ccr
Commander
Joined: 10 Aug 2004
Posts: 325
|
 Posted: Mon Aug 23, 2004 2:06 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| TheOtherSide wrote: | I'd say I have to disagree with you, Harley. I don't think any one anti-candidate ad can be the defeat of said candidate. That's like saying that Farenheit 9/11 was the end of president Bush, when it was obviously not so. They're just there to provoke interest in the topic, and generate debate, not force defeat on one person.
|
F911 isn't a valid comparison -- it was too over the top, too inaccurate and only preaching to the choir. At the end of the day F911 simply wasn't effective advertising. It didn't move any votes.
Here are some that are:
-LBJs "Daisy" against Goldwater.
-Bush1s "Midget in the Tank" against Dukakis.
-Independent "Willie Horton" against Dukakis.
Those three ads had far more impact on their respective races than Reagan's "Morning In America" had.
Good negative ads will ALWAYS have far more impact than great positive ads.
IMHO, "Sell Out" will move to the top of the list in terms of greatest negative campaign commercial. One key the SBVT advertising (both ads) has in common with the above listed ads is that it framed the debate and took control of the agenda.
_________________
Whose side is John Kerry really on? Take this quiz and decide for yourself.
http://www.learnthat.com/quiz/
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
