Out of the Democratic and Republican advertisements I watched in favor of opponents Dwight D. Eisenhower and Adlai Stevenson, my favorite was an advertisement called “Women Votes” that was in support of Eisenhower. When looking at all the advertisements, I typically looked for ones that covered a wide variety of topics and did not attack the other opponent, because I believe attack ads are unnecessary if you have enough of a personal platform to stand on. For the “Women Votes” ad, it first empowers the U.S. female population by letting them know they hold the majority vote in these presidential elections, because they belong to the larger population. It lists a few other reasons why women specifically should vote for Eisenhower, but then also fans into a row of interviews on different women giving their personal reason for why they will vote for Eisenhower.
Through the strategy of including numerous interviews of different women, that was also seen in another Eisenhower ad with just different civilians, the advertisement has the ability to include numerous platforms and reasons for why Eisenhower, or the candidate they are supporting, would be a better President. Through the stream of women, there was talk of family, education, powerful leadership, unity, taxes, social security, prosperity, and honesty. The list of advantages in voting for Eisenhower was able to be so long in this ad because they included upwards of a dozen different women giving their opinion on why they would vote for the Republican candidate. I believe advertisements that get the true opinion of the people and can touch upon a large number of advantages and platforms are the best for a presidential candidate, which is why the “Women Votes” advertisement was my favorite from the 1956 campaign.
I agree with you about attack ads. I found that there were a lot more than I suspected in the 1988 section. I also feel like I learned not to listen to them because the site noted that a lot of the information in several of Bush’s attack ads was not correct.
I agree about the ads that attack the other side. I find that a lot of them can be unnecessarily personal and doesn’t attack the candidate’s beliefs as much as other issues. A lot of the anti-Obama ads in 2008 focused on how Obama was a bad person who wanted to corrupt everyone as opposed to arguing against his political stances.
I agree with you about the attack ads, I think they serve little purpose in the grand scheme of things. I liked how you talked about favoring this ad in particular because it was able to include many different demographics and show how his presidency will benefit these people.