• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

This could be a VERY effective ad.

Fool me once...

See if this ad put out by the RNC rings any bells?

 
Re: Fool me once...

dupe thread
 
From a political science perspective, it's one of the best ones I've seen in terms of an attack ad...and the sad truth is, attack ad's DO work and with more than just the base. The reality is, few ad's delve heavily into "critical thinking". This one is able to lob a very effective attack against Obama without actually putting Mitt Romney's face on the attack, which is beneficial. The use of Obama's own words against him is going to be useful against one of the biggest demographics at stake in this election and which may very well swing it.....those independents who voted for Obama in 2008 largely based, not on policies, but on rhetoric and promises regarding the political climate and general results and feel that he didn't deliver. Visiting home this weekend talking with my best friend, I saw two such individuals...him and his wife, both Obama voters in 08...who are now voting for Romney now, not necessarily due to policy but due to disappointment in Obama. It is that type of person this commercial speaks to, and it does a very good job of it imho
 
Harshaw said:
What do you mean there's no way of knowing? The ad tells you. Are you saying they're lying?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't put it past them, they have lied in the past, and I don't consider them a reliable source.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Hmmm... Am I better off than I was 4 years ago? No. Is that Obama's fault? No. I always assume that we are responsible for our own actions and choices. Obama has done nothing that has altered my life. People, especially during elections, place FAR too much importance on the effect that the electing of a politician will have in their lives. For the most part, that election will be insignificant to one's daily comings and goings.

In 2000, when Bush was elected, the US wasn't destroyed. In 2004 when Bush was re-elected, the US wasn't destroyed. In 2008 when Obama was elected, the US wasn't destroyed. In 2012, be it Obama or Romney, the US will not be destroyed. Those who think differently are hacks who have no sense of reality and the actual effect ONE person has.

I get tired of the daily idiotic rhetoric surrounding this... and most elections. Reality is that as a singular event, they are not very significant.
Click to expand...

I don't get how anyone who actually understands what a financial/liquidity crisis is can seriously fault the executive branch for failing to get the economy going.

Furthermore, I don't get how anyone who understands that the GOP from day 1 by its own admission both in public and private to obstruct a recovery can seriously blame the executive branch for failing to get the economy going.

Did Obama over promise and seriously under deliver? Absolutely.

But to think that the executive branch is primarily to blame for the poor economy fundamentally ignores what a financial recession is and the role of Congress.

We'd still be in this stinker of an economy if McCain had won.

Anyways, I feel like more ad spending is pointless. Virtually everyone has already made their mind up. Now it's just feeding the media machine. The Presidency IMO is already decided. Now it's a fight for the Senate. And there is where I'm waffling. I'd LIKE to vote for the Republican, BUT I really don't think it's a good idea to give the Senate to the GOP.
 
Last edited:
Moderator's Warning:
Threads merged
 
Your Star said:
I wouldn't put it past them, they have lied in the past, and I don't consider them a reliable source.
Click to expand...

If any of those 2012 clips aren't from 2012, we'll hear about it. I very much doubt we will.

What's more, I doubt you really think they're not from 2012.
 
Last edited:
Harshaw said:
Democrats should be worried about that one.
Click to expand...

I don't think Democrats have to worry about this ad. Wait until the ads of Romney claiming to be progressive in the past compared to his current stance pops up. Now that will be impressive.
 
Hairytic said:
I don't think Democrats have to worry about this ad. Wait until the ads of Romney claiming to be progressive in the past compared to his current stance pops up. Now that will be impressive.
Click to expand...

There's one problem with that....

The primary target of such an ad would be the base. The base, in general, is already not massively fueled by good feelings for Romney but rather a desire to remove Obama. Showing that Romney used to be more liberal socially but is now more conservative is not likely to have significant impact on the Republican turnout, and I don't think it'd have much effect on un-decided's at this point either. Actually, if it would have an impact on undecideds, I'd suggest that it could be as likely to be positive as negative as they could potentially view it that Romney's only being socially conservative at the moment for pragmatic reasons and may not actually be as socially conservative as he presents. I believe more undecideds right now are socially apolitical or socially liberal, more so than socially conservative.

That's why I think this video would be useful. It's not targetting the Democratic base trying to depress the base's turnout. It's not really aiming at the Republican base either, because that base didn't really care about what he said in 08. It's squarely aimed at those in the fat squishy middle who are not massively political or tied to a party and went towards Obama in 08 due to rhetoric and hope regarding general political action, not party loyalty or indepth policy analysis. The kind of ad you describe is one that's aimed at depressing the republican base turnout...which would not be as effective imho.
 
Zyphlin said:
There's one problem with that....

The primary target of such an ad would be the base. The base, in general, is already not massively fueled by good feelings for Romney but rather a desire to remove Obama. Showing that Romney used to be more liberal socially but is now more conservative is not likely to have significant impact on the Republican turnout, and I don't think it'd have much effect on un-decided's at this point either. Actually, if it would have an impact on undecideds, I'd suggest that it could be as likely to be positive as negative as they could potentially view it that Romney's only being socially conservative at the moment for pragmatic reasons and may not actually be as socially conservative as he presents. I believe more undecideds right now are socially apolitical or socially liberal, more so than socially conservative.

That's why I think this video would be useful. It's not targetting the Democratic base trying to depress the base's turnout. It's not really aiming at the Republican base either, because that base didn't really care about what he said in 08. It's squarely aimed at those in the fat squishy middle who are not massively political or tied to a party and went towards Obama in 08 due to rhetoric and hope regarding general political action, not party loyalty or indepth policy analysis. The kind of ad you describe is one that's aimed at depressing the republican base turnout...which would not be as effective imho.
Click to expand...

In general, people do not see a flip flopper who panders to everyone as a strong leader. Showing Romney being pro and against every point in every issue would effectively show him as a weak leader who has no strong platform to stand on. Had the GOP offered a strong leader type candidate, then this attack ad on Obama might have worked.
 
Hairytic said:
In general, people do not see a flip flopper who panders to everyone as a strong leader. Showing Romney being pro and against every point in every issue would effectively show him as a weak leader who has no strong platform to stand on. Had the GOP offered a strong leader type candidate, then this attack ad on Obama might have worked.
Click to expand...

its working.. unlike the economy under Barry Hussein Erkle Ozero
 
Hairytic said:
In general, people do not see a flip flopper who panders to everyone as a strong leader.
Click to expand...

Well, that changes things a bit. You gave no indication, what so ever, in your initial post that the ad's aim would be to highlight leadership qualities or lack there of. The way you described it, since you SPECIFICALLY seemingly focused only on the social issues, that it would be an add aimed at highlighting his flip flopping of social issues and not his qualities that don't make a strong leader.

The leadership focus would be a bit better, but with how little you've presented and the rather disjointed imagery you've presented for the ad idea, I'd have a hard time honestly giving my opinion on it's potential usefulness or impact.
 
Zyphlin said:
There's one problem with that....

The primary target of such an ad would be the base.
Click to expand...

This is also why it pays to lie. Your base doesn't believe in fact checking. So whatever gets them out on election day benefits you. Those who call you on blatant lies won't vote for you anyways and most people have already made their minds up.

This election won't be won on convincing undecideds on who's the better choice. It will be getting the base out. Hence why it pays to lie, lie big and lie for all of the marbles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom