Something I profoundly hate about election time in this current era is the the over-distillation of political commercials into "X will cause Horrible Effect Y! Vote No on X!" with no reasoning, no connection between X and Y given, just an assertion of horrible effect.
"Bob Smith wants to be governor, but his policies will lead to babies being eaten in the streets!" "Proposition Q will destroy the economy, sell your Mother down to Rio, and pollute your precious bodily fluids."
There's no actual argument, no reasoning, no cause and effect, just EFFECT! HORRIFYING EFFECT! TERRIBLE, AWFUL, GUT-WRENCHING, EFFECT! VOTE NO ON BOB! DEFEAT Q! IT'S OUR ONLY HOPE!
And I'm intellectually honest enough to despise it even when I think Bob is a jerk and Q is a horrific idea. It still just bugs the snot out of me.
Thank God for the Fast Forward / Skip on the DVR …
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyEE3qEEHrs
+Bill Garrett So, two things:
1. That is about 50x as articulate as the sort of thing I'm talking about. 🙂
2. The video says "1960," when, clearly, it should be 1968.
The trigger for this was an ad that was so vague that I initially thought it was pro-Prop 112, but it turned out to be anti-Amendment 74 — but all it said (against a field of fluttering bank notes) was, "If you vote for this, it will cost the state lots and lots of money" without any further elucidation of why or how.
Are you maligning the process? Don’t you realize that THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION OF OUR TIME, and that B.A.D. CANDIDATE IS A THREAT TO CIVILIZATION and holds views WAY BEYOND THE POLITICAL NORM? Fine, be that way and plunge the world into darkness… P.S. This message does not endorse any political candidate, even though there are only two candidates and one of them is the spawn of Satan.
+John E. Bredehoft "BOB SMITH IS TOO EXTREME FOR [fill in the state here]!!!"
I mean, sometimes things are actually bad, and a call to moderation hurts the process of honestly appraising the candidates. Chamberlain is vilified for trying to appease Hitler, for example.
So how do you run an ad, when one person really has made things that bad?
+Dave Hill And I dunno. I can think of reasons I would vote for something that will cost the state lots and lots of money. Infrastructure. Education. Health care…. and probably a few others.
+Bill Garrett How do you run an ad? Without shouting. It’s possible to state that Jane Jones’ policies are adversely affecting and that Bob Smith’s proposals will reverse that. Even a personal anecdote (“I lost my job after Jane Jones required all businesses to provide signs in all official UN languages”) can be done tastefully.
The Humphrey Muskie ad was interesting, because it (presumably intentionally) shared some elements with the anti-Goldwater ad that Johnson aired in 1964.
https://youtu.be/dDTBnsqxZ3k
+John E. Bredehoft The Humphrey ad certainly has that same sense about it.
+Bill Garrett I'm not calling for moderation, necessarily, or even restraint in hyperbole. I'd simply simply rather not jump directly to effect without some sense of cause, esp. on ballot measure ads. I don't need a dissertation, but something would be helpful.
Or put another way, if I have no idea when the ad is over what the ballot proposition actually does, even in summary, just that it is HORRIFIC, then I think it's a bad ad.
BAD: "Amendment Q will destroy our state's economy. We can't afford it. Vote NO on Q."
BETTER: "Amendment Q will destroy our economy by raising corporate taxes. We can't afford it. Vote NO on Q."
The disturbing part is that sensationalistic negative campaign ads are effective – in part because a large part of the electorate is uninformed. Perhaps there are good reasons for this – someone working two jobs or not working any job at all may not have ballot propositions at the top of his/her priorities.
But advertisers want their ads to have the greatest effect possible, and therefore target the large bulk of (a) registered voters (b) who will vote and (c) may not know much about the issues.
It's probably fair to say that the people who are commenting on this thread do not fit into this category (specifically item c).
One thing I've come to appreciate is candidates actually labeling their signs or political officialiation! For the longest time you couldn't identify a Democrat sign from a Republican, restless as to whether red or blue was predominant
+Nick Carter Actually, I'm seeing a lot more of the reverse, election by election, and that's irksome. But I live in a plurality-non-partisan state, so that may be one of the reasons.
+Dave Hill meaning you see candidates mislabeling their signage as though they're members of another affiliation? That's messed up!
Actually, creative labeling is fairly common. Proponents and opponents of California propositions label themselves with names like "Californians For Jobs, a coalition of small business, labor, teachers, police officers, and dog walkers." Then you get to the fine print: "…with major funding by Chevron and ExxonMobil."
+Nick Carter No, simply scrubbing their partisan affiliation. "Smith for Assembly Seat 5!" with no indication of party, just a plea for name recognition in the voting booth.
+John E. Bredehoft Oh, yes. Some (un)favorites of mine from the current ballot props:
"Blank Check. Blatant Deception," "Committee for Colorado's Shared Heritage, "Coloradans for Coloradans," "Coloradans for a Responsible Future," "Protect Colorado," "Spirit of Colorado," and (this one's for you, +John E. Bredehoft) "Don't Turn Colorado Into California".
+Dave Hill now THAT I've seen, and it irritates the hell out of me
+Dave Hill https://youtu.be/CXk1882z5oo