• 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.

Are election ads less effective than they used to be?

Luna Tick

Luna Tick

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 31, 2010
Messages
2,148
Reaction score
867
Location
Nebraska
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I just realized it's October and I haven't seen a single political ad on live TV. The only ones I've seen are the ones I've chosen to see when someone posts an Internet link or a few of them referred to by a pundit on a TV show. However, when I'm watching regular TV, I don't see any political ads. This is because I have satellite TV and watch all my shows recorded. I therefore fast forward through all the ads. So here both Romney and Obama are spending millions on ads and I'm seeing almost none of them.

This makes me wonder if the TV technology we have is affecting this election. How many others here simply fast forward through all the ads? It's way easier than it was back when the VCR was king. You could record all your shows and fast forward, but it was a pain in the butt. You had all those big tapes and then if you taped a bunch of shows, you had to fast forward to the one you wanted to watch. With a satellite or cable TV system and a DVR, you just pick what you want to watch and go. How much do you think this has changed the political landscape? Or do a lot of people still watch TV the old fashioned way -- by watching their shows live?

The only TV I ever watch live is Husker football, and then I'm generally with a big group of fans, cheering for the team, and socializing during the commercials.

What do you think? Are Obama and Romney dumping money down a back hole with TV advertising? Or do those kind of ads still have an impact?
 
Luna Tick said:
I just realized it's October and I haven't seen a single political ad on live TV. The only ones I've seen are the ones I've chosen to see when someone posts an Internet link or a few of them referred to by a pundit on a TV show. However, when I'm watching regular TV, I don't see any political ads. This is because I have satellite TV and watch all my shows recorded. I therefore fast forward through all the ads. So here both Romney and Obama are spending millions on ads and I'm seeing almost none of them.

This makes me wonder if the TV technology we have is affecting this election. How many others here simply fast forward through all the ads? It's way easier than it was back when the VCR was king. You could record all your shows and fast forward, but it was a pain in the butt. You had all those big tapes and then if you taped a bunch of shows, you had to fast forward to the one you wanted to watch. With a satellite or cable TV system and a DVR, you just pick what you want to watch and go. How much do you think this has changed the political landscape? Or do a lot of people still watch TV the old fashioned way -- by watching their shows live?

The only TV I ever watch live is Husker football, and then I'm generally with a big group of fans, cheering for the team, and socializing during the commercials.

What do you think? Are Obama and Romney dumping money down a back hole with TV advertising? Or do those kind of ads still have an impact?
Click to expand...

Oh, I think they have impact. Nebraska isn't a state where either party is going to spend much money, though. (Neither is Illinois, where I live, since it's going Democratic isn't in question.)
 
I don't watch cable tv ... heck, I haven't had cable tv for 8 years. However, I live in NC ... every time I'm near a tv, I hear an average of 3 political ads per half hour of tv.
 
I certainly hope they're less effective. They're all crap.
 
I am in a swing state. Consider yourself lucky. Actually the ads have not been as bad. It is the freaking 10 or so phone calls a day, 80% of which are pretending to be independent polls, on more days than not.
 
Fisher said:
I am in a swing state. Consider yourself lucky. Actually the ads have not been as bad. It is the freaking 10 or so phone calls a day, 80% of which are pretending to be independent polls, on more days than not.
Click to expand...

Amen! These calls are driving me nuts. I have three work numbers that forward to my cell. I get about 11 calls a day. I seem to be on Romney's speed dial. Since I would never contribute to his campaign and haven't done any polls or anything, I'm not sure why I get so many calls from his camp and none from Obama.
 
MaggieD said:
Oh, I think they have impact. Nebraska isn't a state where either party is going to spend much money, though. (Neither is Illinois, where I live, since it's going Democratic isn't in question.)
Click to expand...

Although it's not a swing state and is officially a red state, Nebraska is one of only 2 states (Maine is the other) that split its electoral votes based on the popular vote. In other words, it's not a winner take all state. The most likely result is Romney will get most of the states electoral votes while Obama still gets some of them. That happened in '08. I would think that might encourage some ads or campaigning in Nebraska.
 
they lost effectiveness since the invention of tivo and all its spinoffs,commercial free tv means no campaign ads.
 
Luna Tick said:
Although it's not a swing state and is officially a red state, Nebraska is one of only 2 states (Maine is the other) that split its electoral votes based on the popular vote. In other words, it's not a winner take all state. The most likely result is Romney will get most of the states electoral votes while Obama still gets some of them. That happened in '08. I would think that might encourage some ads or campaigning in Nebraska.
Click to expand...

Nebraska has a grand total of 5 and only 1 or 2 could conceivably go to Obama. In the grand scheme, that's not worth much money to them.
 
Luna Tick said:
Although it's not a swing state and is officially a red state, Nebraska is one of only 2 states (Maine is the other) that split its electoral votes based on the popular vote. In other words, it's not a winner take all state. The most likely result is Romney will get most of the states electoral votes while Obama still gets some of them. That happened in '08. I would think that might encourage some ads or campaigning in Nebraska.
Click to expand...

Thank you, Luna!!! I learned something today. I didn't know any state split their electoral votes. And I've always thought it unfair they didn't.
 
Come to a swing state like Colorado, you'll see them everywhere. I probably see the same ad from both sides 50 times in a football game.
 
the political ads are a real pile of excrement this year. it's almost all negative with misleading statements, and there's next to no real debate. superpacs are screwing up my superbowl.

candidate x will kill your kitten

candidate y will kill and eat your kitten while playing poker with hitler.
 
Helix said:
the political ads are a real pile of excrement this year. it's almost all negative with misleading statements, and there's next to no real debate. superpacs are screwing up my superbowl.

candidate x will kill your kitten

candidate y will kill and eat your kitten while playing poker with hitler.
Click to expand...

ROFLMAO. Thanks. This was one of the funniest posts I've seen. LOL.
 
I have noticed that any Obama ad that runs is usually followed by a Romney ad and an anti-Obama PAC ad which is kind of funny to me to see such obvious brinksmanship.
 
I'm honestly hoping that, beyond Tivo and fast forwarding, the population is slowly growing aware that you shouldn't base any of your political knowledge off an advertisement.

Although somehow I'm not surprised that laziness is one of the only things that will keep us from being ignorant.
 
I don't see how they can have much of an effect on the election regardless of if they are watched. Republicans will vote Republican and Democrats will vote Democratic. All the Independents that I know tend to take the election seriously and learn their facts from better sources than TV commercials. I guess they are trying to appeal to these People: Saturday Night Live - Undecided Voter - Video - NBC.com
 
Luna Tick said:
Although it's not a swing state and is officially a red state, Nebraska is one of only 2 states (Maine is the other) that split its electoral votes based on the popular vote. In other words, it's not a winner take all state. The most likely result is Romney will get most of the states electoral votes while Obama still gets some of them. That happened in '08. I would think that might encourage some ads or campaigning in Nebraska.
Click to expand...
Nebraska and Maine: The most politically correct states. Where even the losers get something for participating. :)
 
The only live tv I watch is sports. Everything else is recorded so I can skip commercials. When campaign ads come on, I just mute the TV and get a beer. Quite a fun drinking game.
 
I am not sure they are less effective but they are less imformative than the early debates say Kennedy Nixon.
 
Velvet Elvis said:
Nebraska and Maine: The most politically correct states. Where even the losers get something for participating. :)
Click to expand...

Nebraska and Maine are the only fair states. If you've voted for someone, your vote should count. If I vote for Obama in Nebraska, he'll have a chance to get some electoral votes, thus my vote will have meant something. In any of the other red non-swing states, a vote for Obama is symbolic only. Your vote does not count. Every vote SHOULD count! It's similar with Maine. If you vote for Romney there, there's actually a chance your vote will count. In any other blue non-swing state, you've voted symbolically, but it's other people's votes that counted, not yours. That system just sucks! What would be better would be to simply abolish the Electoral College in favor of the popular vote. Since that would require an amendment to the constitution, which is very difficult to do, the next best thing is for states to split their electoral votes based on their popular vote. Then at least the Electoral College more accurately reflects the will of the people.

Nebraska and Maine = the only two states that got it right. The other 48 states = ****ed up with an unfair voting system.
 
Luna Tick said:
I just realized it's October and I haven't seen a single political ad on live TV. The only ones I've seen are the ones I've chosen to see when someone posts an Internet link or a few of them referred to by a pundit on a TV show. However, when I'm watching regular TV, I don't see any political ads. This is because I have satellite TV and watch all my shows recorded. I therefore fast forward through all the ads. So here both Romney and Obama are spending millions on ads and I'm seeing almost none of them.

This makes me wonder if the TV technology we have is affecting this election. How many others here simply fast forward through all the ads? It's way easier than it was back when the VCR was king. You could record all your shows and fast forward, but it was a pain in the butt. You had all those big tapes and then if you taped a bunch of shows, you had to fast forward to the one you wanted to watch. With a satellite or cable TV system and a DVR, you just pick what you want to watch and go. How much do you think this has changed the political landscape? Or do a lot of people still watch TV the old fashioned way -- by watching their shows live?

The only TV I ever watch live is Husker football, and then I'm generally with a big group of fans, cheering for the team, and socializing during the commercials.

What do you think? Are Obama and Romney dumping money down a back hole with TV advertising? Or do those kind of ads still have an impact?
Click to expand...

Definitely. Since nearly everyone can look up anything about a candidate online (whether it's true or false).
 
I will be Happy when the ads stop and the telephone_ glad I have caller ID_ Living in a Swing state _ during elections gets old quick'- plus they pop up out of the dang computer-- Just grrrr
 
Luna Tick said:
Nebraska and Maine are the only fair states. If you've voted for someone, your vote should count. If I vote for Obama in Nebraska, he'll have a chance to get some electoral votes, thus my vote will have meant something. In any of the other red non-swing states, a vote for Obama is symbolic only. Your vote does not count. Every vote SHOULD count! It's similar with Maine. If you vote for Romney there, there's actually a chance your vote will count. In any other blue non-swing state, you've voted symbolically, but it's other people's votes that counted, not yours. That system just sucks! What would be better would be to simply abolish the Electoral College in favor of the popular vote. Since that would require an amendment to the constitution, which is very difficult to do, the next best thing is for states to split their electoral votes based on their popular vote. Then at least the Electoral College more accurately reflects the will of the people.

Nebraska and Maine = the only two states that got it right. The other 48 states = ****ed up with an unfair voting system.
Click to expand...

Your vote would count more if all states were required to apportion their delegates than it would if there were no EC because then there would be a reason to contest every state as opposed to just the big populated ones. For example, a republican would then have very good reason to campaign heavily in CA just to drive up their apportionment.
 
Are political ads effective?

Part of me says 'no', as my wife and I have taken to seeking where the half-truth or lie-by-omission is in the ad for our own entertainment, but part of me says 'yes' simply because they wouldn't spend the money if they weren't effective (in an overall sense).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom