The current ads regarding the 2008 GOP primary are no different. When watching the ads, the people, either agree or disagree or disagree with the candidates viewpoints or portrayal based on their preconceived notions. Rick Perry’s ad attacking Mitt Romney’s health care policies is not swaying voters one way or the other. The voters already have opinions based on his health care policies and the ad confirms the thoughts they already have about Mitt Romney.
http//www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/perrys-romneycare-ad-health-policy-gets-really-dramatic/2011/10/10glQAZMA6ZL_blog.html. Why then are people paying attention to the ad? People are responding to the ad as a way to support their beliefs in everyday conversation. It provides evidence to their already formed opinions.
Michelle Bachmann’s ad attempts to humanize her as a local girl who understands Iowa, because she grew up there. I think the ads is attempting to win votes in Iowa because she relates to Iowans. I don’t think this is effective, because people will not vote because she is from their home town. If people do vote for her, I think it has more to do with their political ideologies lining up with hers. (Which could be the case…many regions have the same values.)
President Obama needs to combat his negative portrayal and concentrate on the positive things he has done while in office. There is going to be a lot of negative ads about him and the GOP will have lots of ammunition. He is going to have to prove them wrong and prove that his policies have positively impacted America. I believe he has the hardest job because he has to overcome people’s opinions of him right now. The negative ads against him are confirming peoples thoughts that he is not improving the economy and has done’ little to change America, as was his running slogan in the 2008 election.
The most effective of these ads is Michelle Bachmann’s because it is positive and she is portraying herself as a someone who understands your needs and wants. I think the negative ads are not effective because it shows the candidate running them as a person who needs to attack the other person to win instead of showing what they are capable of.
Social media groups are now entering the political arena and providing advertising space. I think this is a great way to for these groups to make money, and also provide the candidates with face time, so the voters can get to know where they stand on the issues. It seems like (so far) they are being fair and providing space to both parties. I think where we run into problems is when one social media group decides to become more liberal or conservative and then start showing ads to support their agenda. As long as the sites remain bi-partisan and do not try to sway public opinion one way or the other (as television networks do), I think it is helpful for the political campaign of 2012.
Yes, I think television ads are the best way to reach passive voters. Passive voters do not want to research the issues and basically want someone to tell them who to vote for. Television is the best media for doing this, because there is very little work involved for them. I don’t think internet ads will be as effective. Usually, you have to click on the ad to see what it says. Passive voters do not have an interest in seeking the information for themselves and so the television works the best.
No comments:
Post a Comment