Out of the living room ads for Obama’s 2012 campaign against Mitt Romney, the one that really stood out to me was the “Big Bird” ad. This ad was a remarkable change of pace from the majority of ads which highlighted Romney’s corruption and Obama’s dedication to prosperity and unity. Though still an attack ad as the majority of the ads were, this one was primarily focused on the fact that Romney lacked vision and policies aside from wanting to cut subsidies to PBS. This ad made fun of Romney, for lack of a more accurate phrase, for wanting to take on the corruption of Sesame Street as opposed to Wall Street. I thought that this ad was an effective comedic ad, though hard to take at all seriously if it was intended that way.

I did find it very interesting that Obama was using almost entirely an attack ad strategy in his 2012 campaign as he was the incumbent and could have used this time to promote his vision for the next four years of his presidency along with his accomplishments from his previous four years in office. Of course, there was a lot of material to attack Romney, as there is with most politicians, but almost none of the ads actually discussed Obama’s policies and/or successes. Now that he was an established candidate and incumbent, one would think Obama would have shifted strategies a bit. It is interesting to think that his campaign team thought that attacking Romney for not wanting to subsidize PBS should take precedence over actually discussing the Obama administrations’ successes of future.

At one point in the reading, the author uses the example of Rosa Parks. He asks who would have believed that an act as simple as Parks refusing to give up her seat on a bus would spark a movement that would completely transform the American South. I think this is a really interesting point that I have never really considered. Rosa Parks was probably not intentionally trying to start a huge movement. She just saw an injustice and did her small part in fighting it. The movement that came after it was a fortunate accident. This proves the point that it is worth doing the small things to fight injustice. Even if it seems insignificant, that small action may have a much larger impact on the world. A person does need to be in the public eye already to cause the change that they want to see.

I thought the end of the reading was pretty ironic. The author argues that in order to get involved politically people need to put down the computers and physically show up. Now, we are living in an age where showing up is not an option. Computers are really the only connection that we have to the outside world. I think it definitely raises the question of how do we continue to make political progress from our own homes. It is something that people need to figure out together and over a period of time.

My favorite ad campaign was Kennedy’s 1960 presidential campaign video. President Kennedy is by far my favorite president due to the way in which he handled himself during the cold war and the way in which he combatted group-think and learned from his mistakes. He is the reason why group-decision making has changed for the better. Therefore I may be a little biased in my opinion but the reason why I enjoyed this ad was due to some of the psychological principles in the commercial. The ad was filled with upbeat music and repeatedly stated Kennedy’s name which refers to the mere exposure effect. In which the more you are exposed to something the more you become familiar with and begin to like it (the same thing applies when you listen to a new song multiple times). The commercial classically conditions us to associate Kennedy’s name with an upbeat happy song so whenever we hear Kennedy’s name we experience happiness because we are reminded of the song. Another reason why I find Kennedy and his whole campaign so interesting is because this is the campaign in which they televised debates. The studio with all of the lights is very hot which causes you to sweat. Kennedy took the advice to wear make-up whereas Nixon failed to do so. The people-watching on TV believed Kennedy was much more poised and made better arguments whereas the people listening on the radio thought the complete opposite. Due to Nixon’s sweaty appearance, it made him look as though he was nervous and unsure yet again showing more psychological principles.

Another reason why I enjoyed his campaign video is that it shows a variety of American citizens throughout the video saying that it is up to the American people of every race, religion, and ethnicity. They have the power to put Kennedy into the office which I believe resonated with a lot of people. The campaign video also discusses Kennedy’s youth as well as intelligence stating that he’s not too old to try something new and not too young to do something dumb and that he is the perfect age for the presidency. Another thing that stood out to me during his debate with Nixon was his push for equal education and how he wants all American children to receive a fair and just education. Essentially saying that we are hurting ourselves as a nation if we do not give everyone an equal education.

Out of the ads I watched, I thought that the “Gray Dot” ad from the Bush campaign was the most powerful. The ad showed a split screen with two people. However, a gray dot covered both people’s faces so you could not identify them. The narrator goes on to talk about each candidate’s views, and they are completely opposites (for example, the narrator claimed that one candidate had never been called to serve in the army, and the other one had). At the end of the ad, the gray dot was removed and it turns out that both candidates were actually the same person (Bill Clinton).

I specifically liked this ad because it focused on leadership capabilities in general, rather than just attacking the opponent. In a lot of the other ads, the two candidates attacked specific flaws in the opponent’s policy. However, one of Bush’s main arguments was that we can’t have a leader who is on both sides of every argument, and in the White House, you have to make the tough calls and stick to it. I think that showcasing Bill Clinton’s apparent inability to stick with one side of the argument was used to demonstrate his potential flaws as president, especially during tough times.

My favorite ad of this campaign was Obama’s “Yes We Can” ad. I thought it was very clever how they turned his speech into a catchy song> Plus, the use of famous artists and actors endorsing him in the video spoke volumes for people because a lot of people idolize these celebrities. I also think the actual message of what he was saying was inspiring and moving

Link to ad:http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/2008/yes-we-can-web#4414

Another ad that I found to be very interesting is the “Country I Love ad”. I understand that Obama had to appeal to the white audience as well so I took this commercial to be one of those kinds of ads. He is surrounded by white people throughout the entire video, he even only shows his white family members. He also speaks about values and growing up in the midwest. These things seem to me like he was trying to resonate with white families and gain their votes. There wasn’t much talk about the black community at all.

Link to ad: http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/2008/country-i-love#4420

This one of George W. Bush’s campaign ad v. John Kerry during dangerous times. I favor this ad because it focused on resolving domestic issues during that time. It seemed like it was inspirational as Bush was displayed as a leader or a “hero” of some sort.  At the beginning of the ad, Bush confidently walks in as if he basically has already secured the victory. Then he appears in some scenes in front of the microphone speaking to the public which I guess shows that he is a poised speaker. Overall, I think this ad did a good job of targeting the public with the background music, sound effects, and the powerful image. This ad does its job of effectively making it an ideal political advertisement and sending the message that basically if you vote for Bush he will offer you a peaceful and secured future. That was the vibe I was getting from this ad.

Jimmy Carter’s 1976 “Reality” ad was my favorite for a few reasons. In this ad, Carter calls out republicans who he feels are using their ads to ignore the problems of America and act like everything is going perfectly. He points out the flaws he sees and claims that he, with help of the citizens, will address them.

The ad had no music and was very straight forward. I like how he mentioned his competition and directly countered them with his words. He also used fear tactics by saying all of the horrible things that were happening, like crime rates going up or schools shutting down, without giving any real numbers or statistics.

Watching these ads, I can see why Carter was elected. He comes off as a relatable American, but also a strong leader. I think his southern voice, simple vernacular, and even the way he dresses in some of the ads contribute to his relatableness. In this ad, he sounds strong and is dressed like a president. He looks like a classic example of a leader and this probably gave a lot of people the comfort to vote for him.

I watched the ads of the 1952 campaign Eisenhower vs Stevenson. My favorite ad was “Let’s not Forget the Farmer” supporting for Adlai Stevenson. The ad was a jingle that begins by mentioning  the Great Depression in the 1930s and how it affected the agriculture and economy. The recession in the economy greatly affected farmers, who depended on selling their crops to sustain themselves. Because of the deflation of crop prices, they were not able to afford their livelihood (like many other Americans during this time period). The jingle then leads to their current time of 1952 and talks about how the farmer will vote for Stevenson because Stevenson would know what to do during a time of recession.

This ad used the jingle that everyone knows about – old McDonald. It was a tune that I imagined resonated with many Americans. Especially as during the 50s, farming and farm families was still a very big business and very prominent. I imagine hearing this ad provided comfort to farmers who Eisenhower did not mention about at all in his campaigns. The jingle created a unity between all people.

Although Stevenson did not win the election, watching his ads showed he was for the common man. However, his ads did not show any concern for the Korean War and his input on it- which many Americans were worried about. I liked the ad I chose because it was easy to follow the jungle and rhyme of his ideas. I think this was the best ad out of the others as I thought the others to be boring and repetitive, not giving himself the platform to share what he would do with his presidency if he were elected.

Here is the link below:

http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1952/lets-not-forget-the-farmer#3950

I watched a commercial from the 1968 election cycle endorsed by Richard Nixon. this ad focused completely of the Vietnam War. By showing a series of still photos from the war with dramatic drums, that almost sound like explosions and gunshots in the background, the ad attempts to portray the horrors of war. Pictures of American soldiers, Vietnamese citizens, and destroyed towns all play into the theme of security, war, desperation, peace, and the need for change.

While all of these pictures of war are being shown, a voice (not sure if it is Nixon’s or not) is describing the ongoing turmoil and devastation that have yielded little progress. Pairing the images of war with a vocal message of desperation creates a tone of the need for change. I thought this was a very effective campaign strategy since at this point, many Americans were fed up with the way politicians were handling the Vietnam War. Nixon promises change and to bring an end to all the mayhem.

The ad finishes with a picture of Nixon and his campaign slogan, “This time, vote like your whole world depended on it.” This takes a very literal meaning by insinuating that if you (the voter) votes for the wrong candidate (not Nixon) it could have major repercussions on your safety. This also plays into the fear tactic.

I had to watch the 2004 democrat campaign ads and my favorite was “State of the Union…Not Good.”  They took edited clips of George Bush to make him say horrible things and then inserted clips of the crowd cheering for him.  For example, they took a clip of him saying “I am committed to defeating the good work of charities and the values that bring lasting peace,” and then the crowd starts applauding him.  I liked this ad the best because thought it was really funny and it caught me off guard since it did not have the serious tone that most of the other ads had.

http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/2004/state-of-the-union-not-good-web

I also enjoyed the ad titled “The Coalition of Loudmouth Jerks” which showed clips of democrats saying bad stuff about George Bush and then the narrator said, “but when democrats say mean things about the president, it makes the president sad.”  Then it followed with a montage of sad music and somber clips of George Bush looking out of a window and then had a picture of George Bush with an edited teardrop that ran down his face.  I thought this montage and edited teardrop part was really funny since I don’t normally think of campaign ads including humor in them.

http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/2004/the-coalition-of-loudmouthed-jerks-web