Post 3: Campaign Ads
This campaign season has been even more fierce than usual. Pick one Minnesota race (District 3 - Paulson v. Phillips, Governor - Walz v. Johnson, Attorney General - Ellison v. Wardlow, etc) and watch an ad from each candidate and then answer the following prompt:
What claims is each candidate making? What advertising technique(s) is each candidate using? Whose ad do you find more persuasive and why?
It would be awesome if you fact checked the ad, but that is not required.
You can find ads by going to YouTube and searching for the name of the candidate and ad.
Post is due on November 2nd.
Labels: advertisements, elections
posted by Ms. Aby @ 6:49 AM
18 Comments:
I decided to research the Philips v. Paulsen race:
The Pro-Phillips advertisement: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iU_8wSvSW4
This advertisement is mainly used to bash his opponent, Eric Paulsen. First, the ad makes the emphasis that Paulsen is a hard person to find and is not accessible at all. Since he is hard to find and communicate with, how can he accurately represent the people? Next, the ad plays ominous music in the background making the viewer feel uneasy about Paulsen and how he is likened to Bigfoot by Bigfoot ironically. Lastly, the video makes a point that Paulsen will vote to get rid of health care protections which will obviously not be popular with the public.
The Pro-Paulsen advertisement: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIfoB0GZSH8
This advertisement emphasizes Paulsen's dedication to protecting Minnesota's wildlife. First, the ad shows pictures of his family making him a more approachable person since it makes him seem relatable to the people. Second, the video is filmed in nature and sunlight making the viewer more relaxed and at ease. Last, but definitely not least, Paulsen emphasizes that he is not heavily associated with a party, as shown by his opposition toward President Trump, and will do what is best for Minnesota as our Congressperson.
Overall, I thought the Pro-Paulsen ad was a more effective advertisement because it emphasized he was pro-Minnesota rather than a Republican. The Phillips advertisement was obscure and border-line silly in my opinion. I look for political ads that say why the candidate is qualified, not advertisements that lash out against the opposition. It is good to know the cons of a candidate but I don't think it should be the priority of the opposition to point them out, it just shows you don't have much to offer.
The Minnesota race I chose is Walz v. Johnson
What's Right - Tim Walz https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7Hcw6jkD9A
This advertisement claims that Tim Walz will stand for equality, justice and education. This ad shows as a first person speaker of him talking about his life and the things he believes in to make Minnesota as one. Walz also uses the example of him being a football coach and a teacher which makes him just like any other person. The whole ad shows him being in a classroom and football field, and it shows people of all different race and looks. He does not bash on his opponent but rather bashes on the President for making wrong decisions that Walz is willing to correct. He lastly uses emphasized words such as I, my and together because he tries to make his statements sound inclusive for Minnesotans that they will work on fulfilling his claims such as equality for LGBT and Immigration, justice and every children will have education together.
Better - Jeff Johnson https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3c4OA5L3iA4
This advertisement claims that Jeff Johnson will lower taxes because the people's taxes are going to useless things. He wants taxes to be low but more effective. This ad is in one setting up close to his face and with a American flag behind him. He also lists many of the things the people's taxes are going to but yet those things are still in bad states such as roads and schools are saying they are broke. He only talks about one topic Taxpayers. He lastly only says I in this ad which does not sound inclusive for the people.
The more persuasive ad is Walz because he seems way more genuine than Walz. Walz made his advertisement sound like he really wants to make a change in Minnesota rather than staying on one topic like Johnson. Walz was being inclusive trying to make changes together for all race, religion, backgrounds and orientation. Johnson will make changes but not everyone will feel they are apart of his campaigning. I really like Walz ad because of him being a normal person like everyone else who goes through hardships and have jobs to do. Johnson did not talk too much about himself and his background, so there is no connection. Walz has many different claims that could change lives if he were to win the vote.
Congrats to Kimmee and Joseph for getting their posts done! Thank you!!
The Minnesota race I chose was Tim Walz v. Jeff Johnson.
First Class Education -Tim Walz https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJRRlj0KVUk
This advertisement claims that Tim Walz will make school affordable, fully fund schools, and expand technology education to open new career paths. He uses the setting of the classroom and being at home with his kids to emphasize that he was a teacher and understands the classroom struggles. Also, in the ad he is in the hallways of the classrooms interacting with students of all color to show that Walz wants to giver every child a great education.
Gurantee - Jeff Johnson https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qv0_4ULN7tQ
This advertisement claims that Jeff Johnson will guarantee affordable coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, give more money back to people, and help ensure Minnesota will work for the future. He uses the setting of being in the Minnesota nature and only focuses on his face.
The more persuasive advertisement is Tim Walz because he has first-hand experience on the topic of education he wants to fix. Walz made his advertisement in a way to connect with greater Minnesota as education has been seen as key in order to build a brighter future. He emphasizes that he accepts everyone and shows that it's important for all students to be comfortable learning in a classroom. On the other hand, Jeff Johnson started off his "Guarantee" advertisement with, "lying is okay for politicians, especially if they win." To me, the only question that arises is that if it's okay to lie and he wants us to vote for him, what makes the people of Minnesota think that he won't lie to us? To conclude, Tim Walz showed the best advertisement and character. And one last thing that sticks out to me is how he can really connect to education as he was once a teacher and currently has kids attending public schools.
I chose Erik Paulsen vs. Dean Phillips.
We Found Bigfoot! - Dean Phillips https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iU_8wSvSW4
This was a "funny" attack on Paulsen, they attack on how he takes money from big money businesses, and how he constantly tries to take away affordable healthcare from the community. When they talk about affordable healthcare they mean "Planned Parenthood", they don't use the name because he has a 100% approval rate on his stance, but it has obviously failed multiple times. Many have speculated on how he takes much money from random large corporate businesses, and many try to use that as leverage but they really don't have concrete evidence on that.
Moral Right - Erik Paulsen https://blogs.mprnews.org/capitol-view/2018/09/its-september-so-here-come-the-biting-political-ads/
This a Ad Hominem attack, Dean Phillips failed to pay taxes time, and claimed healthcare is a natural right, yet he denied his personal company workers healthcare. They also tried to used his born-into-wealth as a attack. He failed to pay taxes multiple times, that's pretty self explanatory, they were trying to show how he was a hypocrite on how he went against his own "beliefs" by lying about the situation. They also painted a picture how he's a spoiled businessman who only wants money and power. In the words of the video "another shady businessman who will make things worse!"
I believe the Ad Hominem Erik Paulsen advertisement was more appealing. Mr. Phillips went on a more comedic approach, and it make's you lose focus on the point he is trying to make. Mr. Paulsen went on a all-out attack on how he isn't a good person, which stated facts that would catch the attention to more of the community. People nowadays don't pay attention to minor detail, so it would take away the initial punch they were trying to give.
So to me, Erik Paulsen wins this round.
I Chose the Phillips Vs. Paulsen in the Minnesota 3rd district
Pro-Paulsen Ad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jN2Z1mG17RM
This ad for Paulsen is made to bash his opponent than to talk about the good that Paulsen is doing right now. He makes Phillips seem like a bad guy more than making him look like the good guy. It makes it seem like Phillips is a guy who has nothing to deserve his money and is a stuck-up businessman. This is criticizing Phillips.
Pro Phillips Ad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iU_8wSvSW4
This ad is also an ad to bash the opponent but in this case it is vice versa. Phillips is using humor to make Paulsen seem like a bad guy. He uses humor to make it seem like Paulsen can only be seen taking money from big Pharmaceutical companies and not be seen talking to people and getting their opinions.
I find the anti Dean Phillips ad and Pro Erik Paulsen ad more persuasive. The Anti Paulsen ad used too much humor in my opinion and kind of lost track of the main point of the ad. While the Anti Phillips ad stayed on track the whole time and kept a more serious tone, which could scare viewers away from Phillips. The anti Phillips ad starts the bashing right away and catches the viewers attention, while the Anti Paulsen ad takes some time to get to the point and may of lost some viewers. So in these two advertisements of a total of way too many, Paulsen wins.
One of the campaign races I've decided to focus on is Erik Paulsen Vs. Dean Phillips.
Dean Phillips Ad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=watPTI4jBZE. Phillips ad states that Paulsen lied about his campaign, using negative points to convey his voters to vote in his favor. He also says things that voters like to hear to once again get them to vote for Phillips. He restates that he will be offering full time health care to employees. He is still calling out Paulsen on all of his dirt by saying that he's taking away health care.
Erik Paulsen Ad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpVIOTZ_s1k. The video of praising Erik Paulsen is as follows. One, it gives us what we (the citizens) want. We want to see our taxes reduced and we want to have reduced regulations for employers. It also uses anecdotes by saying that Paulsen grew up in Chaska, Minnesota to tug at the heartstrings of the people in Chaska to vote for him. At the end of the ad, they use the line, "Always fighting for us," to convince voters that Paulsen will help them get what they want.
Out of the two campaign ads I've seen, I believe that I like Dean Phillips the best. Now, I'm not one who allows candidates to put down other candidates, however, Phillips kinda backs up his negative thoughts on Paulsen. He addresses his voters very clearly and states to them why Paulsen in D.C is a horrible decision.
I decided to look at the Paulsen V. Phillips race
Paulsen's ad - https://blogs.mprnews.org/capitol-view/2018/07/gops-paulsen-paddles-away-from-trump-in-1st-ad/
This ad was used to emotionally stimulate Minnesota voters. He wore a casual dad camping outfit to show that he's just a regular guy who likes to go camping and canoeing in the boundary waters with his family. He stands up to Trump in this ad to shows that he doesn't stand by Trump and that his priorities are protecting the Boundary waters.
Pro- Dean Phillips -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DM3w8CG5QF4
Dean Phillips is seen as a similar outdoorsy kinda guy wearing a vest and shown driving around in his government repair truck and having coffee and conversations with Minnesotans. He advocates on the idea of togetherness and having everyone be invited to have a say in how their government is run. He uses powerful words like healing and anger, but you feel almost comforted by these words because he is driving through the woods on unpaved roads to show the lengths he will go for you the consituient. He acknowledges that we need both policial parties to work together and that "good ideas" can come from anyone.
Personally, just based on the ads I think Dean Phillips may have won for me but that's just because he made me feel like I mattered and that he would work with me and not for me like Erik Paulson. I did, however, still really find Paulson's ad very appealing and persuasive but if he focused more on talking about us as a whole and not mentioning trump he would have had the better ad.
I chose the Phillips vs. Paulsen race:
The Wall: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sSIbVB8uAU
In this ad, Phillips is making the claim that Erik Paulsen isn't easy to talk to, and he won't respond to your issues. He then implies that this under his representation, you will be able to come to him with your concerns as he will be able to respond and help you out. To get his point across, Phillips make a direct comparison to the two candidates stating how one of them, himself, is easy to talk to and open to conversation, and the other, Paulsen, isn't. Then he states Paulsen's stance on the hot topic issue of gun violence, elaborating it on a way to make him look bad. Lastly, Phillips states that Paulsen has voted 98% of the time with Trump. He says this knowing that Trump's approval rates in Minnesota are very low, so he is trying to show their similarities.
Threatened: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIfoB0GZSH8
IN this ad, Paulsen is trying to say how he will support any bills for protecting the environment, or at least Minnesota's environment. He then goes on to say how he is willing to fight Trump on issues, appealing to the fact that Minnesotans don't like Trump. He is trying to let the people know that he will fight for the things that are important to them, just like the boundary waters are important to his family. This would have been better if he chose a more popular issue to use when comparing himself to Phillips because Phillips is likely for the environment as well.
Overall, I think the Phillips and is more convincing because it shows the people how Paulsen is voting in Congress now, and that it isn't something that the Minnesotans will like. Also, in Paulsen's ad, he doesn't really talk about why he would be better than the competition. Phillips also seems more friendly in his ad and it just feels more personal.
For the Minnesota race I chose Paulsen vs. Phillips
We Found Bigfoot! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iU_8wSvSW4
In this ad, Dean Phillips shows how Erik Paulsen is hard to find and hard to reach by the public. Dean Phillips' use of exaggeration and imagery further invokes the idea that Erik Paulsen will not be there for the people, because he is always hiding. The music and use of Bigfoot were effective in that it has a more lighthearted feel than simply tearing apart his opponent, but the ad isn't very specific.
https://blogs.mprnews.org/capitol-view/2018/09/its-september-so-here-come-the-biting-political-ads/
This advertisement makes sharp claims against Dean Phillips, claiming that he doesn't pay taxes on time or provide health care for his employees at a small coffee shop. Erik Paulsen's ad uses dark and harsh colors to make Dean Phillips seem like an immoral candidate. Some of his claims were out of context, and exaggerated so the ad isn't as reliable as it could be, but it used more forceful tactics like intense music and a demeaning narrator.
Overall, the better ad was from Dean Phillips against Erik Paulsen. This is because Erik Paulsen's ad is overused and unoriginal. Making claims and accusations that are out of context and obviously only partial truths is too common to be effective and memorable. Dean Phillip's ad may have not been as clear, but using Bigfoot will stick with voters more.
Jeff Johnson and Tim Walz is the ads that I watched. The Johnson ad made Tim Walz look like he had bad ideas for what MN wanted. He claimed that he would lower health care costs. He says Walz wants to make MN a sanctuary state or to be like California. He says he's going to enforce our laws and lower taxes. Walz is saying that Trump has betrayed us and we can't just stand on the sideline and watch stuff happen. MN should be able to do what we want to do. I like the Walz ad more because he doesn't look down on Johnson. He doesn't talk bad about him he just addresses the problem and tells us what he would do to solve this problem.
Walz ad: https://blogs.mprnews.org/capitol-view/2018/07/in-first-tv-ad-for-governor-walz-goes-after-trump/
Johnson Ad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7MRLWkU4wE
One advertisement I watched was against Jeff Johnson. They claimed that he would make it harder for people with preexisting conditions to get health insurance and therefore healthcare. They use a person who had survived cancer to speak their message. They did that to get sympathy for their cause. Another advertisement I watched was about Tim Walz. It claimed that he anted to let anybody marry anyone and that women should have their own say over their healthcare. They did this by using multiple clips of him talking with people from Minnesota while people from Minnesota listed the reasons they support him. This shows that there's a lot of support for Walz and that he is trustworthy making people more likely to want to vote for him.
Tim Walz: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wHquQhf58E
Jeff Johnson: https://blogs.mprnews.org/capitol-view/2018/09/its-september-so-here-come-the-biting-political-ads/
I chose Erik Paulsen v. Dean Phillips.
Erik Paulsen ad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpVIOTZ_s1k
This advertisement claims that Paulsen is “always fighting for us.” It uses personal pronouns when talking to the viewer in order to make them feel important and like he is going to help specifically them. The speaker talks in a friendly way, like him and the audience are close friends. This goes along with how imagery is used to make the audience feel close to the candidate. For example, uses pictures of Chaska, Minnesota and says that Paulsen grew up here. This can make them think that he is so much like them and he knows what is best for them.
Dean Phillips ad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=watPTI4jBZE
This ad claims that “everyone’s invited” to vote for Phillips. It makes negative points seem impersonal to not offend the audience. It says that Paulsen had done bad things and states surprising facts about him to make him look bad. It contrasts what other people have said about Phillips, proves them wrong, and says that he is better.
I find Erik Paulsen’s ad more persuasive because it really connects with the audience. The techniques used makes the audience feel close to Paulsen and make them think that he knows what is best. Phillips’ ad talks bad about his opponent. It is common to lie in these ads so it is hard to tell if these things are true. I would not want to vote for someone who lied or talked really bad about someone.
Yeah more posts are up!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7Hcw6jkD9A
The claim that Tim Walz is making in this ad is that the decisions that Donald Trump is making for this country are only taking us the wrong direction. He claims he can take make Minnesota in the right direction by treating everyone equally "no matter where you live, how you look, or who you love." The technique he uses in this ad is emotive imagery. He uses clips of a child, a gay couple, and a farmer while using his phrase "no matter where you live, how you look, or who you love."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7MRLWkU4wE
The claim Jeff Johnson is making in this ad is that Tim Walz's visions for Minnesota is not what we need and is bad for us Minnesotans. Jeff Johnson believes that his visions are what Minnesota needs. He believes Minnesota needs to lower our taxes and enforce our immigration laws. The persuasive technique Jeff Johnson uses in his ad is his criticisms towards Tim Walz's visions by using a woman trying out glasses for her "vision." The glasses she chooses is the visions of Jeff Johnson.
I believe the more persuasive ad was Jeff Johnson's. The criticism towards Tim Walz's views on what Minnesota needs and following it with his own views and what he believes is right is what really can persuade the viewers. Although it may not be what many people agree with, it is a more persuasive tactic to use in a campaign.
Erik Paulsen: Getting the Job Done for Minnesota
In the Ad, Paulsen makes many claims which show him to be a man of the people. For starters, the ad states that Paulsen has fought for tax cuts for families which have resulted in families saving thousands ($2000). After this, Paulsen is said to support patient-centered care, and with this fight for more healthcare rights for citizens. while reducing health care costs. But to end the ad, he states that he is independent and will not be afraid to stand up to his party. To make the ad more persuasive, more friendly and upbeat music is added to give you a positive feeling of hope when listening and learning about Erik Paulsen. Also, bright lights are used in a similar fashion, as it tends to make the viewer be happier and see whatever is being talked about in a light mood. Finally, highlighting specific diction makes the viewer automatically think good things when they think about Paulsen and his political history.
Dean Phillips: We Found Bigfoot!
In the ad, an argument through Bigfoot is made at the beginning that Erik Paulsen ignores the people he represents. Later, Bigfoot describes how Paulsen has taken money from big pharmaceutical companies while also votes against healthcare protection. To end the video off, Bigfoot describes how he waits 7 minutes in a big pharma building to see him, which shows hes got big business in his pockets. To make the ad more persuasive, Phillips uses bigfoot as a symbol of goodness compared to Paulsen, which makes the viewer see Paulsen as extremely frightening. To add on, the dark colors and ominous music add an eary touch to Paulsen's name, give a feeling of uncertainty and fear when thinking of Paulsen.
Whos is better?
In my opinion, I think that the Paulsen ad was more persuasive due to the fact that it is straightforward and provides the facts in a more normal and casual way. Phillips'ad, however, is more of a fear mongering type of ad, looking to only smear his opponent instead of showing what he has to bring to the table. Also, using Bigfoot isn't that great of a comparison to Paulsen, because since some don't believe in Bigfoot, then it could be seen as a silly ad.
I chose Walz vs. Johnson.
Tim Walz ad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9rrmZU2d_8
In the Advertisement it claims that Tim Walz will provide Minnesotans with better health care for lower incomes. He is said to be for the union, People with different backgrounds, and his dedication to including everyone. Not just white people but to include people of color and all individuals. Tim walz seems more like a human being than just any regular Candidate because he refers to situations that real day to day people might/have gone through. He also uses people of color in his ads because he wants people to see him interacting with real people in our communities that we see often/ could relate to.
Vision Jeff Johnson:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7MRLWkU4wE
Jeff claims he will enforce law enforcement so the citizens under his care will be under the highest safety possible. He also said he will taxes so the citizens will keep more of what they earn.He uses vision because he believes he has the brighter vision.
I believe that Tim Walz had a more convincing advertisement. He used examples and has experiences with education and wants Minnesota to have a greater education system in the future. Also Walzs ad had him interacting with the citizens of MN, which in my opinion was more convincing that change is not far. While on the other hand Johnson just stated what he would do and had not interactions with citizens and him at least trying to make a change.
I will be analyzing the commercials for the Paulsen V. Phillips Race.
Dean Phillips Ad: We Found Bigfoot!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iU_8wSvSW4
In this ad Phillips uses humor as an advertising technique, as well as hyperbole, and forceful phrases, in order to prove his point that Paulson is never around or willing to listen when his constituents need him. The humor in the ad makes us want to watch it all the way through, the hyperbole allows us to really grasp the point he's trying to make with his bit, and the forceful phrases in regards to Paulson leave a sour taste in our mouth and a bad connotation connected to Phillip's name.
Erik Paulsen Ad: Moral Right
https://blogs.mprnews.org/capitol-view/2018/09/its-september-so-here-come-the-biting-political-ads/
In this ad Paulsen uses forceful phrases and emotive words to show that Dean Phillip's is a dishonest, shady business man. Paulsen uses forceful phrases by saying words like dishonest, shady, and lying, he does this so that the viewer's opinion on Dean Phillip's will be swayed in a negative direction. Those same words are also considered emotive words because of the negative emotions you feel when listening to them, by attaching them to Phillip's name, Paulsen is hoping to lower our regard for him.
Of the two ads I feel like Phillip's is more persuasive, at least with the younger voters. With Paulsen it feels like he's trying to hard, and the way the entire commercial is shot and phrased feels juvenile. Phillip's is more persuasive because it shows that he takes Minnesotan issues seriously, while also being able to be laid back and poke fun at a fellow candidate.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home