Sunday, November 20, 2011

Campaign Ads.... Bob Dole

Here are a few campaign advertisments used for the Bob Dole campaign against Bush. Are they effective or not? This video shows four Dole advertisements and talks about the effectiveness. I think the one comparing and contrasting the two is somewhat effective however, who wants to read  words on the television. The first ad appeal to emotion a little more and to me seemed an effective ad at getting people to like him as a person and the second one is better at show who he is as a politician. Together they work well but who is going to watch both together? They can both be effective but in different ways.

Campaign Advertising

Is 30 to 60 seconds enough to persuade a person onto one side or the other in a presidential campaign. This video talks about the time of campaign ads and if it is better to have multiple 30 second ads or maybe just one 2 minute ad. Although two minute ad's may get more information in, in today's day and age everyone likes things quick and concise. We have talked about the media sound bite and it is true. No one will pay attention to a two minute ad unless it is really intriguing. 30 seconds is quick and to the point. It could go either way. To me it is all about the execution of the ad versus the time of the ad. If it is an interesting two minutes than it is effective but even a 30 second ad could be ineffective it is not properly executed.

Campaign Ads- Mike Dukakis

It is interesting to see in these ads that education is an important topic even in the 90’s. The first ad seems relevant and seems like it would be effective, seeing as education has always been an important topic for a lot of people. Here they are talking about how they are the type of ads that are engaging. It is interesting to see how engaging ads then, most likely would not be as engaging now mostly because of the rise in technology and what we can do with it now.

Sunday, November 13, 2011

More Shockers....????

As much fun as the presidential debates are, as I commented in my last blog, I got through about 30 minutes of Wednesday night’s debate and had to shut it off and finish it later. 

The first answer by Herman Cain in the debate in Michigan, should have told me that this debate would, once again, reinforce the opinions I have about the republican candidates. 

In his answer to the first questions, Herman Cain continued to reinforce the fact that we need to strengthen the American economy. How exactly does he plan on doing so? That, I am not entirely sure. 30 seconds of his first answer continues to repeat that we need to strengthen the American economy and the second half of his answer stressed the fact that a “dollar needs to be a dollar”. I understand he is talking about strengthening the value of the dollar and getting back its value but he doesn’t go any further in his answer.

The question Herman Cain was asked to answer was, how would he prevent Italy’s struggling economy from effecting the American economy. To me Herman Cain did not answer this question at all. He stressed what needs to be done with the American economy, but gave no way of actually fixing anything. Obviously, Maria Bartiromo felt as if Herman Cain did not answer the question either, based on her response. She tried to bring what Herman Cain said back to the original question, although tough to do. 

Herman Cain seems to do this a lot. He says what needs to be done but doesn’t explain it well, or even at all. 

However, Herman Cain was not the only one to falter at this debate. 

About 13 minutes into the debate, John Harwood, asked Mitt Romney about his changing positions on topics, including the bail out of the auto industries, through the years. Now, Mitt Romney responded, saying he is consistant and steady, using his long “marriage of twent…. Excuse me I’m going to get in trouble, 45 years”. Honestly, I don’t care that he and his wife has been together for 45 years. That is great and all, but I want him to use examples of the policy positions that have stayed the same throughout the years. 

His explanation about his view on the auto bailout contradicted the statement that he is steady and consistent because his view, once again, changed from what he had said before. 

On top of all that, there is Ron Paul, whose extremist positions make him not a viable candidate either. I agree that the debt from students coming out of college is extreme and ridiculous. However, due to the increasing demand for college degree’s in the workplace it does not seem like an option to get rid of all federal student aid and the federal department of education. I agree, maybe it needs to be fixed, but getting rid of it all together would cause more problems than it would help. If people can’t afford to go to school, then more people would be unemployed because they are not educated.

Let's just say the candidates need to go over their ideas a bit more, until they remember them or actually make sense in terms of everyone in our country.

Kennedy Nixon- First Televised Presidential Debate

First televised presidential debate. This video shows clips of the Kennedy Nixon debates that changed the presidential debates forever. Looking at the debate setup, it is almost exactly the same. It is funny to see how similar debates more than 50 years ago they are. This clip says that the point of the debate talked a lot about domestic issues. Whereas the previous clip I posted, the women comments that they did not talk enough about the domestic issues.  It is easy to see the similarities in the 1960 debate versus the 2008 McCain Obama debates and the many differences as well.

John McCain and Obama debate versus the 2011 Republican Debates

This clip talks about a debate for the 2008 election between President Obama and Senator John McCain. I found it interesting the similarities and differences in the thoughts about the debate from 2008 and the debates between the Republican Candidates going on right now. They talked about how the debate was dull and not interesting enough, however, I would say for the Republican debates going on right now, they are a little to interesting. The policies and political thought are not necessarily what has been making this years debates animated and interesting. Maybe the reason the debates going on right now are interesting and animated is due to the fact that it is all republicans fight against each other versus a republican and a democrat running for the presidential seat.

I can’t remember the title to this post......

To be fair, I did not watch the whole debate on Wednesday. The first 30 minutes was enough for me to shut the television off and walk away. I had no idea why everyone was talking about Rick Perry until I forced myself to finish the debate to see what all the comments were about. This spared Rick Perry a good day of criticism by me, before I began to really ask myself, why? Why is Rick Perry still running, how was he ever front runner, and how is he still taken seriously? 

Everyone makes mistakes. This is a concept I understand all too well. Everyone has made a comment about something to someone and later realized, wow did I really say that? It happens to the best of us. All we can say is dust off the embarrassment, get back up, jump back in and make up for it with a stunning next performance.

Now, Rick Perry has not seemed to grasp the concept of making up for his stupidity, and instead reinforces his stupidity. (CNBC interview with George Stephanopoulos... Everybody makes mistakes).

Why am I now calling Rick Perry’s screw ups stupidity and not mistakes? 

Mistakes are made once or twice, within a couple months. Some mistakes are bigger than others. However, in the past two weeks Rick Perry is batting two for two. He first acted outrageous and out of control during his speech in New Hampshire making me believe he couldn't top that with anything more unprofessional. Low and behold he proved me wrong!

When I plan a speech in front of class, I practice it a few times, have some notes, know exactly what I want to say. Now, a debate is a little more challenging, not knowing what exactly is going to be asked and what is need to be said. However, the concept, of practicing for a debate is very similar to practicing a speech. you must memorize the main topics that you believe and practice the key points to your beliefs, or in Rick Perry’s case, his federal government reform ideas.

We all know the tax plans, health care plans and plans to regulate the federal government are not written by the candidates. They have advisers and staff to help with the expressing of their ideas. I am not saying the ideas are not the candidates but they are expressed by someone who knows the candidates ideas. This is understandable. The candidate has the ideas and knows what they need to do to fix the government (in theory), and they pay someone to write them into a plan that someone may actually want to believe in. 

In college, if someone writes a paper for someone else to hand in, that person should really read the paper before handing it in, to know what exactly their “stance” really is and knows answers to questions a teacher may ask. In politics you would think this same idea would apply. For Rick Perry apparently not. 

How can a politician forget the third federal agency they want to shut down? If it would really impact the United States and help job creation, it should be important enough to remember. The more shocking thing, is one of the other candidates says in a joking manner, “the EPA” is the third agency and Rick Perry laughs out a “yeah”, although really meaning, no!

This was not a laughing matter, although Rick Perry seemed to think it was. I do not want my president to say, ‘I am going to shut down three federal agencies that are killing jobs’ and only know two of them and randomly pick the third by the next one that pops to mind. 

The question is now, was this a "death blow" to Rick Perry's campaign? Well have to see.

So what have I learned from this debate and Rick Perry’s stupidity? Be sure to watch the whole debate next time, you never know when you’ll miss a good laugh.

Sunday, November 6, 2011

CSPAN and social media

This video talks about C-SPAN being a part of social media. This however, also, talks about how social media is becoming more and more important in congress and the politics.

52% Popular Vote….. Where is the Media?

I realized I have been focusing on Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann. They seem to be the ones that alternate off and on with either the frontrunner status or the most publicity. Although some now, more than others; Michele Bachmann’s popularity has been plummeting for a while.  

There is another nominee that not only I seem to have been ignoring in my posts but the media has been ignoring as well. Ron Paul has been steadily near the top of the polls and seemingly popular with voters but not so much with the media. Why is this? Maybe because of his age, or maybe he is just not as interesting as the other nominees.

Let’s face it, everyone wants some type of controversy or interesting story when they turn on the news at night. Who, other than the politicians, wants to sit and watch a two hour debate by 8 or 9 republicans on views you may not agree with, wearing suits of all similar colors and no changing facial movements? No one.

Now, watching the debates and the banter back and forth from Rick Perry and Mitt Romney actually adds a bit of interest to the presidential debates. This puts the focus on Perry and Romney, also giving them more media attention. 

Herman Cain, has his 9 9 9 plan which enacts a lot of controversy and interest from voters, making him an interesting target for the media to cover as well. His not so understandable explanations for why his 9 9 9 plan is so great and not to mention his lack of proper grammar makes him an interesting candidate to watch in interviews and debates, if not for anything more than to hear a couple of his not so clever jokes. Cain seems to be the funny man in this election, making inappropriate jokes about electric fences and claiming blacks are brainwashed. Herman Cain is a journalist’s dream come true. He puts himself in situations that warrant media attention. Somehow, Cain also managed to be front runner and high in the polls for over a month gaining major publicity. 

Michele Bachmann gets media attention due to her lack of common sense and her racist bigotry. Is that good publicity? In the presidential election it hasn’t seemed to make her anymore liked. If anything, it has sent her down in the polls. Now, who says no publicity is bad publicity? 

This weekend however, Ron Paul gained 52% of the popular vote in Illinois. None of the front runners have managed to gain this high of a popular vote yet in any other straw poll. My question is, why do I barely every hear about him. I know of him, and I watch him in the debates, but the debates usually seemed to focus on Romney, Perry and recently Herman Cain with a comment from Bachmann every once and a while. Although Ron Paul talked for about the same amount of time as Perry and Romney minus a few minutes it seemed like most of the debates have a focus on them. Whether that is just the way it is taped I don't know. But it is not a mistake, nothing in media is.

Why are Ron Paul’s voting rates so much higher than the other candidates; who knows? Maybe it is because Herman Cain is in the middle of a sexual harassment dispute, Rick Perry acted drunk during his 30 minute speech, Michele Bachmann doesn’t know what she is talking about, Mitt Romney flip flops his stance on topics and the other candidates don't really make a dent at all. Now, who wants to vote for people like that?

With Ron Paul gaining 52% popular vote you would think he would get much more media attention. Sadly, the fact is he is just not as interesting, meaning media worthy, than the other candidates. Although it is wrong and should not be the case, that’s the way, it is.

Are they serious?!

This past week a lot has happened within the realm of the republican candidates. Now people ask me why I am not a republican. If you watched the news last week at any time, there is my answer!

First, there is Herman Cain and the sexual harassment claims. I mean come on. First off, the sexual harassment case has been settled and happened more than 10 years ago. It is time to move on. However, do I trust Herman Cain after hearing the allegations; not really. Need I reiterate the fact that Herman Cain does not know how to explain things properly or defend himself without putting himself into a deeper and deeper hole?

First he says he had no idea about any settlement, then he says he knew about “an agreement” but not a settlement changing his story. Although sexual harassment is not acceptable in any way shape or form, the fact that Herman Cain may have sexually harassed a woman is not what makes me frustrated. The fact that Herman Cain’s explanations and stories always change from day to day, and he doesn’t seem to know what he is talking about. 

When he was trying to explain the 9 9 9 plan all he did was reiterate the fact that state and federal taxes was mixing apples and oranges. I did not get a full explanation of why the Washington posts’ analysis of his tax plan was wrong, he just said it was with little to no proof. Herman Cain may be a business man and able to run god father pizza, but to run the country you need a little bit of a mix between business and politics. Most politicians are too much like politicians and not good business men, but Herman Cain is a business man and not really a politician. The fact that he is also needing to even defend himself against a sexual harassment claim, that in fact did end in a settlement or “agreement” as Cain puts it, is also unsettling but not the straw that broke the camel’s back.

Herman Cain however, does not take the cake as the most unrespectable candidate. Rick Perry managed to win that one this week with his outrageous display during a speech in New Hampshire. Now there is a fine line between being “passionate” about his view points, as his advisors had called it, and being unprofessional. His voice mumbled at points and his facial expressions where extremely animated. Now, was he drunk? I can’t say. To me it sure looked that way. He giggled unprofessionally and his body movements didn’t seem to make sense. 

When I look for a politician to run the country that I am a part of, I expect them to be a bit animated but not overly so where they come off as if they are on a comedy show. When he tried to point out multiple points, he was not able to count them properly on his fingers. Now, if that was not enough, at the end of the speech, he oddly played with maple syrup and seemed a little too excited about the gift. Whether or not he was drunk, it was unprofessional and it seems no one would take the United States seriously if our president acted like that at an important meeting. I know I wouldn’t take him seriously.

I am all for a little bit of fun, but come on, that was just too much. To me, it doesn't matter if he was drunk or not. Frankly, I would preferred if he had been drunk, because then I would know that he would not act like this at any meeting or address that he had.

Here is the whole video:

Here are just clips of the video: 

These both portray his out of control behavior. Some may not want to watch the whole 25 minute speech so there are the shorter clips of about 8 minutes as well.

Congress Tweeting?!

Tweeting on the floor of congress?! Social media is really playing a part in politics now and days. Congress and the media can tweet their opinions on the floor of when listening to the state of the union speech. We can get peoples reactions from the speech, during the speech.

Social Media Use During Campaigns

(8 30 to about 14 minutes )

Although this video cannot be embedded, it talks about social media during the campaigns and is a great video to explain this. This is interesting, because they not only talk about twitter and Facebook, but blogs and YouTube as well in the political campaigns. It is talks about how most people using the social media to follow the campaigns are younger. Does it work well, is now the question.