This ad was my favorite from 1968 when compared to all of the rest for three reasons. One it was far different than all of the others, it was much simpler and to the point. Secondly, it did not attack another candidate. In general, I do not like attacking ads at all. I really feel like if a candidate is strong and confident, then he/ she would not need to waste time, energy, and money attacking his or her competitor. Third, I thought the ad was unique because it aligned itself with such an iconic figure, Frank Sinatra. I know now from class, that this a type of appeal to authority: If a legend like Frank Sinatra endorses a certain president, then I am sure it would influence others to cast their vote in a similar way. It was interesting to see that even fifty years ago marketers and campaign managers knew the power of authority and really attempted to capitalize on it. This ad really did very little in terms of talking about policy or ideas, but the fact that Frank Sinatra was in it, I am sure persuaded some potential voters in a way that other ads would not
Critical Thinking
This campaign commercial was a bit too somber and solemn for my taste. I’m sure that this commercial could be qualified as an improper appeal to authority that many would fall victim to if Frank Sinatra was their favorite artist. I agree with you, though, that Presidential Candidates who attack each other are not focusing on the key stakeholders at hand: people’s lives in the United States.
I like your second reason for this being your favorite ad. In all of the commercials I was assigned to watch, they attacked the opponent. In some cases I think this is a helpful method or persuasion, but for the most part I believe it’s almost a weaker argument to only focus on the other opponent.