When has political advertising led you to change your vote?
Posted at 5:00 AM on October 14, 2010
by Eric Ringham
(24 Comments)
Filed under: Politics/Government
Tight races in dozens of congressional districts around the country have prompted a wave of negative political advertising. Today's Question: When has political advertising led you to change your vote?
Comments (24)
All the debates in Minnesota's Gubernatorial campaign provided a clear road map of the candidate's true intentions. Evidently it's not easy to stick with the same set of ideals and plans, and stay true to one's own record.
The debates were criitcal to knowing each of them.
The ads provided much less in the way of credibility, with the exception of Dayton's.
There has probably been a time or 2 when both of the major candidates were SO bad that their ads prompted me to vote for a minor candidate. I actually decided to vote for Jesse Ventura because I thought his performance on the MPR debates was outstanding. I liked Wellstone's ads, but then I liked Wellstone. For the most part, I'd say the paid political ads might inspire me to vote AGAINST someone, but I try to use more objective information to decide to vote FOR someone.
Never has. I go by FACTS, not propaganda.
Never; they are all spin; but a political ad spoof helped me make up my mind once. I remember wondering who I should vote for in 1976. I didn't think Carter would be a very dynamic president and Ford seemed like a fairly honorable guy. I watched a fake political ad on SNL the weekend before election day, that started out showing clips of Nixon, then clips of Nixon and Ford, then Nixon departing, and Ford pardoning him. It closed with a photo of Ford and Nixon shaking hands and smiling, with the caption "Four more years?"
THAT one scared me...
Typically no, and for the most part it makes me lose respect for the opponent who supported/made the commercials. Sometimes people make at least amusing ones, like Winnipeg's citizens who apparently dislike their current mayor: Sam Katz NOT for Mayor
Not usually. I find most to be inflammatory and misleading. I read the position papers and keep track of votes by sitting members of state and national legislatures.
Probably never. Political ads are nothing more than product commercials. And commercials are inherently biased to make the product look like the perfect choice and anything else look worthless. But selling a candidate like a box of cereal, replete with silly graphics and sound effects, still works. And unfortunately it says more about a certain percentage of voters/consumers than I care to think about.
If anything, I tend to agree with Steve the Cynic. The more negative the ad, the more weak the position.
I was thinking of voting for Jesse Ventura. then ... I saw his adds and ... passed on that choice. that being said ..... political ads aren't a medium full of thoughtful content. They are a "proof" for the campaigns donors to show "THEM" that the values "THEY paid for" are still forefront in the candidates message. sort of like swearing an oath that can be used later to brow-beat you into line.
When I saw the Paul Wellstone add where he is running around all over minnesota LOOKING for his opponenet to debate him....
His first run.
I then started to listen to what he was saying, partly because honestly I did not yet hear the differences, and partly there needs to be more humor in ads that are light hearted like that one.
WAY too many are straight out attack, that shows limited imagination of the candidate, Lack of Marbles, and a real disconnect with the people. If you do use humor, compare and contrast, or even just get the name out. It needs to be the candidate saying it.
If it is not the candidate, then its not honestly their message. They will not be held accountable when they are given the post.
The increasing number of bent truths, white lies, missing counter points, and no debate of what is said or even time to counter is wrong.
Advertising also needs to end 1 month before the election. Also maybe only allowed 3 months before.
Truth in advertising needs to return.
Accountability needs to return.
Light hearted and NOT attack is a absolute must.
Until that happens fewer and fewer ads will mean jack to me.
Never.
In fact, it makes me quickly lose favor for the candidate who ran the ad (or the group who runs it in their stead).
Compare and contrast. Don't attack and bombast.
Dont watch T.V. don't listen to comercial radio havent seen any political commercials.For some reason they avoid the internet.
advertising is so misleading and demeaning and doesnt really doesnt change my vote! i read listen their views and make my choice!
Never. They just infuriate me more, because I'd rather hear about where they stand on the issues, rather than why NOT to vote for their opponent.
The ads don't effect my vote. However, despite what those of us who are responding here are saying, they must effect some significant portion of the voters. Otherwise, the millions spent on these ads would be spent somewhere else.
So, I agree with Gary F, that the ads seem to be targeting those 30% who are undecided. But, I don't agree that the ads expose any issues of value. Most of the information in the ads seems to be half truths and hyperbole....useless. It's sad that people fall for that stuff.
I can't recall any time in which a political advertisement has made be change my vote. Political advertisements have become such a cliche that I really can't see what their point is anymore--other than focusing the attention of the already committed.
NO!
All political runs should be void of finance.
Simply have a web page and weekly printed ads that have the issues and candidates.
How they stand on each issue will be ranked from 0-4 (Zero is no support, 4 strongly support)
THEN, after the election the elected official will be legally bound to this document!
If the candidate would like to make a web page..OK
If they would like to go out to meet / debate OK.
NO yard signs, NO TV or radio adds.
Special interest and or Foreign interests have to be taken out of our leadership.
∑
DTOM
The ads don't necessarily change how I vote. They most infuriate me because I hate the attacks. I want to hear what the candidates stand for, not about all the "bad" things their opponent has done. I am to the point where I am starting to avoid local TV because I can't stand hearing the same stupid ads over and over and over again. I think we get it by now that Tarryl Clark and Michelle Bachman are just going to mud sling at this point! Election day can't come soon enough....
I appreciate candidates like Dayton who from the beginning said he would not get involved in the attack ad business. And so far, he hasn't!
Actually, when Erik Paulsen ran the negative campaign about Jim Meffert it has made me want to research about Jim Meffert because I hadn't heard of him prior to the ad campaign.
It shuts me down. I am thankful for programs with folks like Tom Hauser of KSTP, who run the truth tests on these things. I think I'm going to get sick if I have to hear anything more about Tarryl Clark and Michelle Bachman.
Never. I prefer to research the people I vote for.
Never, ever. I am a focused voter and make my decision months ahead of time.
I try to leave the country 2 weeks before election so I don't puke from listening to all the political advertising.
To me, it doesn't. I've done my homework.
I choose the candidate that best represents freedom, liberty, free market capitalism, and national security.
I believe that about 30-35% of the general population votes for the democrat, 30-35% of the general population votes for the republican, and 30-40% are the ones that the political adds are trying to reach.
Political ads are important because they expose issues and votes that the media doesn't cover.
I can't remember any case in particular, but I tend to be biased against whatever candidate has the nastiest ads.
Never.
| October 2010 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | |||||
| 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
| 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |
| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 |
| 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 |
| 31 | ||||||
Master Archive
Recent Entries
- Have changes to the airline passenger experience affected your willingness to fly?
- Should marijuana be available for medical use in Minnesota?
- Do the struggles of Minnesota's business icons signal trouble for the state's economy?
- Do you know whether insurance would cover your losses in a major storm?
- What kind of recycling program would you be likely to use the most?
- Would you support paying people for organ or tissue donations?
- Have personal relationships in the workplace ever presented a problem for you?
- Do you think Facebook is a passing fad?
- Will you be less likely to visit the Minnesota Zoo without its dolphins?
- Should authorities in the Twin Cities change the way they warn people about tornadoes?
Public Insight Network
The Public Insight Network draws upon your experiences to help shape our coverage.More
Categories
Services
In The Spotlight
-
Sound Learning
Looking for ways to ensure your students are doing quality research from credible sources? Sound Learning is a launching point to Minnesota Public Radio's content on the Web. -
The Current Music Blog
Your daily note for good music, news and pop culture. With attempted jokes.
- Become a Member
- Member Connect Accounts
- Leadership Circle
- Sustaining Members
- Member Discounts
- Become a Sponsor
- Tax Information
- Planned Giving
- Vehicle Donation
- Donate Stock