I watched the ads from both the Republic and Democratic runnings for the 1956 election (Eisenhower V Stevenson). The differences between the entire ad campaigns were interesting to see. The Democratic campaign was centered around fear-based tactics and critiquing Eisenhower’s previous term. The Republican approach highlighted a series of Americans and allowing them to talk about why they were voting for Ike. This approach is important for two reasons, 1. the American people were speaking for themselves, this celebrated unity and “the people” ideals, and 2. women were voting, so the marketing approach was focused on women, as individuals.<\/p>\n
Lots of studies say\u00a0Eisenhower’s approach to campaign TO women aided in his victory. The Republicans were able to exploit the gender ideology of the mid-1950s while the Democrats were trying to campaign to everyone, creating too broad of a marketing strategy. My personal favorite ad was titled “Women Voters.” It begins with the statistic: \u201cThis year there are fifty-four million women eligible to vote \u2013 two and a half million more women than men, enough to decide the whole election.\u201d This clearly explains Eisnhower’s marketing approach, female voters could determine the election results! The speaker continues on and says “because they believe he represents their best hope of achieving these things, the women of America are making their choice for president Dwight D. Eisenhower.\u201d That line is so important, the women of America are a separate group in this election when for so long women did not vote, and when they started to, they followed their husband’s vote. This differentiation of women as a separate voting demographic was a genius marketing strategy. This highlights how crucial women were to this election and that they deserve special attention during campaigning.<\/p>\n
When watching the ad you will see a series of 10 women speak about why they chose to vote for Ike, they mention security and minimum wage laws, but most of all, they speak about his character. Words like sincerity, honesty, God-fearing, and respectable. It speaks to the truth of the time: women votes during those years were based on more personal and subjective judgments of the candidates. I was reading up on the marketing strategies of this election and found two interesting quotes. From Republican\u00a0Bertha Adkins:\u00a0\u201cThere is no question that the woman\u2019s point of view is more subjective and personal. Women are more concerned about the honesty and integrity of the candidate, and they often react emotionally to his personality. If they don\u2019t like him, they may very well stay home on election day.\u201d And from the Democratic side,\u00a0Katie Louchheim believed, \u201cThere just isn\u2019t any such thing as a women\u2019s vote, or any appeal that is more effective for women than for men. The appeal of a candidate\u2019s personality is just as strong for men as for women, and women are interested in all issues.\u201d Here you have two contrasting views, and when understood in the context of the time (because obviously things have changed greatly and I would say Louchheim’s statement is true today), one can see the reason the Republican’s took that specific marketing approach, and they ended up winning; so although the marketing strategy wouldn’t work today, it was genius for this election year.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n