The Campaign of 1952 marked the beginning of the use of television to broadcast presidential campaign ads. From the Campaign of 1924 through the Campaign of 1948, presidential campaigns made extensive use of print media and radio to deliver campaign messages to millions of voters in their own homes. Radio ads typically consisted of half-hour talks by candidates, paid for by political campaigns. Following this practice, the majority of television ads broadcast in 1952 were half-hour speeches as well. It did not take long for campaign strategists to realize that this tactic not only was boring for viewers but also failed to capitalize on the persuasive potential of visual imagery. Campaign managers sought out advice from Madison Avenue and began to create thirty-second television spot ads for political candidates that employed the same basic principles that were also being used to sell consumers laundry soap and other household products.
The Republican ads in support of their nominee, General Dwight Eisenhower, proved particularly effective. Themes such as “I Like Ike” and “Eisenhower Answers America” were catchy and helped to humanize Eisenhower in the minds of the voters. In the years that followed, spot ads became an integral part of the presidential campaign process. Campaigns produced biographical ads to introduce candidates to prospective voters and to highlight a candidate’s qualifications for holding higher office. Issue ads were produced to familiarize voters with a candidate’s positions on important public policy matters, and they also helped campaigns point out flaws in their opponents’ proposals. Campaigns also created testimonial ads in which well-known public officials and entertainment celebrities endorsed candidates. Campaigns continued to broadcast important campaign speeches by their candidates as well, although over time, these have been reduced to short clips and sound bites. While the early years of spot ads tended to be primarily positive in nature, over time, spot ads have become increasingly centered on criticism of opponents. Contemporary ads that are primarily positive in nature tend to be funded by the campaigns of political candidates. Ads that are more negative in tone are more likely to emanate from political parties or independent advocacy groups.
One of the most notorious negative ads was also one of the earliest. Incumbent president Lyndon Johnson’s campaign sought to portray Republican nominee Barry Goldwater as an extremist in the Campaign of 1964. They crafted the “Daisy Girl” campaign ad to suggest to voters that Goldwater might have an itchy nuclear trigger finger and could not be trusted to keep the peace between the United States and the Soviet Union. While the “Daisy Girl” ad was broadcast only once, on September 7, 1964, it received extensive news coverage, and to this day, most Americans have had an opportunity to view this ad. In modern terms, the “Daisy Girl” ad “went viral,” which is undoubtedly one of the reasons why provocative and controversial negative ads continue to be a feature of modern political campaigns.
Negative ads often accuse candidates of changing their position on an issue for political gain, playing to the crowd by flip-flopping, and being more concerned with polling figures than with principle or policy, thus implying that the candidate cannot be trusted to keep his or her campaign promises once elected. Alternatively, an ad may attempt to link a candidate with an unpopular political figure, producing an effect of guilt by association. Negative ads often attempt to induce a sense of fear in the viewer, not only by implying catastrophic outcomes if a candidate were to be elected, but also by enhancing the message with black-and-white imagery and ominous music. Candidates with previous electoral experience can expect to find themselves criticized for policy failures (and candidates who lack previous experience in office can expect to find themselves criticized for their inexperience). Ads that compare a candidate with the opponent on a series of policy issues are common; such ads generally attempt to highlight favorable elements of one candidate’s experience while at the same time attacking the record of the opponent.
The trend over time has been toward an increased use of negative ads of all types. The Wesleyan Media Project conducted a series of studies on the Campaign of 2012. In its examination of the first three weeks of October, for example, it found that 73.3 percent of Obama’s ads were negative (they only contained a critique of Romney), and another 20.3 percent were contrast ads (where Obama was contrasted with Romney). Only 6.3 percent of Obama’s ads during this period were positive. Romney had more positive ads during this time—11.9 percent of his ads only mentioned his candidacy, 51.1 percent of Romney’s ads contrasted his candidacy with Obama’s, and 36 percent were purely negative. Of groups promoting the Democratic candidate, 88.7 percent of ads were purely negative, and of groups promoting the Republican candidate, 95.2 percent were purely negative, suggesting that spending by outside groups is focused on attack ads rather than on the promotion of a candidate.
During this same three-week period in the Campaign of 2008, Obama’s campaign was far more positive, running 37 percent of ads that were solely positive, and far less negative, running 43.2 percent of ads that were purely negative. Compared to Mitt Romney four years later, John McCain ran a similar amount of purely negative ads in 2008 (49.2%) and more positive ads than Romney (24%). In the Campaign of 2004, however, the picture was a bit different, most notably because of striking asymmetries in how the candidates chose their strategies. In the first three weeks of October, 55.4 percent of George W. Bush’s ads were strictly negative, while only 2.7 percent of John Kerry’s were. A surprising 55.8 percent of Kerry’s ads were wholly positive, while only 27.4 percent of Bush’s were.
The Wesleyan Media Project also noted that as presidential campaign ads have become more negative, so too have the negative emotions associated with these ads. During a three-week October interval in the Campaign of 2012, the project noted that 86.1 percent of pro-Romney ads and 70 percent of pro-Obama ads relied on anger (numbers that went up for the pro-Romney ads as the campaign progressed). The second most common emotion elicited in a pro-Romney ad was fear, which the project noted in 36 percent of ads. In the case of Obama, the second most common emotion was sadness, present in 47.3 percent of ads. Emotions like enthusiasm were evident in approximately a quarter of ads favoring each candidate, while other positive emotions, such as pride, were even more rare.
Critics of negative campaigning argue that the increased use of negative ads has produced a general public disaffection with politics and politicians. On the other hand, defenders of negative campaigning argue that there is nothing inappropriate about a political campaign revealing the questionable record of an opponent or the inconsistent positions taken by a candidate. According to this line of reasoning, negative campaigning provides voters with essential information about a candidate’s shortcomings.
In the aftermath of the Citizens United decision, the number of actors involved in the funding and broadcasting of political ads has proliferated, and so too have the places and manner of dissemination of these ads. Radio, broadcast television, billboards, and print media (newspapers and magazines) remain staples in the world of campaign advertising, but they have been joined by cable television, Internet ads, YouTube videos, and even video game billboards as candidates and advocacy groups seek out more avenues for disseminating their messages.
See also MoveOn; Negative Campaigning; Paid Media; Swift Boating
Ansolabehere, Stephen, and Shanto Iyenger. Going Negative: How Attack Ads Shrink and Polarize the Electorate. New York: Free Press, 1995.
Buell, Emmett H., and Lee Sigelman. Attack Politics: Negativity in Presidential Campaigns since 1960. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press, 2008.
David, Mark. Going Dirty: The Art of Negative Campaigning. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2009.
Geer, John G. In Defense of Negativity: Attack Ads in Presidential Campaigns. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006.
Jamieson, Kathleen Hall. Packaging the Presidency: A History and Criticism of Presidential Campaign Advertising. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.
The Living Room Candidate. Presidential Campaign Commercials 1952–2008. http://www.livingroomcandidate.org. Accessed October 15, 2015.
Patterson, Thomas E. Out of Order. New York: Knopf, 1993.
Wesleyan Media Project. “2012 Shatters 2004 and 2008 Records for Total Ads Aired.” http://mediaproject.wesleyan.edu/releases/2012-shatters-2004-and-2008-records-for-total-ads-aired/. Accessed October 15, 2015.
West, Darrell W. Air Wars: Television Advertising in Election Campaigns, 1952–2000. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, 2001.