Campaign Advertising Political Parties & Elections “The idea that you can merchandise candidates for high office like breakfast cereal-that you can gather votes like box tops-is, I think, the ultimate indignity to the democratic process.” —Adlai Stevenson ( )

From Broadsides to Broadcasts Over the course of 100 days in the campaign of 1896, William Jennings Bryan, by his own account, made 600 speeches in 27 states. He traveled over 18,000 miles to reach 5 million people. In a single fireside chat delivered while seated in his very own parlor a generation later, Franklin D. Roosevelt was able to reach 12 times that number by radio. (60 Million)

1975 Memo from Bob Mead to Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld

Creating an image…

“Follow Me Around”

Which is it? The media are a “convenient scapegoat for our myriad ills” (Stuckey) OR The media distort politics with their “simple, character-driven narratives” (Peretz).

A Typology of Media Effects Persuasion Agenda-setting Priming Some say there is a “law of minimal effects.”The media tend to reinforce the public’s preferences; it rarely alters them. Some say there is a “law of minimal effects.” The media tend to reinforce the public’s preferences; it rarely alters them. There are 3 kinds of media effects:

A Guide to Campaign Advertisements NAME CALLING – Often referred to as “attack ads.” Makes assertions about the opponents in a variety of unflattering ways. GLITTERING GENERALITIES – Name calling in reverse While name calling seeks to make up form a judgment to reject or condemn without examining the evidence, the Glittering Generality device seeks to make us approve and accept without examining the evidence. TRANSFER – Uses popular symbols to create a positive connotation for the candidate, or negative or controversial symbols to create a negative connotation of the opponent (e.g., Reagan’s “Morning in America” ad, 1984, Bush’s “Safer, Stronger” ad, 2004). TESTIMONIAL – References to and endorsements from celebrities and other well-known people (e.g., Kerry’s “Rassman” ad, 2004). PLAIN FOLKS – Demonstrating that they candidate is just as common as the rest of us, and therefore, wise and good (e.g., Clinton’s “Journey” ad, 1992). CARD STACKING – Use of statistics, usually in a one-sided manner to create a smoke screen. Using under-emphasis and over-emphasis to dodge issues and evade facts. BANDWAGON – Appealing to the desire of voters to follow the crowd. Usually directs appeals to groups held together by common ties (e.g., Evangelicals, farmers, school teachers, etc). All the artifices of flattery are used to harness the fears and hatreds, prejudices and biases, convictions and ideals common to a group. These 7 devices were identified by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis in 1938

Memorable Ads 1964 – Johnson, “Daisy” 1984 – Reagan “Morning in America” 1992 – Clinton, “Journey” 2004 – G.W. Bush, “Safer, Stronger,” 2008 – Obama, “Yes We Can” 2012 – Obama, “Understands,” “Firms,” Romney, “These Hands”

Negative Ads as a Percentage of Total, Source: Darrell M. West, Air Wars (2005): 61. Do negative ads work?

Buying Air Time In 2004, George W. Bush and John Kerry spent about $125 million each for 4 million ad airings. Ohio and Florida were the top ad targets, but the campaigns also poured a considerable amount of money into ads aired in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, Michigan, and Minnesota. In contrast, the group known as “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” aired their controversial ad 739 times in a small number of media markets where only 2.1% of the American population lived. Because of the free media attention it generated, by mid- September nearly 2/3 of those polled said they had heard of the ads, and 1/3 of those said they believed the charges were true. The cost of television advertising has risen astronomically over time.

The Desktop Candidate 60% of internet users said they went online to get news or information about the 2008 elections. 38% of internet users, or about 43 million people, said they used to discuss politics. One of the most popular subjects was jokes about the candidates and the election. 11% of internet users, or more than 13 million people, went online to engage directly in campaign activities such as donating money, volunteering, or learning about political events to attend. According to the Pew Internet and American Life project:

The Desktop Candidate 54% of voting-age Americans used the internet for political purposes during the 2010 midterm elections. 58% of online adults looked online for news about politics or the 2010 campaigns, and 32% of online adults got most of their 2010 campaign news from online sources. In 2012, 66 percent of the adults using Twitter and Facebook did so in part to conduct civil and political activity. According to the Pew Internet and American Life project:

How does the digital age change politics? Speeds up the media cycle (e.g., Feiler Faster Thesis) Increased competition diversifies the information provided Diminishes the influence of the mainstream media Helps campaigns to “micro- target” supporters (GOTV) Helps campaigns to solicit donations Increases efficiency and lowers costs More democratic

Main Sources of Campaign News, Based on all adults Television 66% 69% 67% Newspapers Internet Radio Magazines Source: The Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project, November 3-24, 2010 Post-Election Tracking Survey. n=2,257 national adults ages 18 and older, including 755 cell phone interviews. Interviews were conducted in English and Spanish. Note: totals may exceed 100% due to multiple responses.

Internet Tools Candidate websites Blogs Social networking Video sharing Twitter

“For twenty years, people have been calling this era of computers, the Internet, and telecommunications the ‘information age.’ But that’s not what it is. What we’re really in now is the empowerment age. If information is power, then this new technology—which is the first to evenly distribute information—is really distributing power.” “I believe that the internet is the last hope for democracy.”