Lexi had to say about Christine O’Donnell, who is running for senator in the state of Delaware. O’Donnell does appear to be very relatable, as that is the whole point of her ad: to make her seem that she understands the people’s problems since she is just another one of us. She is convincing of that because in the ad she is just put in a simple backdrop and she, herself, is dressed in a simple black dress suit.
I also liked how Lexi pointed out that because the statements she made in the ad were so vague it would mostly likely get her more votes because she is not talking about big issues, but rather that she wouldn’t want people to raise the taxes. Even though lowering taxes is a key point to the Republican Party, the way she worded and stated it made her sound more moderate than anything, which would perhaps get her some votes from people that want lower taxes. I think it was to her advantage that she didn’t go into any deep issues and state her opinion because than this ad can get extra votes from people who feel that they can relate to her.
I also thought that it was interesting that Lexi found out that she had just won a court case, winning her $6.9 million, when she sued her last employer under claims of sexual discrimination. With her won $6.9 million it makes it hard for me to believe that she actually can relate to the taxpayers. But she is a politician, and they are just trying to get more votes.
In response to Anna....
The ad that Anna chose attacked Michele Bachmann and specifically her stance on social security. The ad begins with mug shots of drug addicts and then a picture of a senior citizen with the description of "addict" (2). I think that this is an effective way of pulling in a viewer. Someone would be shocked that a smiling, cute, innocent old lady would be characterized as an addict. It definitely appeals to a viewers emotions.
I visited WCCO Reality Check to see if what Clark was charging Bachmann with was true. As Anna found, Bachmann did say that she wanted to “Wean everybody off”, and that “Social security isn’t your money” but these statements are exaggerations of Bachmann’s actual views (1). While Bachmann doesn’t have a specific plan for social security listed on her webpage, she has stated that she does not want to end it for those who are currently on social security. Her idea is to decrease the benefits for those who will be on social security in the future (55 and under) (1). She wants to offer other alternatives, such as continuing to work or offering them a personal account.
Overall, this ad is pretty effective. The average voter is not going to do research on what Bachmann actually said, and I think that this will help Clark. I agree with Anna when she stated that elderly voters are one of the most likely groups to turn out at the polls and if they trust this ad they may not turn out in strong numbers for Bachmann. However I also feel that the effects of this ad are more widespread. If middle-aged people did their research and heard what Bachmann actually meant I think that they would be turned off more than the elderly.
I really liked Anna’s ad choice and thought that she did a good job of analyzing the effects of the ad. Nice job!
(1)http://wcco.com/realitycheck/bachmann.social.security.2.1942814.html
(2)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUpDAGHCxHA&NR=1
Response to EmmaBee:
I agree that Bachmann's name calling is an effective strategy to swing undecided voters in her favor. If I were an uninformed voter, seeing all the "Taxin' Tarryl" commercials would probably influence me to vote for Bachmann, and I won't be surprised if it has that effect on many people this fall. Luckily for her, I not only consider myself to be informed, but I won't be of voting age this November, so Michele Bachmann doesn't have to worry about me not voting for her.
You also make a very good point when you say that her ad is only pandering towards Tea Partiers who already agree with her perspective on the issues. If anything, the inane name calling out of the Bachmann campaign will turn off voters to her cause, because at least the informed voters would rather have a candidate who has the best ideas to solve our problems, regardless of what party they belong to; Bachmann so far has shown us that she can come up with the cutest petty insults. If Bachmann really wants to generate the most support, she should focus more on the positive aspects of her campaign and try and convince moderates (and Democrats who don't always vote along party lines) to vote for her. Her infamous "Taxin' Tarryl" ads are not going to accomplish that goal.
In response to EmmaBee
The ad being addressed is an attack ad on Democratic nominee, Tarryl Clark, approved by Republican, Michele Bachman. In general I don’t personally approve of attack ads because they don’t address any real issues in the campaign and this is no different. I find this one particularly strange though because Bachman accuses Clark of having taxes for schools, which isn’t what many consider a bad thing; improving education. The narrator funnily enough, isn’t from Minnesota; (trivial…yes, interesting…at least in my opinion) the only reason he is in the ad instead of a deep, baritone man doing a voice-over is because he is relatable to the public. People will resonate better with someone they consider to be their neighbor just telling them the daily news.
Emma opined that people aren’t dumb enough to base their vote on one commercial, but my motto is, “never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers.” Maybe that one commercial hits home with a soccer mom who then forms a coalition of soccer moms to vote for Bachman; anything is possible. Emma’s analysis of Bachman’s numerous fallacies, including the ‘ordinary American’ and generalizing that Clark focuses taxes heavily on the middle class by saying that she supports things such as a tax on crayons. I also found it interesting that Clark actually decreased her salary, leading one to believe that she’s using the taxes for some purpose other than herself; great research Emma! Her commentary was comical at times which may have diverted from the piece itself but overall it was very well composed and contained many thought out ideas; ideas, I assume, are from experience and her own beliefs.
In response to David: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFLTkbN968Q
David did his ad on an independent expenditure. I loved this ad because I saw it on the my television the other day. I love how they use little children to portray how Dayton's taxes will effect the next generation of people that live in Minnesota. David made a good argument when he was talking about how the Minnesota Forward did a good job of making you feel sad and that Mark Dayton isn't the answer. I really agreed with how you did that.
In my opinion I believe that this influences many people because the average Minnesotan won't want to pay taxes that will raise job-killing taxes by 5 billion dollars. This ad does a great job at putting shocking numbers into the people's faces. I feel that this ad benefits both Tom Horner and Tom Emmer because they aren't in the Democratic Party.
Overall David I enjoyed your evaluation of how the ad effects Mark Dayton and how we, as Minnesotans, will view Mark Dayton after this ad.
In response to Lexi:
I agree with what Lexi says about Christine O’Donnell, Delaware candidate for senator. Her ad makes O’Donnell seem genial and relatable. She is perceived to be considerate of the people’s problems. Furthermore, the ad’s seems to be saying non-concert statements, but more feel good statements to encourage vote’s she’s a good person. She doesn’t address hard core issues (except for those of not raising taxes) that could sway voters in a negative direction. But at this time of the election it is better that O’Donnell doesn’t get into those type of “in-depth” issues, because it could cost her to many votes.
This comment has been removed by the author.
In response to Emma G:
Ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVAnyP9Gj0o
I agree with Emma that the ad does a good job portraying Christine O’Donnell as a strong candidate willing to stand up against any tax hike that is proposed in Washington, while portraying her opponent Chris Coons, as a weak “pet.” The effective imagery in the ad used to portray Coons as dog sends a strong image to uneducated voters that he is easily manipulated, and this could discourage some of those voters.
However, for more educated voters, this ad is another example of how Christine O’Donnell promises to decrease taxes, without actually revealing her stance on other policies. Christine O’Donnell’s campaign page only mentions her opposition to federal taxes and government interference in businesses, without informing the voters of her other views (1). The ad may have been more effective if it had explained her stance on something other than government spending, so that voters could learn about her other policies and see if they have stronger support for her.
Christine O’Donnell has a long battle ahead of her, as Delaware is a Democratic State, and Republicans aren’t showing unified support behind her (2). Chris Coons is an educated and experienced candidate, and constantly critiques Christine O’Donnell’s lack of experience and unwillingness to reach across party lines to make policies. Christine O’Donnell needs to work on defending her image and explaining her policies to the more educated voters to gain their support. She is known by many as the candidate who opposes masturbation, and voters are uncertain if her strict religious views or the Constitution will influence her if she is elected (2).
Overall, I agree with Emma’s analysis of Christine O’Donnell’s ad.
1) https://www.electchristineodonnell.org/default.aspx?sourceID=2&gclid=CMyKrePW06QCFca8KgodZ1tgJg
2) http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/09/17/christine-odonnell-no-tax-hikes-no-abortion-no-masturbation/
In response to Rachel B.:
Ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QTRZmItUUQ&feature=player_embedded
I definitely agree with the points you made about how Emmer is pushing himself as a more personal and family-oriented candidate, and also how those come across in the ad. Seeing Emmer walk down the street with his family, like an ordinary person, and then go into a local business and shake the hand of a worker therein is certainly a powerful image to many people. The fact that the ad is short, though not especially shorter than most political ads, also plays a part in how people perceive it, to be sure.
You said “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.” I think that this is inarguably a large part of the effectiveness of this ad; the way he starts off the ad by debasing the competition and then building himself up over the course of the ad is a solid strategy. However, in that statement I just made lies what I think was missing from your post: that Emmer gives himself positive labels and positively connotative stances over the course of the ad, such as saying he wants to “create jobs” and “get us back on track.” While lowering your opponents is certainly a big factor in the average campaign ad, the ad that doesn’t speak well of yourself at the same time comes off as overly negative to many people, which would end up a bad ad to associate yourself with.
Regarding the facts you checked, I think they do, obviously blow a large hole in Emmer’s campaign. Another important thing to note is that Dayton doesn’t plan to raise taxes for the average person, i.e, the middle and lower class (1) (who we can all agree Emmer’s ad is targeted at), which even further weakens the ad. I most certainly agree with the summation of the ad you put at the end: that it won’t sway many but it speaks well to the people who already think the same way as Emmer.
Overall, very good post, Rachel!
1. http://markdayton.org/mainsite/issues/taxes/
In Bridget's Tom Horner campaign ad, “The Picture,” the candidate explains how his policies will be different than those of his opponents. He claims that Emmer and Dayton are to far to the right and left respectively. He says that he will look at the “whole picture” and give Minnesota what they deserve. I thought that the ad was very effective and played to his strengths. He is an Independent candidate that must prove Minnesota that they would do things differently than either of the other two candidates together. I also thought that the message was pretty accurate. With Emmer and Dayton belonging to the two major parties, they are forced to stick to their parties' platforms. Horner is able to go outside of the boundaries that they are trapped in, he can tread both party lines, picking what policies are best for the state.
Bridget's analysis was pretty darn accurate, and I totally agree with her. Her comment “the people of Minnesota will want someone who can see both points of view, and make sensible decisions” seems to totally sum up the ad. Good job Tom Horner, and good job Bridget!
Bridget's ad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LAx2oLr1N0
In response to Katie:
Katie did her campaign ad on Tom Horner. This ad did have a very nice and appealing setting to it. The warm colors of the house he used were very nice and helped bring out his message even more. Horner did a very nice job of aiming at connecting to the viewer by looking like a normal Minnesotan. He also did a good job with what he was saying about new leadership and that we can't play the blame game anymore with the country. One thing that I found distracting was the number of changes in the shot angles. They tried to get it to bring out his personal messages with the close up shots and the broader messages with the half-body shots but there were too many of them and it was kind of distracting to me. I agree with Katie's analysis of this ad that he did a good job of appealing to people in the middle of the spectrum and to the average Minnesotan. I don't really agree with her statement that his non-Minnesotan accent is a bad thing. We need change and maybe a change in accent is a sign that we should vote for him. Overall I agree with Katie's assessment of this ad and believe that Horner did a good job with using it.
Response to Abby:
I think that the ad was very effective. Its use of a mother describing her pain caused by the death of her son does a good job of making people feel sad for her and angry with drunk drivers. After getting the viewers’ sympathies on their side, they attack Tom Emmer’s support of a bill, saying it reduced penalties for drunk drivers. They also tell the public that Tom Emmer has two previous DUIs. This is a very effective way of convincing citizens because it makes Tom Emmer sound irresponsible and cruel.
I think you make a very good point about how the bill that Emmer supported did not reduce penalties for drunk drivers, but only said that accused drunk drivers could not be punished until proven guilty(1). They way that the ad showed the bill sounded much worse. I agree with you that the bill was not about helping drunk drivers, but rather maintaining rights. Also, while it is true that Emmer’s DUIs happened many years ago and it is possible for people to change, I think that drunk driving at any time says a lot about the character of the candidate(1). It is very possible that Emmer has changed, but it is hard to say how much and to convince others of his new ways. His DUIs don’t necessarily mean that he is completely irresponsible and cruel, but they certainly don’t portray any positive qualities. I agree with you overall, but I think that his DUIs are more important, in general and to the public, than you said.
1. http://www.factcheck.org/2010/08/corporate-labor-smackdown-in-minnesota/
I’m responding to Abby R’s post:
First, I definitely agree with Abby that that ad is an incredibly powerful and intense one. The wronged mother is definitely a strong figure. I also read the WCCO article that Abby mentions, and it does sound like the accusation in this ad seems pretty melodramatic. However, the legislation that Emmer supported allowed people being accused of DWIs to keep their licenses until their trial (1), something that I would definitely say is not good at all. Also, I don’t agree that Emmer’s DWIs should just be dismissed as the foolish mistakes of a young man. While the more recent one did happen almost 20 years ago, it happened 10 years after the first, showing that Emmer did not learn his lesson after his first DWI (1). Also, it doesn’t seem likely that he never did anything similar to driving drunk in the intervening 10 years. In addition, Emmer was 30 when he received his second DWI and, while that is definitely not very old, it is certainly not young either. By the age of 30 a prospective governor should probably have an established respect for the law and government. However, once again, I agree with Abby that this ad is not entirely accurate and is definitely overly dramatic.
Good post Abby!
1. http://wcco.com/realitycheck/tom.emmer.dwi.2.1830372.html
I agree with Emma’s opinions on Bachman’s add about Tarryl Clark. The add is most likely ineffective because the argument is too shallow to sway anyone. Saying someone loves taxes just because they had supported a few taxes to help the budget, is a stretch. I found, like Emma, that Clark took a pay cut which really proves Bachman was out of line with this add. Bachman’s add in my opinion just makes her look bad. However, Clark’s adds aren’t any better. Clark’s adds attack Bachman as well. Neither Clark nor Bachman seem to care about making sure their policy plans are know; they only care about making the other look bad. The first thing that can be seen on Tarryl Clark’s web page is adds that are trashing Bachman. The tactics Bachman and Clark use just seem too obvious I don’t see how either could believe that theses adds would do anything other than make themselves appear petty. Negative political adds don’t make me what to support the opponent, rather they discourage me from taking part in the elections at all.
1.http://tarrylclark.com/
In response to Dr. Brian the Blogger :)
VIDEO LINK: http://www.emmerforgovernor.com/connect/videos/2010/10/tom-emmer-commercial-balance.html
First, I’d like to point out that this Dr. has pointed out the concept of ethos. Congratulations. On a more serious note however, I would like to point out some additional things that I observed when watching Tom Emmer’s campaign ad. The first, which Brian may have implied when stating the ad as a cheerful one, was a bright smile at the end of his ad. I agree with Brian that visuals of families and businesses is a good thing to include in campaigning. What better incentive than to show people and corporations that need to be cared for, that the people care for? A family is something that is help particularly close to many. Businesses are a way to feel safer financially and to promote economic growth. Businesses provide a source of income and revenue. By promoting families and businesses, Tom Emmer has taken a big step. However, there are some things that I feel weakens his ad. He starts right off the bat by saying that the other candidates for governor “are promising massive spending increases and higher taxes.” It may be very well just me, but I feel that often badmouthing other candidates can look bad on your records. Many politicians do this. I wonder if it is effective? He also says that he will reform and redesign government, which Brian brought up. Redesign is a particularly strong word, and I wonder if it is the right word to use. I wonder if some of Emmer’s word choice will alienate voters. Overall however, I feel that Emmer was successful in getting his message across. He looked professional in his ad. Hm, Also I decided it would be fun to go look at Brian’s source (1). It raises a question in me: How is Dayton appealing to his audience? Also, when Emmer promises making government not spend money that we don’t have, how is he going to promise the government will do this? It is a candidates way of getting votes.
1. http://markdayton.org/mainsite/issues/taxes/taxes-plan/
In response to Abby
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oFrj3l1RkA
I agree that the first time I saw the it gave me the impression that Emmer does not seem to take drunk driving seriously. When you look at the facts though Emmers DWI and support of a bill that would reduce the penalties on those accused of DWI, make the ad seem too critical. I think Emmer is very remorseful for his action, and he says he has, learned from his mistakes (1). I think if Emmer’s DWIs are issues are going to dominate the gubernatorial campaigns I think that Mark Dayton's relapse into Alcohol during his time in the senate should be fair game. (2) I think using somebody who lost her son to a drunk driver was a good way to spread the message on Emmer. The ad was intneded to shock and anger viewers, as Abby said. I think this ad did this to those who did not check the facts.
I agree with Abby when she says that DWI are not ever acceptable. I agree with that something that happened such a long time ago should not affect the election that much. I think the reason why it should not is that Emmer paid his dues for such poor judgement and has learned from his mistakes. Where I disagree with Abby is that the proposed changes in the penalties for a DWI. I don’t thi
nk that pleading guilty within 30 days of being accused of the crime (1). I think that our penalties for drunk driving are not strong enough in this state as evidenced by all those people who have multiple drunk driving convictions, yet are still able to drive. I believe in this is a case where the safety of the public is at risk if those who plead guilty get a break.
Abby you did a great job explaining what the ad was about while injecting your emotions into your post. You did a great job finding the truth about the claims made in the ad as well as bringing up Emmer’s response to it as well. Overall a great Post!
(1) Corporate-Labor Smackdown in Minnesota
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/08/corporate-labor-smackdown-in-minnesota/
(2) Mark Dayton talks about depression, relapse
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/polinaut/archive/2009/12/mark_dayton_tal.shtml
In response to Eric A:
His ad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlrQ1MiLkk4
I found Eric’s ad very interesting as part of a high-profile race that deals with recent and issue-oriented politics. What I found most interesting about this “attack” ad was its relevance, substance, and mainstream source of evidence. What I generally expect out of an attack ad is dug-up, out-of-context quotes that don’t have much importance to the candidate today- I think the “Christine O’Donnell says she’s a witch” thing is a good example of this. The sources shown in Reid’s ad, however, included Angle’s own website and relatively long sound bites from her interviews. Besides the claim that the challenger is “just too extreme” and the expected bias in the narrative, most of the ad focuses on the issues. What’s more, the issue in question took place only two months ago, a marked difference from attack ads focusing on candidates’ stimulus package votes.
I agree with Eric that the ad will be successful with moderate “swing” voters, but I don’t think it will have any effect on the perceptions of conservatives. The evidence employed by the ad, such as Angle stating on Fox “I think the emergency is only in Harry Reid’s mind,” will largely be agreed with by conservatives. The success of this ad comes from its basis in the issues and ability to draw a line casting Angle as extreme with all-important moderates.
I find it relevant to post this excerpt from Sharron Angle’s website today (10/14/10), as we approach the election and the median-voter rule applies:
“Education
As a teacher and grandmother of ten, there is no one more committed to education than Sharron Angle.
Sharron believes education decisions are best made at the state and local level by parents and teachers who are invested in the lives of the children whom they have been tasked with teaching. Sharron supports putting that money as close to the state and local level as possible.”
http://sharronangle.com/issues
In response to Jesse
The Campaign ad was promoting Dale Peterson for Alabama Agriculture Commission. First time i watched i thought it was funny but ad was set up very strategically targeting votes for him . Dale Peterson doesn't talk in a formal language he calls government officials thugs and criminals. He also goes on about face book pages and it makes him look like he wouldn't be a goof enough candidate for that position, but lot of people seems to like his personality which is one of the main factors people look for in a candidate and the way he talks about the problems Alabama are very well acted out and he does it in a more comical way which seems to get attention from a lot of people.
I agree with Jesse that the technique of this ad will apply to lowest educates people in Alabama. I think educated people will consider him as a joke because he looks very unprofessional for a leadership position and his language isn't very clean and he overly criticizes people about doing things wrong. The way he presented the problems were too much comical and he should have given it a little bit more professional looking statements. He also has a gun during the ad which may turn people into think that he is just a total joke and how he can't even be professional in a 30 second ad and how he wants be the commissioner of agriculture for Alabama.
I thought this ad was very effective because he brought humor into political ads and he is one of the famous candidates in United States right now because the ad is fired up on you tube and other sources and people are also making spoof videos about the ad which made him a very famous person as a candidate. He might get votes from people who might admire his personalities but majority of the people will not vote for him because is very unprofessional.
I thought Jesse did a good job about this campaign ad.
In response to Dan:
Dan did his post on Tarryl Clark's campaign ad. She is running against Michelle Bachmann for state representative in the 6th district. I almost laughed out loud when I saw this. It's extremely overly dramatic and is not subtle at all in taking direct stabs at Michelle Bachmann. The ad claims that Bachmann doesn't care about seniors because she is trying to take away their Social Security. I really don't like ads that only attack the opponent and say nothing about what the candidate will do differently. So, while the black and red color scheme and wild claims about how Bachmann thinks seniors are "addicts," I do not agree with Dan that the ad is effective at all. At least, I (a somewhat intelligent person) do not find it effective at all. Perhaps people that don't know any better will be frightened by it, but personally I think it's a little too extreme to take seriously, and I bet a lot of other people would agree. As Dan said, the claims Clark made were accurately quoted, but way out of context. All in all, I just don't buy the ad, and I think it's a mistake on Clark's part.
1. http://www.youtube.com/user/TarrylClarkDotCom#p/a/u/1/gUpDAGHCxHA
2. http://wcco.com/video/?cid=14 (you have to search "michelle bachmann social security" to get to the video)
In a response to Abby:
I found her commentary about the anti-Emmer advertisement by Alliance Minnesota titled “Light” to be spot on in many ways. Pointing out Emmer's drunk driving history should be noted, but I agree with Abby when she said, “I don't think something he did 20 years ago should have a large impact on whether Minnesotans vote for him or not.” Basically, I find personal behavior to not be an important issue one should consider when deciding who to vote for. I believe that people can change for the better, and that even if they cannot, it's only important to the election if it affects their performance in office. Politicians have a long history of fighting their demons. Obama still smokes cigarettes [1], former President Bush and former Vice President Cheney both have DUI's on their record [2], and even Emmer's competition for the Governor's race Mark Dayton has admitted to a history of alcoholism and depression [3]; these politicians have had success in their own right and Emmer shouldn't be worried about this damaging his campaign.
The advertisement is however fairly effective if voters consider the character of politicians heavily rather than their public policy platforms, which many do. The use of the mother who lost her child in a drunk driving accident appeals to the viewer's heart and almost relates Emmer's campaign to the cause of her son's death. However successful the advertisement is, I personally find it irrelevant and unimportant to the Governor's race.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/01/obama-doctor-president-st_n_480450.html [1]
http://www.opednews.com/hamiltonAlex_100304_DUIDWI.htm [2]
http://www.startribune.com/politics/state/80168257.html [3]
In response to Abby R.:
Abby’s post was on the ad by the Alliance for a Better Minnesota. In the ad (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oFrj3l1RkA), a mom speaks out against Tom Emmer. She had lost a son to a drunk driver, and her message is to not vote for tom Emmer since he himself has gotten two DUI’s in the past.
Abby’s analysis of the ad was detailed and informative. When I watched it, I found many of the same things, along with the way that they filmed her. It feels when you watch it that you are having a conversation with the mother. This brings a close-to-home feel to the ad and further concretes the stronghold it has over some Emmer fans.
I do agree though that the ad is misleading where it describes the legislature he tried to pass. Emmer’s goal was not to reduce DUI penalties, but to only prosecute those found guilty (1).
I found discrepancy in Abby’s argument though in the sense that most interest groups like MADD and the Alliance for a Better Minnesota were up in arms against the bill due to the loophole that would allow the arrested drivers to continue to drive during the time between their arrest and hearing (2). I would also have to disagree with Abby in the sense that I think this detail of Emmer's past brings a lot to his campaign as governor. Two DUI's do not exactly lead me, as a citizen, to feel very loyal or faithful to Emmer.
I found the ad to be very shocking and securing to my argument against Emmer. At the same time, I feel like the ad could definitely be one that could persuade a voter away from Emmer and towards Horner. The Emmer team should look into the ad if they want to keep his campaign afloat.
1. http://www.startribune.com/blogs/91767834.html
2. http://www.startribune.com/politics/state/42100987.html
In Response to Eric A:
I thought the article you analyzed was very interesting. It was a clear and concise video that was made to portray Sharron Angle as way too extreme. This was done so by using the sound bite of her saying that she wanted to cut the department of education. Then they made Reid look really good by having him constantly surrounded by teachers, and smiling students and parents(1).
I definitely agree with you on how you analyzed the video’s effectiveness. You said that education was a major issue for voters, and having such an extreme stance on it, to the extent of cutting the department out completely, would most definitely deter votes from Angle. I also liked how you found out that Sharron Angle was indeed telling the truth about her view on cutting the education department and that the ad did not completely distort it(2). The only thing the ad left out was her reason why she wanted to cut the education department, which is very important to know. If she wants to cut it, she must have, in her opinion, a good reason. According to your source, she wants to cut it, because she believes that education is strictly the states responsibility, and the national government is wasting its money on things like the “No Child Left Behind Act”(2).
I still agree that cutting the whole Department of Education is a bit drastic! Good job on this blog post Eric, I enjoyed reading your take on this video.
Sources:
(1) http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/sep/01/harry-reid/harry-reid-says-sharron-angle-wants-eliminate-educ/
(2) http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/sep/01/harry-reid/harry-reid-says-sharron-angle-wants-eliminate-educ/
Response to Eric A-
In response to Eric:
After seeing the video myself, I definitely have to agree with Eric that the ad was success. Education is a hot button issue this year and the fact that Angle was quoted many times saying that she wanted to completely eliminate the Department of Education was pretty much political suicide. These quotes were not even out of context- they were straight from her website. The fact that the ad had several clips of Angle making that same statement over and over means that she was dead serious about it. As Eric said, swing voters in Nevada won't even be slightly attracted to that idea. I thought that Reid's commercial strategy was well thought out because it capitalized on the belief that the Tea Party is just too extreme, which also makes independents, swing voters, and moderate conservatives wary of the Tea Party. I liked how Eric ended his post about how the Department of Education gives out many Pell Grants which have helped hundreds of thousands disadvantaged students get through college. It made his underlying argument stronger and his opinion on the subject more clear. Overall I liked what he wrote, it was short , sweet, and to the point.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home