I was assigned to watch ads from the 2016 race (Trump vs Clinton), specifically watching the Republican ads. This is just my personal opinion, but I very much dislike Trump’s campaign style. In almost all of his ads (minus two or three), they are directly attacking his opponent, Hillary Clinton, and her views and policies, without contextualizing what Trump’s policies are going to be. Many of them call Hilary out for what she is doing (regarding immigration, the letters/emails that were leaked, etc), and then Trump moves on to just explaining that his policies will not do what Hilary is doing, but they do not go into detail of what his policies are exactly. I personally do not like the attack campaign style, as in elections I want to learn about both the Democratic and Republican parties opinions, policies, and viewpoints, not just watching the Republican Candidate attack the Democratic Candidate. There also seems to be a fear tactic instilled in almost all of these campaign videos, trying to make the viewer fearful of what our country would be like if Clinton were to take office; Although fear can be effective, I do not see it as a positive way to present your campaign and get people to vote for you. 

Although I do not like the majority of the 2016 republican party ads due to the crime, fear, and attacking of the other party, there were one or two that I actually thought were effective strategies by using emotional appeal instead of fear. This is why my “favorite” out of all these ads was the one titled “Motherhood”. This features Ivanka Trump discussing family values, and that no women should have to take a pay cut to be a mother, and that all women should have enough money for childcare and paid maternity leave. I think this emotional appeal not only would pull in women who relate to this, but fathers and children who understand the struggles of trying to make money while raising a family. I think emotional appeal is a better approach to convince an audience to vote for someone rather than instilling fear, which is why the messaging of this ad was my favorite. (the video of this ad is linked below)

http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/2016/motherhood

I always find the mini history lessons in our class podcast really interesting. I knew that FDR was disabled but I did not know that he went to such great lengths to hide it for fear of public opinion. Furthermore, I had never heard that so much research went into Nixon and Kennedy’s debate. I have also found that when listening to things such as the podcast I am much more focused on the content than when I have watched video lectures for other classes. The visual component can easily distract from interpreting the message and it seems like our brain finds the social and body language cues to be more important.

For the Living Room Candidate assignment I chose the 2008 election because during that election my dad had me help him distribute flyers and campaign door to door for McCain. Like we have mentioned in class and in the podcast, I am sure my dad was attempting to appeal to the instincts of the people he was campaigning to by bringing along a 7 year old. My favorite ad was a really poor quality ad made by McCain’s advertisers that I believe was inspired by Austin Powers. It starts out saying “Barack Obama is Dr. No” while playing cheesy spy music in the background and static black and white images of Obama are shown. While all of the messages that pop up do present Obama’s ideas about different energy sources such as gas taxes and nuclear power, it is clear that the information is skewed as the audio of Obama talking cuts at specific moments. Clearly not all of his ideas were presented in this targeted ad. I have always found it funny that the majority of political campaign ads try to bring down the opposing candidate rather than speak positively about the person who paid for and sponsored the ad.

It was really interesting to learn about the evolution of media exposure, especially between radio and television. I had never heard about the divide that occurred about the debate between Kennedy and Nixon regarding those who watched the debate on television and those who listened on the radio. I’d be curious to know how this trend looked in relation to party lines, because I’d want to consider the impact of implicit bias, however, based on the podcast, it sounded like a division regardless of party, which shows how much our “lizard brain” makes judgements based on physical appearance, behaviors, and mannerisms. This reminds me of what Dr. Bezio was saying class on Monday about how humans’ brains and characteristics are not actually adapted to much of the society we live in, and so many of our instincts contradict what we consciously want to do in the systems we function within. While for survival purposes it makes sense to focus on behaviors and physical traits, this does not translate to our societal values, or to use a debate to determine our perspectives on two individuals.

One of the ads that I found most interesting of the 2016 Democratic campaign ads called barbershop. While it was clear the ad was trying to demonstrate that Hillary Clinton had a diverse group of supports,  primarily depicting Black voters supporting Hillary, beyond that, that ad did not really seem to check any of the other categories on the survey we filled out for homework. I found it to stand out compared to the others as most of the other ads clearly were promoting multiple of the points on the survey. I’m not sure if this was to really emphasize this one component or if the add was made in response to a comment or something else, but it was interesting to see this ad focused on just one component of her campaign compared to the other “multi-tasking” ads.

Leadership can always been portrayed whether it is through a message, ad, in person, short interaction, etc. Besides the actions taken by individuals, the perception of others has also played a major role, specifically the media. If we focus on the campaign used during election season, there are many different takes the ads can deliver such as following the candidate and giving their mission, share a little but about themselves, share negative aspects pf the other party or opponent, etc. They also focus on specific problems or concerns they not only want to address but the issues the public wants to hear about.  After their take, many celebrities or people of authority and power will also share their beliefs or endorse candidates which can persuade people to choose one candidate over another. And we can not forget about the candidate’s slogan/ music jingle that stands out to constantly remind the public to vote for them.

One of my favorite ads was the one with Carter that shared information about himself like he is a southerner, and his concerns for the people/ who he was working for justice for to give a voice. The ad was short and to the point allowing the public to see who he was and what he was working to achieve without dragging it out. The ending also had his name and a slogan “A leader, for a change.” The ending reiterates who the candidate is and what he can easily be associated with (the slogan). There were many that were similar to this ad but the one from 1976 with Jimmy Carter stood out to me the most.

I thought the podcast was so interesting this week. I have always been so confused over the hold that media has on us. I am not saying that I am any different — I let myself get equally sucked in. But it is crazy to think that this new age of media is not just affecting our day to day but also is triggering our biases when trusting leaders. The conversation about FDR was so weird to think about. Timing really is everything when it comes to this issue but I think that the fact that we would trust his voice and words but not his appearence is insane. This is similar to what Dr. Bezio brought up about Nixon and JFK. I think that it is really weird that these studies have been replicated and we still react like this. Further, I think it is crazy to think of a world in which you would have no clue what a leader really sounded or looked like. Now, there are sound bytes and videos circulating that many, many people will automatically recognize.

The evolution of media is still continuing to grow at a very fast rate. It is concerning to think that we are choosing leaders over physical appearance. This is kind of like the new “influencer” culture in which people put value and trust into people who are attractive. I have always hated that we put people on pedestals with no actual substance. I also think this discussion is so relevant to pop culture right now because all of these celebrities that have such a captivating hold over us, look very similar. There is no diversity and it is sad. I understand that we trust people with who we can already make a connection just based on looks, but I wish our lizard brains would actually get with the times because consciously, we know that we can trust others even if they do not really look like us.

I was assigned to watch the 1992 Democratic, Republican, and Independent campaigns, and I noticed several key themes that spread across all three candidates. Every single one, for at least half of their advertisements, focused on taxes and prosperity and jobs. That seemed to be the big kicker back in 1992; taxes, jobs, wealth. While Clinton was more inclined to show how he would benefit these things personally, Bush was more likely to attack Clinton and say that he would ruin things more. Bush’s campaign took a very fear-mongering approach as it would use scary background songs, serious narrators, and devastating images to show what would happen if Clinton were to be elected. Whereas Clinton used happier imagery and lighter tones to show that he was for good, and his election into office would be good.

http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1992/maine

Personally, my favorite advertisement was one of Clinton’s attack ads on Bush, just because I think it was well-devised and planned out. It had a very set-up and punchline structure, and I think that’s why it stuck with me. It was an attack ad that depicts Bush boating in Maine and having fun in Maine, but then transitions to how Bush doesn’t pay taxes in Maine and does that in Texas instead, using buildings and property to get massive tax breaks (again, the focus was on taxes and the American people having to make up the difference and pay more). I thought it was kind of funny because the Clinton administration set up a very “paparazzi” like photoshoot of Bush doing all the fun things in Maine, and then it hit hard with the Texas taxes bit (which, off-topic, but I just realized that Texas and Taxes are anagrams. Haha).

I think that the consistent topics of taxes and jobs really show what was happening in 1992 and what the American focus was. It was also interesting to see what each candidate’s approach to campaigning was; Bush with the offensive, attacking Clinton style, and Clinton with the more cheerful and “hopeful” style that “proved” he was “working for Americans.”

I watched ads from the 1956 race (Eisenhower vs Stevenson). Eisenhower was running for re-election that year, and his ads interestingly didn’t attack Stevenson at all. Stevenson’s ads, on the other hand, almost all included some reference to how Eisenhower hadn’t delivered on all of his promises during his first term. I wonder if Eisenhower’s refrain from attack ads has to do with the limited information that voters had back then (compared to the present day). Stevenson could very easily point to Eisenhower’s track record, but because the former hadn’t held presidential office, he had less of a reputation. Less people were familiar with the results of his policies, and therefore there was less about him available to effectively attack.

My favorite ad is one from Stevenson’s campaign. The ad is about 4 minutes long, and features a monologue from Stevenson, from his home in Illinois. The monologue takes up several minutes, and is all done in one take (there are no cuts or editing). Stevenson speaks well, but there are moments where you can tell he briefly forgot what he was going to say, or stumbled over a word or two. It also appears that he is giving the speech from memory, rather than reading from some kind of teleprompter. In a way, this ad is refreshing because it doesn’t seem as contrived and scripted as the campaign ads that I’m used to seeing. It feels like a human is talking to you, as opposed to an image or idea being marketed to you.

I was assigned to the 1988 Bush v. Dukakis campaigns ads. When comparing the two, the biggest flaw that I saw with Dukakis’s campaign ads was that they were mostly all centered around defending his points that Bush was accusing him of. They were mostly surrounded by his government spending and the situation around Boston Bay. A few of his attack ads actually when against Bush, but they were not very convincing or full of detail. Dukakis also made political ads that focused directly on the Republican Party. He would throw on Bush’s name at the end of the commercial and made it seem like an afterthought. His ads mostly followed the idea of: I’m not Bush. Dukakis’s campaign pitch focused on the America of tomorrow and looking into the future. Bush focused his ads on being reliable and a proven leader. He also ended his ads with the idea America cannot risk the election of Dukakis.

During this time in history, the Cold War was coming to a close. National security was still the nation’s top interest and having Bush be in charge of ending the Cold War was a key selling point for the Republicans. I think his best ad/my favorite was when his campaign made the point that America needs a proven leader to end this conflict. Bush had just finished his vice presidency and already had a proven track record. The ad will Gorbachev really epitomized this point and I think the results of the election proved that America also agreed.

Overall, the campaign ads that were made by both parties were almost the cliche of political ads. Both had clips of each candidate waving to crowds, epitomizing the American dream, and showcase a lot of hard-working American laborers. The video content of each candidate was extremely similar. The differences lay only in their political views.

For The Living Room Candidate assignment, I was assigned the 2004 election between Bush and Kerry. More specifically, I was assigned to look at the ads released by Bush, the Republican, in this presidential election race. One of the ads that stuck out to me was an ad in which Bush described what he saw as faults in Kerry’s approach to National Security. In the ad, Bush appears to be appealing to people’s sense of patriotism, for he says things such as “As our troops defend America in the War on Terror”, indicating that Kerry either doesn’t care or cares less about these troops. Bush continues to use this patriotic appeal by discussing how Kerry opposed different types of military weapons made here in Florida. Firstly, this continues to appeal to people’s patriotic desires, for it emphasizes how the weapons were made in the United States, in Florida, and uses an accusatory tone that appears to almost see this refusal of American-made weapons as unpatriotic and bad for the country. Additionally, by listing these weapons that. appear to have fancy, “military-like” names, the ad gives the audience a sense that these weapons are very important to the war, and not having them is incredibly detrimental, while in reality, it is likely that people watching do not even know exactly what these weapons are, or how they would help. Additionally, Bush adds the fact that Kerry opposed extra body gear for soldiers as again an appeal to Americans patriotism, for it frames Kerry as caring little for the sacrifices of the military. Lastly, as a whole, this ad does not give any information about Bush’s policies; instead, it focuses on making his competitor, Kerry, look worse, and thus Bush looks better in comparison.

http://livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1972

My favorite McGovern advertisement from 1972 is “This Time.” I couldn’t really tell you why I liked it more than other ads, but I really enjoyed the end of the ad when they shake hands and cheer. I also liked this commercial because not only did the dialogue bring up relevant topics that were around during his campaign, specifically about international relations, China, Russia war, veterans, and communism but because it was based on a conversation with one civilian it enhanced McGovern’s personability. The conversation also happened in front of what seemed to be a strong working-class community. Next, I noticed that McGovern had way more “anti-other candidate” commercials than Nixon. I am interested to see the spread of data in class to see if that has to do with his democratic party affiliation or if is just that Nixon was running again to he had decisions he made and things that happen while Nixon was in office to use against him.

I think there should have been checkboxes in our list about the Environment and Change/openness, and International relations. I felt like they were missing.

Additionally, I was drawn to Dr. Bezio’s pos cast because it made me think of my FYS First semester of my freshman year. I took a rhetoric class focused on the White House, and we also talked about the effect of being able to hear and see the president on VT and radio, and how heavily that impacted the public.