Lyndon B Johnson's Advertising Campaign

In order to compare these two influential elections, one must first have a firm grasp of the historiography of both elections. The 1964 election was the 45th quadrennial presidential election. It had a lot of controversy around it due to the Republican nomination of politician and businessman Barry M. Goldwater for the president run. He outweighed prominent Republican candidates, for instance, Nelson A. Rockefeller. Goldwater did not have the support of his own party to run the election and underwent heavy criticism due to his unpopular conservative political position. He faced the Democrat

Television has been influential in United States presidential elections since the 1960’s. But just what is this influence, and how has it affected who is elected? Has it made elections fairer and more accessible, or has it moved candidates from pursuing issues to pursuing image? The media only impacts the American Society, especially for the presidential election as it increases the talks in politics and gives the president a higher role to follow. The television race captures more popularity than what a citizen is actually voting for.

Over the years Campaigning in the U.S. has changed drastically because of technological advances, the internet, social media, and the real-time information sharing across the globe. One study suggest that over the years, examining 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012, political advertising has become more negative. The Wesleyan Media Project’s charts states and 2004 election 45 percent of the ads were negative, where in 2012 about 65 percent of the ads were negative.1 There are many speculations on why these negative ads are increasing with every election, but one fact is that campaigns can use negativity to bring attention to a certain topic and sometimes benefit from the free media coverage if the controversy is popular enough.

In this day and age, political advertisements are stretched to the limits of toleration. Many of them focus more on the shortcomings of their opponents rather than the ideas and plans they have for the country. Often, the ads are nothing more than superficial smears aiming to tarnish the image of the target nominee. If the ads where kept cleaner and were more focused on important

Another way television misleads its viewers is by the way that they present candidates for an election of politicians. They spend all their time and money trying to put together a commercial that only puts down the other candidate. How are voters supposed to know whom to vote for if all they are presented with is negative ideas about each candidate? Television also tries to persuade us to vote for a certain proposition. Voters are also lured into voting for or against a proposition by listening to the music being played in the background of the commercial. An example of this type of situation may be the campaign on proposition 5 dealing with the Indian Casinos. They play sad, and convincing, music in the background of their commercial so the viewers can soften their hearts and vote “yes” on their proposition. Television is powerful enough to make our shopping easier. Actually, it is making us lazier. TV stations such as the Home Shopping Network make shopping as easy as dialing some numbers on a touch tone phone. People are also convinced to buy a certain product because a celebrity is presenting it. For example: if supermodel Cindy Crawford presents make-up, ladies will buy it and wear it because they believe that it will make them look like her.

The media runs rampant, promoting both true and fraudulent information. Many Americans do not trust political advertising because it lies about personal backgrounds, exaggerates, and take things out of context to manipulate voters’ sentiments. (Gerdes, Louise) Each year, it seems like the candidates find new and clever ways to cast their opponents in negative lights. A more recent example of this was the 2014 North Carolina Senatorial race between Kay Hagan and Thom Tillis. An abundance of bruising commercials aired on the radio and television all around the state, bashing each candidate’s views, from taxation to abortions to women and gay rights. However, despite all this negative campaigning, the American public has learned to decipher between true and false. Mudslinging is not a new occurrence. With a long history dating back to the near founding of the country, negative campaigning had plagued nearly every political candidate in America. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams criticized each other mercilessly during the 1800 election, from foreign and domestic policies to their own person behavior (Gerdes, Louise). Alexander Hamilton, under his pseudonym “Phocion,” accused Thomas Jefferson of having an affair with on of his slaves (Editorial Accuses Jefferson). Jefferson was also accused of being an atheist, causing many older women to bury Bibles in their backyards in case he got elected. During the 1828 campaign, Andrew Jackson himself was accused of murdering Indians. His wife was charged with adultery (Kennedy, David M.). After many decades, Americans have learned to decrypt the negative campaign advertising and find the facts. The people are neither obligated to believe everything they listen to, nor are they required to gather their information from just one source. Newspapers, Internet articles, political speeches, and radio and televised news broadcasts, such as 60 Minutes and Face the

The editorial section of Life Magazine devoted a lot of its writing to the 1968 Presidential campaign. Early on it seems that it will be Richard Nixon running against President Johnson. Only Richard Nixon and George Romney started out running in the primaries, suggesting that this seriously underrepresented the Republicans. However, if he were to run, Nelson Rockefeller was believed to be the republican most likely to beat Johnson. By the end on the first quarter the emergence of Nelson Rockefeller, Robert Kennedy, and Eugene McCarthy brings new animation to the race.

Since then, commercials have all had a similar format, appealing to your emotions, showing you why you need it. Emphasis is put on you rather than their products, and how much some products sold is unreal. This growth in the market for those advertised products isn’t refutable, and obviously politicians realized this technique works because they started using it too. There’s little doubt in my mind that it works for politicians just as much as it works for multi-million dollar corporations. Emphasis on emotional appeal rather than reason and logic is a big theme in this chapter, and Postman is correct in making it one because it is undeniably what changes our view on politics

As time goes on, each Presidential election seems to be more controversial than the last. Political advertisements have a clear goal in promoting or criticizing candidates running for the same position. These advertisements are very important to the success or lack failure for the candidates. Jeb Bush recently ran in the 2016 Presidential election as a Republican candidate. Although he had many television advertisements, “First Job” stuck out as extremely successful for Jeb Bush’s campaign. The Jeb Bush 2016 Campaign Advertisement, “First Job” is successful in promoting Jeb Bush as a Presidential candidate by using images that appeal to Americans, incorporating a personal and professional connection, the dialogue, and including positive music

Campaign Ads, America is highly familiar with them. Every election cycle television programing is overrun with ads for the candidates competing in that election. They have become a staple of American election fare. There are three major kinds of campaign ads: informative, comparison and negative. The informative ads tell the viewer about what the candidate stands for. While comparison ads compare the views of multiple candidates. The negative ads tend to focus on evoking emotion. The goal of the negative ads is creating political actions from the emotions evoked. Negative ads have become increasingly common over time. The major problem with negative ads is that they only truncate politics while adding nothing worthwhile. Negative

The Media, The Campaign, and the Message article examines how the 1996 Presidential campaign manipulated certain messages to the voting public through news outlets. It was discovered that these media organizations are more receptive to airing campaign messages for candidates that are more ahead of the game. The conclusions were that the media has a preference for portraying the candidate that is favored by the public, rather than the receptive

In the realm of political advertising, there are two main categories of ads, positive and negative (Brader 2006). These categorizations usually relate to their intended purpose or emotions that are evoked. Positive ads, as the title suggests, evoke positive emotions like hope or enthusiasm (Brader 2006). While negative ads promote negative emotions, like fear, anger or anxiety. Evoking these emotions from voters are a key strategy to manipulating voters into a desired behavior. Sometimes the goal is to interest voters in campaigns or to gain votes. Positive ads typically focus on the own candidates campaign while negative campaigns usually focus on the opponent (Brader 2006). In a study by Khan (1993), it was found that 65% of ads are candidate oriented while 35% are negative and opponent oriented. When negative ads focus on the opponent, they

The United States has less than two weeks until the nation elects a new leader. Undecided voters need to make a secure decision to choose the most reliable candidate to run this country, but how will they make a final decision? One of the most effective ways to persuade citizens to vote is through television ads. Television ads reach out to almost everyone with access to cable or the internet. These political ads are used to convince citizens to choose a side through several techniques such as stating facts about the candidate being represented, mentioning the goals of the candidate, exposing the side effects of the opponent’s proposal, and incorporating a well-known public figure into the advertisement. This year, the current candidates, Hillary

One side makes the claim that negative attack ads contribute to a healthier democracy and are a positive aspect of the political process. While the other side makes the argument that negative attack ads create distrust between constituents and their politicians and also can create an atmosphere for political manipulation. While both sides have had substantial support from experts it seems that the debate will continue on whether negative attack ads should be commonplace in the political

Several weeks before an election, you watch as a plethora of variegated signs, usually with smiling faces (which I always found more creepy than kind or trustworthy), entrench themselves in lawns and roadsides everywhere. Soon follow impassioned speeches to diverse audiences – some people listen with equal fervor, some appear to drift mentally like lackadaisical high school students – about issues ranging from budget deficits to opponents’ drunken racist comments. Attack ads, a now ubiquitous presence, are increasingly creative and, it seems to me, personal. As the race draws to a close,