Sunday, October 24, 2010

TV Attack Ads (Post #20)

The American political scene has been littered with attack-style campaigning ever since the earliest days of our Republic. For example, Thomas Jefferson was attacked for allegedly being an atheist in his 1800 presidential run. In modern-day politics the television has saturated us with copious amounts of advertising. Most of the ads are attacks on opponents. Why do you think there is so much emphasis on attack ads? Can someone win by running a "clean" campaign? Why is there so much emphasis on a candidate's image? Is there something about American culture that make us focus an an individual instead of the issues?

Watch the below ads for California Senate and tell me which one appeals to you more and why.



151 comments:

  1. Attack adds are so popular because those who run the adds want you to view their opponent as bad. If i was running against Mr. Bauer in an election for president, i would want people thinking he is a bad person. If people thought he was a bad person, they would vote for me. :) that is why they are necessary. I honestly do not think an election can be won without some attack adds, unless it is an election nobody really cares about. such as the race for attorney general.

    And for the record, my attack add against Mr. Bauer would elude to the all too true fact that he was "born" in Roswell, New Mexico in June of 1947... a little fishy if you ask me. I would also state that he wants to take over the world, because he has plans to accidently do that some day.

    ReplyDelete
  2. i believe the public is convinced that the more attack ads they see for someone the worse that individual appears in their minds. other than plain party prejudice "oh she's a republican, i wont vote for her" the attack ads get people's attention like violent movies, people are more interested in hate, slander, and violence than what politics is meant to be about. HELPING PEOPLE. im one of the few individuals that i know of that pays attention when politicians DONT slander others. that's why i like, Ami Bera for example, he doesn't slander Lungren much anymore, he's focused his ads on his goals upon election. if everyone was transparent in their campaigns and didnt slander anyone, politics would be alot less violent and the people would benefit more.

    My name is Bryan Jenks and i approve this message.

    ReplyDelete
  3. p.s. the real issues dont need to be about who can slander who more, but explain your goals upon election and HOW you will accomplish them, the HOW is why there are democrats and republican, both parties want the same end, its the means that are different.

    ReplyDelete
  4. i think tv ads are so popular because both parties are trying to undermine their opponents appearance. i guess it does play a major role in choosing a candidate for something. i would say that they are necessary because it makes things competitive.
    ~~brooke fletcher:)
    mr. bauer
    period 2

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Attack ads are a way for opponents to counter eachother so that they can look good in any way possible. The ad that appeals to me is Barbara Boxer's. It shows people who have lost their jobs and it points directly at Carly Fiorina as the main cause of it. Im not too sure in today's world if someone can run a clean campaign but there probably is a way. Image has become a big thing in society today and it is the way we look at people. Candidates clean up their image hoping to get your vote.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Kevin Krivda, Mr Bauer P1
    Political attack adds are a sad realization and part of the political campaign. Every candidate wants the people to believe their opponent is a horrible person and incredibly unfit for office. Candidates and their supporters will dig deep into the closet to find any skeletons to disgrace thier opponent with,even if it occured decades ago! Candidates who run a clean race will probably not win unfortunetly and it is teh American way to see violent attack ads, it is what is appealing to them, and candidates give the people wha they want

    ReplyDelete
  8. Josh Agans, Bauer P.5October 24, 2010 at 5:07 PM

    attack ads are popular and effective in a big way. it allows the candidates to downgrade their opponents. they are trying to persuade the voters to not vote for their opponent. i do not think someone can win a campaign by running a clean campaign. people would hear bad stuff about them and not about their opponents. therefore, the voters would be persuaded to vote against the innocent candidate. if i was running for a position in office i would try to make my opponent look bad.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Attack adds are all a part of the political process. Just like in a debate, a candidate has to have points that support his or her opinion and points that tear down the opinion of his or her opponent. Attack adds generally are aimed at the history of a candidate that shows that he or she has acted differently than he or she claims. Americans uphold honesty and loyalty, and these values are seen as key in any candidate, which is why ads that portray candidates as hypocrites or liars are powerful tools.
    Caleb Boyd
    Mr. Sloan
    Per. 2

    ReplyDelete
  10. I personally think that attack ads are annoying and that there is too much focus on image in political campaigning today. I see why attack ads are popular, but I would like to see more ads of why to vote FOR someone and I would like to know what they stand for. I see commercials of politicians bashing on each other and saying what their opponent stands for and how that is wrong, but the sponsoring candidate never really states their own beliefs and actions. Plus there are so many commercials with the same type of menacing music with the guy in the background with the dramatic voice, which I find quite obnoxious and unnecessary. Bauer/Sloan

    ReplyDelete
  11. demonizing the enemy is built into every human. We always try to make our self look better, by lowering your opponent.
    We like fights and friction. Humans are for some reason drawn to conflict.
    Mud slinging works.
    When it comes to the public, i don't think it is possible to run a clean anything.
    Caleb Newman

    ReplyDelete
  12. I think tv ads make a big difference in the elections because we try to make our oppoent look bad so we could win. I think the ads are not a good idea becuase some of the things the opponent says is not even true. The elections should be ran freely and there should be no false ads on tv.

    Jaskiran Kaur
    Mr.Bauer
    Period 2

    ReplyDelete
  13. there will always be something manipulative and derogatory to say about another candidate. the fact of the matter is- to win an election, you must slam your opponent. half-truths are considered lies in the media world, so take advantage of that. i would never run for a public office, because i believe that half-truths are lies. i bet it sucks seeing hate ads about your self on tv.

    ReplyDelete
  14. There's so much emphasis on attack ads b/c they want that to get out there to the people especially to show "what kind of person" he or she is. And either way, if someone runs a clean campaign they're still not going to win because someone's going to make an attack ad for them making sure they don't win! There is so much emphasis on a candidates image because people want to show that the certain person is bad and to show all the bad things he/she made.

    Sloan Period 1

    ReplyDelete
  15. Attack ads are important because many times voters don't really like either of the candidates for a particular office and feel as if they are voting for the lesser of two evils. These adds don't necessarily demonstrate why one candidate would be good as much as why the other would be worse. If you can convince the public that you're not quite as bad as the next guy, you win. Of course they are often filled with very skewed truths (aka lies) but so are the non-attack ads that candidates put out to make themselves look good. Viewers have to be very discerning whether they are viewing attack ads or promotional ads.

    ReplyDelete
  16. The attack ads make people feel strongly opposed to the other candidates.I don't think anyone can win by running a clean campaign, because people seem to appeal more to attacks that cause drama. It doesn't look like anyone wants time to be spent just hearing a side's ideas and what they can do for the country. A candidate's image attracts more people to vote for them. Some people don't really care about the issues if it doesn't affect them, so if someone looks good then they're going to vote for them. I believe our culture is very carefree so not many people actually pay attention or care for the issues at hand.

    Melody Morphis
    Mr. Sloan
    per. 1

    ReplyDelete
  17. There is so much emphasis on attack ads in order to prove a point across and make that point "seem" strong and stand out. Personally, I don't think many people are able to win by a clean campaign, but it is possible. A lot of emphasis is put onto a candidate's image to bring out the candidate's good or bad side, making him/her seem better or worse than the others. I think that the American culture do tend to focus more on an individual instead of the issues, but the issues are not far apart from the individual.

    Chrissy Vue
    Sloan
    Period 3

    ReplyDelete
  18. Maria Schmidt, Mr. Bauer, Period 5October 25, 2010 at 4:23 PM

    I agree with Kelsey Glenn that the attack ads do get annoying. I would rather hear about the candidates' positions on things instead of them tearing their opponents down. However, these ads are effective because they touch on personal issues that viewers at home may have dealt with, and therefore persuade their view on who they should vote for. These ads are also effective because like Hailey said, people want to vote for the lesser of two evils. If I had to pick which ad I liked more, I would have to pick the "Workers" video against Carly Fiorina because it shows real workers and how they were affected.

    ReplyDelete
  19. In todays society attack ads are like the Geico commercials... You always see them. Its not necessarily a bad thing because its like a debate how you need some evidence to protect yourself and you'll need some evidence to make your oponent look bad. Its just part of the game as some would same.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Tiffany Van VactorOctober 25, 2010 at 5:07 PM

    I think that attack ads are used just to make someone look worse than they are because the one party wants to look better so that they might have a better chance of winning. I also think that they are trying to make the other person look worse than themselves honestly that is like putting someone else down so that you feel better. All these politicians are trying to make others look worse than themselves so that the public will vote for them. Honestly i think that a ploitician could in fact run a clean campaign and they could win.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Kyle Maples - Bauer Period 1October 25, 2010 at 5:30 PM

    Attack ads are just another part of the political process that should be taken out slowly. Basically if you have enough money to invade television space then you can win a election. The first ad appeals to me personally. I feel that Fiorina's whole platform of jobs that she is running on is worthless. If she outsourcer 30,000 jobs what makes you think she wont outsource more? This is why I am supporting Boxer for Senate.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Forrest MacDonald p.3.
    People attack ads because they want the voters to think that the opponet is bad and so they do not vote for them.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Attack ads are necessary to show to the voters that the opponents a worse candidate for the particular position. However someone may run a "clean" campaign, but their actual chance for winning the election may be lower. I personally am annoyed with attack ads because they do not show all the information. There is alot focused on the image of the candidate because that is how the voters see the candidate, not many people personally know each candidate and their values so their image is how they reflect themselves to the general public. Sloan p.3

    ReplyDelete
  24. Danielle Bulmer -- Bauer -- 4October 25, 2010 at 6:12 PM

    I have to agree with everyone, attack adds are popular because the candidates want to see their opponent as being bad for their health so that they can gain majority votes. Honestly though everyone is getting very heated and fed up with the attack adds because they don't know who or what to believe, which actually causes them to lose interest in voting. I personally don't even know who to believe because of the chaotic adds.

    ReplyDelete
  25. TV ads want to make other opponents look bad, so each candidate looks even better from their own adds. i like the second add the most for safety is most important to people, but jobs can be just as important too.

    ReplyDelete
  26. "Attack ads" are so popular because they attract the most attention from voters. It seems to be easier for politicians to convince voters to join their campaign by telling voters all the negative aspects of opponents rather than telling voters the issues they support. Americans are more attracted to negativity and gossip because it catches their attention. I personally did not like any of the videos posted, however the video I least disliked was the second ad. I am not a fan of attack ads, however it was nice that Carly actually gave a few reasons why she should be voted into the Senator seat. Barbara Boxer's ad was only the attack on Carly.

    Devin Smith, Mr. Bauer, P.1.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Attack ads get the most attention from voters. Attack ads is used to get their opponent seen as the bad one. But times you could be put in the position where you don't know who to believe anymore, after seeing all of those ads. Which may lead to voters being less interested in voting now. My opinion is that there shouldn't be false ads on Tv.

    Jasmine Singh
    Mr. Bauer
    Period 3

    ReplyDelete
  28. Attack ads are important because they give knowledge about a candidate's past and because it has been part of the political process since the government was formed. The only problem is that politcians don't know when to stop. I get annoyed to see attack ads constantly go on, and some are too immature. It is almost like you have to vote for the better of the two evils. I think that they should focus more on showing the public their beliefs on issues, and focusing less on making their opponent look bad.

    ReplyDelete
  29. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Attack ads are an easy way to boost your image while simultaneously degrade the image of your opponent. "Clean" campaigns are difficult to come by, however, it is possible to win an election by using one. During Obama's campaign for president, I noticed that there weren't many commercials on television for the Obama campaign. Of those advertisements, a small amount of them attempted to portray McCain as a bad choice for election day. Even though it wasn't a completely "clean" campaign, it still showed that you don't need to rely on attack ads to win an election.
    Conner Woods Bauer

    ReplyDelete
  31. I think T.V ads are annoying sometimes. The candidates that are running sometimes just make lies about each other. Some are Interesting to watch others just get out of hands. ALot of the T.V ads is lying about each other so they could win. and Lets everyone know which candidates is better. Plus, They make money out of it.
    Sania Bacha
    P.3

    ReplyDelete
  32. I THINK THAT ATTACK ADS ARE FUNNY AND DUMB. THEY REALLY DO NOT FOCUS ON THE MAIN ISSUES. THE OPPONENT JUST TRIES TO FIND DIRT ABOUT THE OTHER RUNNING CANDIDATE.THEY CAN BE USEFUL BUT THEN AT THE SAME TIME IMMATURE BECAUSE THE ADS SHOULD BE POLITICAL NOT PERSONAL. I DO NOT THINK THAT A CANDIDATE CAN WIN WITH A CLEAN RUN BECAUSE THE MAIN THING IS TO CRUSH YOUR ENEMY AND HAVE THE SPOT LIGHT ON YOURSELF.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I think that t.v. ads are really popular is really important because they atract people. They attack other candidates creating tyhe "bad image". Image for the candidates is a really important thing because the people do not want a bad person in their government. The advertisement that appealed the most to me was the one that attacks Barbra Boxer because Carly really emphasizes bad things about her.

    ReplyDelete
  34. I think that T.V ads are a good way to be competeive. People get to look at different peoples point of views. I think that the T.V ads are good because once again you get two different point of views.
    Tori Milligan
    Sloan per.3

    ReplyDelete
  35. i think t.v. ads are not good because if they want to won they have to be fair and play clean. they make bad reputation to the others candidates and then if they won its not going to be a fair won.

    mr.slaon
    per5
    claudia

    ReplyDelete
  36. Dominique Jimenez, Sloan, 5th periodOctober 25, 2010 at 7:53 PM

    Attack ads are in every campaign. They may not be fair but thats the way to earn a vote in some ways. A candidates immage is everything, so the better they make themself look over the competition, the more of a shot they have on winning.&what way to look more inferior than to show how much your better than them and how bad it would be to vote for them. so no. a candidate could not win without attack ads.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Most people dont know how the govener-hopefulls are even going to fix any of our problems. Half of Americans dont even know what our issues are. Slander is just the easiest way that runners can get voters attention. Alot of my family doesnt really follow the govener elections, but they started talking about it after the scandal of Meg Whitmans house keeper came onto the news. Unfortunatley, thats mostly what Americans pay attention to.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Don't forget to comment on the two advertisements listed in the blog post.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Advertising against your opponent, I think it should be cool because you will get to know the truth about that certain person. Advertising is the best strategy to used against your opponent because the people would find out bad things about your opponent.
    Jonathan Ramos
    Mr. Bauer
    Per.2

    ReplyDelete
  40. People will do what ever it takes to win a campaign. The attack adds have so much emphasis because they help there campaigns. I think it would be very hard for a clean campaign person to win. People these days only win if they have a lot of money.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Attack ads are used alot for campaigning. They attack their opponent strongly. And it sometimes helps them win their election. People care a lot about image and what the people have done in the past. I liked the first advertisement better because it seems more realistic, and im sure those people would want their job back.

    Melissa Quezada
    Mr. Bauer
    P.2

    ReplyDelete
  42. Margarita Flores per.5 Mr.BauerOctober 25, 2010 at 10:12 PM

    Most of the ads are attacks on opponents. There is so much emphasis on attack ads because they are trying to do anything they can to win. Someone win by running a "clean" campaign but they have to talk extra good about them selves and prove all the others nothing but trash talkers.There so much emphasis on a candidate's image beCAUSE THEY REALLY WANT TO WIN BADLY THERE WASTING ALL THIS TIME AND MONEY IN TO IT TO WIN. and yes there something about American culture that make us focus an an individual instead of the issues that's just how its been.

    Watch the below ads for California Senate and tell me which one appeals to you more and why.

    ReplyDelete
  43. These days, no one will win by running a "clean" campaign, though it would be a nice change of pace. The ads are effective because most humans are naturally pessimistic, and they'll remember the negative facts (or political half-truths) more than the positive. I find it sad that all I see are attack ads, but I don't know what candidates stand for unless I extensively research. We as Americans have become complacent, and we'd rather a figure head represent us than someone concerned with our well-being. Politicians are more focused on campaigning than creating legislation to benefit the whole. I just hope the name of the game changes in our generation of politicians, but I have a feeling it's just going to get much worse...

    Emily Dirksen
    Bauer
    AP Gov

    ReplyDelete
  44. Breana spiro sloan p.4. Well i believe image matters because people know the world has evil in it and we just dont want someone like that to enter our gov so it matters. We are some what hipocrits because we our selves maybe sneaky or cheaters so we try to avoid another sneaky person to take take over And drive our gov into the ground

    ReplyDelete
  45. I think attack ads are popular because it makes people have doubts about the opponent. It makes people have a different perspective on them. It makes them look better by bringing the other person down. I think that in a way we do listen to the attack ads just because we automaticly think that the other person won't do as well.
    erika oropeza
    mr.sloan
    p.4

    ReplyDelete
  46. I for one reason believe that it is necessary to show the bad side of a person in any political campaign. But in any case some of these Television ads are quite interesting at first but when they keep playing them over and over again it starts to gets annoying. It is boring to see these over and over again. but i guess some people try really hard to get their point across right. If i were campaigning for Governor or Senate i would do the same.
    Gary Vasquez Mr. Bauer 3rd period

    ReplyDelete
  47. Attack ads are popular because 1. It keeps people distracted from the actual goals of the attacker and more focused on the bad about the attackee and 2. It makes the opponent just look bad. It really just enforces the stereotype that politicians are seedy and underhanded. Politicians know how the people work, and through attack ads, they manipulate the population's attraction to a good image, rather than a bad one. As far as I'm concerned, image doesn't really matter, it should be more about how they will do their job.

    Brian S.
    Per. 4 Sloan

    ReplyDelete
  48. I personally don't think that a person with a clean campaign could win, they would just keep getting mocked by all the other attack ads which would make them look bad. I felt that carly fiorina's ad was more compelling because i think national security is more important than barbara boxers climate change issue. Sloan per 1

    ReplyDelete
  49. Attack ads are useful but they are not morally right. A good thing about it is it shows the wrongs that other people who are running do. This will help in our choice to fix a certain part of the government or avoid more problems. The bad thing is that it's childish. The reason they attack others is because they can't win a clean race. Attacks are childish yet we probably won't get anywhere without them.

    Daniel Ruiz
    Sloan
    Govt, Per. 5

    ReplyDelete
  50. I hate attack ads! They are always on ALL the time and the slander and "say this and that and blah blah blah...etc". However i do think that's what appeals to the public and helps them vote for their canidate. even if it means digging up dirt on them from years ago. You almost forced to use attack ads so that you opponent has negativity on their side also.
    Katey Santillan
    Bauer p1

    ReplyDelete
  51. Alexis Watson Bauer 3October 26, 2010 at 4:48 PM

    I think attack ads are awful; they just show how pety people are in reality. The election money should be utilized in more efficeint means than slander. If slander is the only topic, no one in the election is compitent enough for an authoritive position. They should be concerned for the welfare of the country above all plitical scandals.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Hannah Engebretsen/Bauer P2October 26, 2010 at 4:54 PM

    If people find the bad in other people they wont want to trust them or vote for them anymore. Negativity help the other opponiate win better like katey said and makes the opponent seem like a better canidate. Attck ads are used to keep viewers in on the dirt and scandall. More appealing to me was the add about Carly Fioria baecause what it said what she did to the HP employees was really true, and that seems like a more important issue than climate and weather.

    ReplyDelete
  53. I believe that the negative is easier to remember than the positive. it dticks to people better. I don't know why but its true. The attack adds are so people remember the bad about the opponent and by default have to vote for the candidate running the add. I also believe that politicians now found a loop hole in which they will not be called liars because focusing on attacking their opponents allows then to avoid making promises they can not keep.
    From the adds above the one that appeals to me the most was Barbara Boxer's. Carly said more good things about herself and din't attack Boxer strongly it made it look like carly couldn't find any dirt on Boxer, on the other hand Boxerfound alot of dirt on carly and it relates to the current unemployment crisis.
    Mr. Bauer
    Period 4

    ReplyDelete
  54. Jackie Douglas Bauer P.2October 26, 2010 at 5:00 PM

    In America, winning is all about who has the bigger stick. It's all about who can spew the most derogatory statements and still look graceful while doing it. Image has a lot to do with it; the media has influenced our opinions in this area.
    Attack ads are so popular because we’ve allowed them to be. If you don’t attack your opponent, the odds are you aren’t going win; or you will just look weak and not appealing. People want a strong leader who can dominate in their field of work. A campaign that only advertises positive content pertaining to the person speaking will most likely lose the battle. Personally, it bothers me when political candidates spend billions of dollars towards muckraking their opponent instead of doing positive things to make themselves look good. Take a lesson from Oprah, everyone loves her and all she does is give out free stuff! :D

    ReplyDelete
  55. I honestly get annoyed by the ads, and i think that candidates focus on image more so that they can appeal better than others. By attacking their opponents, they point out their flaws and make themselves appear as a more suitable candidate.

    Guadalupe Velasquez
    Sloan, period 1

    ReplyDelete
  56. Maria Perez
    Sloan
    Period:4
    I believe that having ads that contradict the opponents is used a lot because they each want to look better against the opposite side, and so the people vote for them. It helps each side look better for what they say and do, but sometimes it does not end in a good way.

    ReplyDelete
  57. I believe that Barbara Boxer's attack add was better. This is because she had real people to support her attack and it it just sounded better then the other. In this economy, she was smart to play the loss f jobs card. Nothing will make people like her better then to support people's jobs and to point out that her opponent will not.
    -Michael Freeman

    ReplyDelete
  58. Most Americans are unwillingly to vote for someone that they see as dishonest or a hypocrite. Therefore, attack ads com into play and degrade the other candidate to deter votes from them and hopefully to their side. Even if a person is making valid points or an argument, its hard to listen to someone you don't see as a just individual. I was more impressed by the second one because unfortunately getting laid off is part of society and global warming doesn't exist personally.
    Marklin Nixon
    Mr. Sloan PER 1

    ReplyDelete
  59. Emily Staab Bauer Period 2October 26, 2010 at 5:28 PM

    I think that barbra boxer's ad was more effective. I think that television attack ads have become so popular because by being able to show people, the candidate can use them to show emotion and that effects the audience. I would rather vote for a person who has a clean ad. Especially if they focused on the issues and what they were going to do to fix said issues.

    ReplyDelete
  60. I don't even think anyone knows how to have a clean campaign these days. Attack adds are just part of politics, and if you have money then you get to bash on people to look better. I liked Barbra Boxer's add best because it was more interesting, there were peiople stating what happened to them, the other one was extremely boring to me.

    ReplyDelete
  61. The attack ads are similar to how people in society act: they attack people to feel better about themselves. I think that a clean ad showing what they will do in office instead of attacking someone else's reputation is more effective. i think people rely more on the negative image of the person than the good things they have accomplished.
    Jose Alvarez.p4 sloan

    ReplyDelete
  62. It would be nice to have a clean candidate in politics, but if they tried to run their opponent would probably run attack ads that would make the candidate lose. Attack ads are used because they are effective. They make the opponent look like a horrible candidate for whatever they are running for. For example, the Carly Fiorina attack ad made her seem like a liar and horrible candidate who could harm the economy even further if elected.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Attack ads get the attention of most people, because i think that we like to focus more on the negative arguments rather than the positive. i think its because we want to know who the canadates really are when it comes to voting for the people who are going to reresent us.
    monica salazar
    mr.sloan

    ReplyDelete
  64. I think that attack ads are funny and interesting. It's part of a politcal process that all candidates go thrue. The candidates may not like it but they should know that once they get involved with that, many of their personal things can be revealed.It may be a good thing for us citizens to know about these things because we can see who this candidate really is and what they try to do. Many try to trash one candidate to have the greatest votes but they might trash back. Some things are meaningless but it's all part of running for a role and trying to win. But I think people should focus on the important issues.

    Karen Villasenor
    Mr. Bauer
    Per:2

    ReplyDelete
  65. Ryan Cabrera
    Mr. Bauer
    Economics p. 2
    26 October 2010

    I think the attack adds are so popular due to the fact that the general public can be convinced that what they see on television is real. Television has really altered the mentality of people in multiple ways and politicians think that people will respond more to an attack add than an add that justified the politician. I suppose the politicians think that if they just talked about themselves they would look selfish. I'd say that due to the craze of the attack adds people will want to vote for someone who hasn't pointed fingers.

    ReplyDelete
  66. I believe that people emphasize attack ad's to show that they are a better canidate, and give reasonings to why you should vote for them, without attacks ad's we would never know what other canidates have done wrong in the past. Now that its 2010 the media has a dramatic affect on teens and adults, its the best way to get people to see which canidates are running.

    Trista Dowdy
    Sloan per.5

    ReplyDelete
  67. poltical candidates tear down their opponents to make them seem week to the public therefore as a result making themselves look stronger and the better candidate so people will vote for them. Attack adds are just a way of tearing down the enemy to make yourself rise above the other.

    ReplyDelete
  68. attack ads have a cuple of sirvises in todays pltitical and coltural society. first, these ads are a form of catching a persons attention, wither it be by annoing them with the constant repetition or actualy getting a point across and making sure the viewer understands for who and what they are voting for. secondly its a way for the canidated to attack the their opponents with an excuse, therfor they take addvantage of the opportunity and make sure their adds are as dirty as they can be. in reality it is not possible to win a "clean" fight because the people are accustome to the attack ads and they expect them.
    Alondra Munoz
    sloan P.5

    ReplyDelete
  69. I think you are forced to do attack adds because if you dont everyone else will and it will look like the allegations against you are true. The add that appeals to me most is the first one about the people from H.P. That add is good because its not really directly attacking her, the add really just speaks for itself.
    jake beilby

    ReplyDelete
  70. Samantha Barragan Mr.Bauer Pd.3October 26, 2010 at 6:55 PM

    Attack ads are so popular because the attacker want to make the people think that they are better and their opponent is bad. Every campaign has some attack ads and i belive you can't really win one without them because of the new generation. We want to see who's better but hate attackers. It's compromising. They try to have a clean race but it's hard to fight like that in politics. It's what the people want to see, secretly.

    ReplyDelete
  71. The attack ads are so famous becuase its not about that they are going to do its what they look like, their outside view to see whos better than whom. And do we fall for that garbage? The answer is yes, yes we do because we are worried how the other person fails and what did they fail in. Also we pick for the person who has the winning votes or judge the person with out know their true purpose for their reelection. Attack Ads are famous because we demand them to be!

    Rene Bonilla
    Bauer 4th

    ReplyDelete
  72. Campaigners put so much emphasis on attack ads simply because they want to win the election. The ads make the other candidate look terrible for their job and can score brownie points to the candidate using the attack ad. If I see an attack ad on any type of media, it will most likely sway me towards voting for the other candidate because it is making the one on the ad look like a crappy person for the job they are trying to obtain. The image of the person tells the common public what kind of person they are voting for.
    Ryan Klucznik
    Bauer
    P.4

    ReplyDelete
  73. I do think it is possible to win a campaign and also run a clean race; however, I believe it would take a pretty extrodinary person to do so. Attact ads start and can't stop, because a candidate cannot help but retaliate when someone besmirches their name in a race they're trying to win. Campaigns would be much better if people focused on the issues and the qualifications needed to address them, not the attacting other candidates. That said, is it really possible to ensure that your reputation outshines your opponent's without informing the public of said opponents faults?
    I think attack ads and campaigns will unfortunately always go hand-in-hand.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Danielle Smith, Sloan P1October 26, 2010 at 7:13 PM

    Out of those two ads, I prefer the one Carly Fiorina approved for herself. It actually had her in it. It wasn't just some sad looking people saying "Heyyy she sucks! Go Barbara." It seems more real and not so...malicious. Attack ads are just annoying. But I think they're played so much to get attention and followers. These politicians are mean, though! They're putting others down to get themselves up higher, instead of just being a civil person and sticking to the facts. I'd love it if someone won from a clean campaign; I just don't see it happening. There is emphasis on the candidate's image because we, as a society, are judgemental and mean. We're shallow and care too much about what people look like and how we initially come off to people, when it should be whoever is qualified more for the position. An example: people saying Meg Whitman sucks because she has a five head. -__- It's no good when people won't listen to the stands on issues and just base their decision on the visual of the person.

    ReplyDelete
  75. i believe that attack ads do help a candidate a lot. only because it points out the flaws of the other candidate and it makes themselves look better. I dont believe that a person can win without attcking the other candidate because people wouldnt know the bad things about the other person and they would all vote him or her because they seem good.
    Blake Harrison
    Period 3
    Bauer

    ReplyDelete
  76. All people hear from that candidate is their side. people want to see both ends of the street before crossing. You get to hear the good and bad, Meg whitman would never have mentioned that whole scandal, lucky for her, someone else did. Jerry brown doesn't even have to try to win anymore (not saying thats the only reason she lost, i mean WILL lose *cough*)
    It would be interesting to have a clean race and the most "goody2shoes" candidate wins and then they end up doing a horrible job when elected. All because we were unaware of the bad thing they were capable of.

    mr.bauer
    period2

    ReplyDelete
  77. Cierra Gonsalves, Mr. Bauer, Period 2October 26, 2010 at 7:20 PM

    There is so much emphasis on attack ads because they encourage the U.S. people to think and question who they are going to vote for. I think its possible for someone to win by running a "clean" campaign. Its not always about trying to make the other person look bad, its about expressing what each candidate will do to better America. There is so much emphasis on a candidate's image because that's the person you're going to vote for, how they act on a regualr basis could affect their leadership. The fact that people would rather put a face to unheard words rather then listen to key facts and help the political reign is what's wrong with American culture.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Attack ads are a sad part of campaigning. The second ad appealed more to me. National Security is the most important issue to me and she appealed more to my ideals.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Isabel De La Rosa
    Bauer
    p.2

    i believe that ads on television are so important is because they make the flaws in the opponent stand out while their positive qualities stand out for the one producing the ad.image is so important because most politicians dont say the truth so might aswell rate them by their appearance and try to figure them out. i dont think a clean campaign would get a politician anywhere they would just get eliminated by the other competitors. as for the senators race i would vote for boxer and it seems that the majority of the expected voters think the same.

    ReplyDelete
  80. I dont think its possible for a person to win an election without using attack ads. If a candidate doesnt use them then the person running against them will continue to put them down. Voters tend to make their decisions based on the things said in the ads. Personally, I think that clean ads are better because it makes you think about the person running rather than the negatives, that arnt always true.

    Sloan, p.1

    ReplyDelete
  81. I think there is so much emphisis on attack ads because the American culture is naturally mean to eacho other. I don't believe a person can win by a "clean" campaign because we are so corrupted and attacking one another is just more appealing to us. We find playing "fair" to be boring. Unfortunately, the American culture also revolves around image. Everthing and everyone are first judged by it's or their image.

    Barbara Boxer's campaign appeals to me more because of the music and it has an emotional appeal to it by having multiple people talk about losing their jobs.

    Sloan p.2

    ReplyDelete
  82. Mallory Lemieux Mr. Sloan Pd. 4October 26, 2010 at 7:39 PM

    There is so much emphasis on attack ads becuase they are more exciting to the viewers and try to make the people hate the opposite opponent because of the mistakes he or she had made in the past. & i dont think someone could win off of a clean campaign anymore because that dosent appeal to the public as much.

    ReplyDelete
  83. I believe that attack adds are necesarry evil in politics. I believe this because study after study has shown that people more easily remember negative facts, and they tend to forget positive facts quickly. In addition, if there were no attack adds, who would tell us the thruth about the candidates? They would both lie and sayy they are great. We would never know that Carly Fiorina actually supports the outsourcing of jobs. I liked Barbra Boxer's add way more than Carly's add for two key reasons. One, Fiorina's add made no sense, Boxer never said she was against stooping terroism, while Boxer's made a ton of sense, Fiorina did outsource thousands of jobs. And two, because if we ignore the environment, than we will all die, so it should be our top priority. Because of these reasons, and numerous others, I support Barbra Boxer for U.S. senate.
    Bauer per.1
    Sloan per.3

    ReplyDelete
  84. attack adds are very stupid in my opinion you need them to run because they play an important role in almost any election. they only say that stuff cause they are trying to make a person look bad. it is a dirty way to run a campain. what ever happened to running a clean race?

    ReplyDelete
  85. I think its all fun and games. But they are super annoying every 5 minutes on the telle... But other than that thats how they win the elections.

    Mr. Sloan, p.1

    ReplyDelete
  86. in my opinion a campaign wouldnt be a campaign without all of the attack ads because they give the people a better view on each person running. These ads help shift the opinions of the viewers and there decisions on who they think is the bad guy or the good guy.

    ReplyDelete
  87. attack adds are a good thing in my opinion. if you know only good about the person how are you ever going to narrrow it down to choose the right one? you needto know bad in order to chose the right canidate. it helps ith decisions
    kimberlie hernanez
    sloan
    p.4

    ReplyDelete
  88. Lucero Cardiel. Mr. Bauer 3rd periodOctober 26, 2010 at 8:01 PM

    Who wants a governor or president that has been deemed as bad? These ads help with portraying a certain image about the other candidate. Judging upon looks is just a natural human trait. We do it even if we're not conscience about it. However, like our good friend Meg Whitman, too many ads and publicity make the candidate seem to desperate and therefore, giving them a bad image.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Both of the ads appeal to me because they both attack each other. Nowadays people can't win by just running a clean ad. Attacks through ads work because it shows the negative sides of the candidate which is not only an American thing but worldwide.

    ReplyDelete
  90. I think Barbara Boxer had a better attack ad because she had more people talking and it was more interesting. I think it is easier for people to trash their opponent rather than talk about their plans. "Clean" ads are not as interesting as attack ads. Politicians might get more attention ot notice by attacking their opponent.
    Erica Ayala
    Mr. Bauer
    Per. 4

    ReplyDelete
  91. The constant political mudslinging is an essential component for a healthy democracy. Both advertisements are pretty effective in diminishing their opponent's image.

    God Bless America and the Great State of California. (Sloan P.3/Bauer P.4)

    ReplyDelete
  92. Asher Maroot- SloanOctober 26, 2010 at 8:08 PM

    if a candidate has nothing but attack ads, then there is little chance they will win. sometimes all that people see are ads on tv about candidates so they need to know what why they should vote for someone; not just why they shouldnt vote for someone else. plus, running nothing but attack ads might make someone look desperate; meaning their ways may not be as good as another so they will try to make the other look bad

    ReplyDelete
  93. Omar Savala........Bauer 5thOctober 26, 2010 at 8:08 PM

    Atack ads are very good and effective in a campaign. It is a huge advantage towards winning the 2010 election. United States voters need to know who are they voting for and why, and this is a great way to fing out.

    ReplyDelete
  94. The ads on telivision actually make some people confused and annoyed of politics because all the candidates do most of the time is say bad things about eachother.Even things that dont regard poltics.They hardly ever talk about goverment and how they will improve it.

    Clarisa Carrillo
    per.4
    sloan government.

    ReplyDelete
  95. karina ramos mr sloan period 1

    in my opion these types of attack ads could be good and bads. the good ways are to tell wether which candidate is good and bad. for saying which candidate if the good guy and which one is the bad guy. it is also a way in which a voter could mainly get their sides on who to vote for.
    but this could be bad on the other hand. some of these attack ads contain false statements of one of the other candidates. i personally think that these ads are somewhat helpful. just to help us vote!

    ReplyDelete
  96. Every election season canadites spend millions and millions of dollars on political attack ads aimed against their opponents. An attack ad will generally criticize an opponent's political platform, usually by pointing out its faults and contrasting them against its own platform. Statements in the ad may or may not be true, but regardless of its authenticity, statements in an attack ad are often exaggerated.

    However, I believe that everybody has a past, and within that past, there lies mistakes that had which tooken place. Nobodys ever considered a truly "clean" canadidate sort to speak. Everybodys gonna have something about them that you are unfortunatley not going to side with or agree upon.

    Sloan, AP Econ P/2

    ReplyDelete
  97. In America people tend to focus on the image of people and the way they present themselves more than if they are actually good at what they are trying to do. If someone is attacking you in an ad, then you have two choices; either make an ad and attack your opponent back or play it clean. Different people are going to take it different ways. Someone may take it in a positive way that you didn’t respond with an "attack" ad, it may show you are the better person. However, by not attacking back, people could get a false image of you, believing only what your opponent said. It’s quite difficult, but whatever you do, someone it going to judge you and two people can have two totally different opinions.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Spencer PellandiniOctober 26, 2010 at 8:34 PM

    I believe the political campaign should be ran clean. But that will never happen in this day because our society is based on image, who can look better than the other person. Personally i believe bashing the other canidates shows weakness, if a canidate believes they are better at the jobs why dont they just be the bigger person and talk about how THEY are going to make change not how bad the other is. Niether one of the ads appeal to me. I want to hear the canidates speak straight to the people on how they are going to make change not the wrong mistakes others have made. Tell me why you deserve my vote not how you can try to burn the compitition and make them look bad.
    Spencer Pellandini
    Sloan
    P.1

    ReplyDelete
  99. Attack ads are ridiculous. The way the media has learned to alter and take words out of context is astounding. Frankly, I don't care what one person said about another in 1973 or whenever. We as the public should only be concerned about what these candidates plan to do now as governor if they are elected.

    Sloan
    p.2

    ReplyDelete
  100. I honestly think that attack ads are a waste of time. 90% of the time the information is twisted into something that is a complete lie. I think that all of the lies told in the ads make people just ignore the attack ads and I believe they are irrelevant to the election. Candidates should use ads for promoting their cause, instead of lying about other candidates.

    Bauer
    P.3

    ReplyDelete
  101. Voters seem to want to know the flaws of candidates more than their good aspects. This makes it impossible for someone to win with a "clean" campaign because voters expect to see what candidates have done wrong before making their decisons. Neither ad appealed more to me than the other because they only point out what the other candidate has done wrong instead of focusing on what they can do right.

    ReplyDelete
  102. I'm starting to hate commercials now, because of how often the Election 2010 ones are on. Every single time on a commercial break the TV attack ads are on, BACK TO BACK. They're starting to become annoying. i don't see the point in this constant trash talk back and forth. It just makes voters see the bad in all of them. and if they really were the strongest candidate then they wouldn't need to rely on these T.v ads. However, most candidates do so it just shows how string they really are NOt.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Janeiry Balderas, Mr. Sloan, Pr. 4October 26, 2010 at 9:13 PM

    Television is one of the most influential things that exist, and of course many candidates will take use of what they can manage to do through television ads. I believe that personally these type of attacks through ads are low and if you really want to show what you stand for you should do it through going out to the community and not giving crap on someboby on the television. But to be truthful one most likely could not go through a campaign that is clean, well not at least if one wants to be known. Also the American audience is always persuaded to vote according to how the candidate personality is, while they should take that into consideration but what is more important is wether they will do something for our government. One can be decieved by the many ads but depending on how badly a person attacks another on ads, then that lets me know how much they are willing to do and their intentions(wether they are 'good' or not).

    ReplyDelete
  104. Attack ads are used because they make a candidate look good without forcing them to say anything about their stances on issues. This way, they can't be held to anything that they say because the only thing that they ever did say was that their opponent isn't right for office.
    Sloan Per. 3
    Bauer Per. 4

    ReplyDelete
  105. Faye Roberson, Bauer, Period 5October 26, 2010 at 9:30 PM

    I believe that there must be T.V. attacks because it lets thhe people like me who dont so ant resaerch on the peopl were voting for learn more about the opponenets. Also some attacks are way worse than others and it they help you chose which one has done the least damage. I like the first ad because it is more sentimental than the second one and it shows sad people who were supposedly affected by Fiorina.

    ReplyDelete
  106. I believe that these attack ads are just showing the people that you are trying to make the other opponent look bad. Like getting dirty information on them and useing it agaisnt them.
    I dont think there could be a campaign that will be won clean all they have in their mind is winnning and getting peoples votes. So theyll do anything to win even if it means haveing to say bad things about eachother.

    tania hinojosa
    sloan p5

    ReplyDelete
  107. Attack ads are something that will always exist in politcal campaign whether we like it or not. It is important for us as the voting citizens, to not believe everything we hear or see in the media and try to filter through it all. I think there is so much emphasis on these attack ads because at this point in the race, politicians are so desparate to win that they'll stop at nothing to win.

    Kimberly Smith
    Bauer
    Period 1

    ReplyDelete
  108. I suppose I like the second ad slightly more just because Fiorina is talking a little bit more about her personal goals more than strictly bashing on the other candidate, but neither are particularly nice ads. Personally, I get so frustrated when speaking to people who argue strongly for a candidate, and when I ask them why I should vote for that person, their answer is simply bad-mouthing the other candidate. I don't care about what the other candidate has done--I want to know what you are going to do!

    I guess the bad-mouth ads carry a lot more weight for people, though, so I don't foresee this changing soon

    Sasha Schotzko-Harris
    Bauer
    P.1

    ReplyDelete
  109. Im defiantly leaning towards Boxer's adds just because Carly sounds pretty stupid saying that climate change is just "weather". Climate change is big problem. Also Carly seems to be popping up every time i try to watch youtube video and it is realy starting to tick me off! So yeah Boxer.


    Michael Robles
    Mr. Bauer Period 3

    ReplyDelete
  110. Attack ads are popular, because the ads focus on what a candidates' flaws are only. When people see these they forget all the good the person has done. Attack ads like these just point out the flaws the candidates have to make people forget about what they want to do or have done.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Brian Magina, Sloan P.3October 26, 2010 at 10:12 PM

    Attack ads are good for the public eye.we cannot only see what the positives are for one side, but also the negativity that will come from them. Shown from the other side.

    ReplyDelete
  112. josh mcnearney p.3 bauerOctober 26, 2010 at 10:14 PM

    image is so important to the public because thats the face people other states or countries to see. out of the ads boxers add appeals more to me because the Carly ad was criticizing boxer for caring about global warning

    ReplyDelete
  113. Based on the two ads, i would prefer barbara boxer over carly fiorina. However, it would be a very narrow minded way to choose one candidate over the other based on a commercial. I think that politically attacking your opponent is a good way to get people's attention and present flaws in your opponent. Voters need to remember to vote based on issues, not on individuals.

    ReplyDelete
  114. Every elected politician has done something wrong. Every elected politician will continue to do something wrong. There are far to many issues that need to be resolved and many officials have to choose the most crucial problems to tackle. I believe attack-style campaigning is often used because each politician running, in most cases, is qualified for the job. They obviously want whats best for the people so how do they stand out? They attack their opponents. After debating and stating their ideas, that is all they have left to get those few extra votes.

    Gabriella Cello
    Mr. Sloan
    P.3

    ReplyDelete
  115. While I really dissaprove of the childish attacks that candidates use, the he said she said moments, it does work. Today's culture is all about image, what we see on T.V. and the internet is what we live by, so the ads for elections are vital to influence voters and image is the easiest way to get a vote. However, it would be better if the candidates actually talked about their plans and goals while in office so that voters won't have to rely on reading up on last minute information on their way to vote. This way the voter's will know who they are voting for and not just what their opponents have said.

    ReplyDelete
  116. Steven Reichmuth, Bauer, period 2October 26, 2010 at 10:33 PM

    the reason for these ads is to sway the American people from one side to another. The average person is far too lazy to research oppenents political issues so these attack ads serve as a way for one to choose the lesser of two evils. Also the attack ad about Boxer abusing her power toward a military official appeals to me, it shows she has been in there too long and is on a power trip.

    ReplyDelete
  117. Alejandro Ibarra (Mr. Sloan P.1)October 26, 2010 at 10:33 PM

    I think attack ads are good because most show you the kind of person that is running for whatever role. Like everyone in order to win people will act very differently its just like when you want something you will do everything your parents tell you to do in order to gain their permision. To me all election will have this because they are all trying to get the upper hand and will do anything to be at the top. politics will always be dirity when it should focus more on the major issues.

    ReplyDelete
  118. Sergio Maldonado, Sloan p.3/ Bauer p.4October 26, 2010 at 10:33 PM

    Attack adds are more effective because they can quickly ruin a candidate's popularity, however these attacks may be taken out of context from facts and used as attacks. By running "Clean" campaigns, candidates are less likely to win because they can only increase their own popularity, but not diminish the other
    candidates. Barbara Boxer's add seems more effective because it has laid off workers speaking about their experiences in HP, while Carly Fiorina based her claim on a sentence that doesn't even include the word "terroism" in it.

    ReplyDelete
  119. ricardo villalpandoOctober 26, 2010 at 10:48 PM

    attack ads are good because they show people what the person has done that was bad and also so what kind of person he or she because with the regular adds they just show all the good things that why it a good idea to have attack adds so see how a person really is.

    ricardo villalpando
    Mr. Sloan
    pr.5

    ReplyDelete
  120. Emily Geiszler, Bauer, AP Gov, Period 4October 26, 2010 at 10:55 PM

    There is so much emphasis on attack ads because people build themselves up by knocking others down. People respond more to negative things than positive things. If there is an ad attacking Whitman for spending billions of dollars and an ad praising her for creating more jobs at eBay, which is going to influence you more? Probably the negative ad; it will give you a reason to not vote for her. It is similar to a prosecutor and a defense attorney, it is the prosecutor's job to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt. If you can say enough bad things about your opponent, people will start to see the bad in them and change their minds.

    ReplyDelete
  121. Justin Tyler, Bauer, p.3October 26, 2010 at 10:58 PM

    People pay most attention to attck ads and the politicians get the most reponse or reaction to the attack ads so they use those ads to make the other candidate look bad and harm their image. In a way the ads let us know what type of person the candidate is because is generally is saying what bad accomplishments a candidate has done. I do not believe it is possible to win the election by not using the ads because thats what a lot of people base their votes of off.

    ReplyDelete
  122. i think that its a good and bad thing for haveing attack adds, why/ because some times it harder to vote for some one when they tell you positive and negative things about them but it they give you a better idea of how that person really is
    richard Manzo
    pr5 mr.sloan

    ReplyDelete
  123. Tyler Glenn per. 3 SloanOctober 26, 2010 at 11:14 PM

    The attack ads are a good thing they effect the way people view candidates and shape the way people vote. If you have a good attack ad your success will go up. The ads help to quickly give you an idea of the person they are running against. Barbra Boxers ad seemed to grab my attention more because it was about people getting their jobs switched and people losing their jobs which is a touchy subject these days.

    ReplyDelete
  124. It seems that the attack ads are a good thing to have because they allow the candidates to get dirt on their opponents in order to give the voters a good impression of themselves and a bad impression of whom they are running against. Barbra Boxers ad over Carly Fiorina is more appealing because it shows how she takes money and how she doesnt care about the people who work for her. It seems to attack a more important subject, as opposed to Carly Fiorina's ad about Boxer which was less of a threat because it speaks on terrorism which is not as much of a touchy subject anymore.

    ReplyDelete
  125. Neither add appealed to me. Both of them are hating on the opponent. Maybe if Carly had strictly talked about her party platform and her campaign it would have been more appealing. But she had to put the bs about boxer and it ruined it. It's really pathetic how people now adays feel they aren't good enough or really aren't to have to make the other look flat out horrible. They aren't confident in themselves to just lay themselves out, and let the world view them for who they are and what they believe and what the plan to do. That's how things should be done. I think that our culture is filled with insecure people lacking confidence. I mean, if they were confident, why the need for bashing?

    ReplyDelete
  126. Shane Santos, Period 5, BauerOctober 27, 2010 at 7:25 AM

    I think all candidates who use attack ads have weak campaigns. If you use your other opponent as way to get yourself voted in, obsessively you dont have a strong enough campaign yourself. you should worry about your own take on the problems at hand and tell the people what your going to do to help the situation. maybe even go out and do stuff to make us believe that you will actually follow through with all the stuff you say your going to do.

    ReplyDelete
  127. The ads are simply used to make the other canidate look bad and make the canidate who made the ad look good in the eyes of the people. Most voters do not do reaserch on these canidates and just go off of what they see on TV. It would be possible to win with a clean campaign if everyone had a clean campaign, but that is very unlikely to happen. I think they shouldn't slander other canidates so much and should run a clean campaign.

    Zach Mietz

    ReplyDelete
  128. There is so much emphasis on attack ads becuase they want their opponenents to to look bad. They use issuses that hits us close to home like unemployment and national security. The first video appealed to me more. I feel bad because those people lost theirr jobs.

    ReplyDelete
  129. I think attack ads is part of why so few people vote. It turns people off to politics because its like two kids bickering, it's irritating. Politicians need to talk about the issues and get back in touch with their constituents so they can actually represent us. Imagine that

    ReplyDelete
  130. calry furina laid off people however she did what a business had to do to keep the company running, while barba boxer gave viagra to convicted rapists.

    ReplyDelete
  131. the ads arent doing anything thing wrong because if there was only ads going against barbra boxer then we would maybe have a problem but because both sides are doing it then let it be jordan elzie per 2 sloan

    ReplyDelete
  132. I wish attack ads weren't so effective. Unfortunately, they are a great way to give negative attention to your opponent, in turn making you look better. I don't think someone to relies solely on making yourself sound good will be able to win if the opponent relies on attack ads. Even I have been influenced by these ads, whether or not I know they are probably false. When I get old enough to vote, I plan on basing my vote partially on the kind of campaign the candidate is running, because I don't want a mean, deceitful person in office.
    Sloan
    Period 5

    ReplyDelete
  133. My oponion is everybody that watches tv is up to date on every issue that even the public is talking and spreading rumors around. If campaign ads are on tv a person can either believe em all or think for themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  134. I believe that attack ads can be very annoying. Instead of candidates wasting money on positive views about themselves, they waste it on criticizing their opponent.

    -Ivan Cardenas
    Mr. Sloan Per. 3

    ReplyDelete
  135. Nathalie Trevino; A. Bauer period1October 27, 2010 at 8:30 PM

    I personally am not a fan of attack ads, I feel they are immature. Attack ads can be very powerful in persuading voters by painting a negative picture of their opponent, however, I believe ads promoting a candidate and all they have to offer could be even more helpful in winning an election.

    ReplyDelete
  136. I think it doesn't matter how many campaign ads there are it just all depends in what you believe in.

    ReplyDelete
  137. Attack ads are used a lot for campaigning. They attack their opponent strongly. And it sometimes helps them win their election. People care a lot about image and what the people have done in the past. I liked the first advertisement better because it seems more realistic, and I'm sure those people would want their job back.
    Stephanie A
    Mr.Sloan
    Per.4

    ReplyDelete
  138. I think that attack ads are funny and interesting. It's part of a politcal process that all candidates go thrue. The candidates may not like it but they should know that once they get involved with that, many of their personal things can be revealed.It may be a good thing for us citizens to know about these things because we can see who this candidate really is and what they try to do. Many try to trash one candidate to have the greatest votes but they might trash back. Some things are meaningless but it's all part of running for a role and trying to win. But I think people should focus on the important issues.
    Per.4
    Mr.Sloan

    ReplyDelete
  139. viridiana ramirez per.2 mr bauerOctober 28, 2010 at 7:35 PM

    TV ads want to make other opponents look bad, so each candidate looks even better from their own adds.I liked the first advertisement better because it seems more realistic, and I'm sure those people would want their job back.beacuse with this economy who wouldnt want their job back.

    ReplyDelete
  140. I think most of them are attack ads because many americans don't like either candidate and will choose the one they don't like the least. I think we focus more on the individual because many people think of it as a popularity thing because its been in their lives since a young age.

    ReplyDelete
  141. This adds work very well people this informs people of how bad of a component the other person is. i dont even think you would win having a "clean" campaign because nobody even listens to those ones. the dirty campaigns are much more successful.

    ReplyDelete
  142. katie frogue; sloan p1November 2, 2010 at 7:37 PM

    I think tv ads make a big difference in the elections because we try to make our oppoent look bad so we could win. I think the ads are not a good idea becuase some of the things the opponent says is not even true. The elections should be ran freely and there should be no false ads on tv.

    ReplyDelete
  143. Attack on people by showing ads about them is the best way to win something. Ads are used to attack the opponents who are running against you. Its our culture to attack people because its our weakness.
    Jonathan Ramos
    Mr.Bauer
    Per.2

    ReplyDelete
  144. Morgan Woods -----> Bauer Per.1November 16, 2010 at 10:39 PM

    Attack ads are popular because politicians like to dig up dirt on each other and use it to put their opposition in a poor light. I can count on my fingers the number of ads I saw that actually informed me of the positive things about a certain politician. The number of attack ads were countless and very annoying. Many of them didn't say who was running against this "bad" person or what office the "bad" person was running for. If I am only informed that Meg Whitman had a scandal with her house cleaner, but I am not informed of what office she is running for or who I should supposedly vote for instead how am I expected to know which box to check on election day?

    ReplyDelete
  145. i think that some tv adds get populer bc of what they say in them, it could be funny or serious, like very political tv add, make fun of the other or make them look bad to try to make them loose the competition. its all just from being competative

    ReplyDelete
  146. People who campain want a better chance to win so they make attack adds against there opponents. If people hear the negative ads then they might vote for the other person. If attack ads were not allowed then people would have to go on the candidates beliefs and the issues they want to cover. If one candidate runs attack ads and the other doesnt, then it is more likely that the one who attacks will win.

    ReplyDelete
  147. Well to me i think people on t.v. try and be the better cast then other t.v. broadcasters and they try to get paid more if they have a bunch of people who watch.

    Aniscia Silva
    sloan
    Per 5

    ReplyDelete
  148. If you feel its necessary to trash your opponent in order to make yourself "look better"..thats a sad excuse for a campaign...thats like the bully in kindergarten that pushes the scrawny kids to make himself feel and look " cool". Neither of these ads appealed to me quite frankly. Barbara Boxer's was a bunch of people overexxagerating and being whiny..and Fiorina's was plain stupid..

    Danielle Barros
    Sloan p.4

    ReplyDelete
  149. Vicente Chavez
    Sloan per 5th
    In my opinion I think that those tv commercials are important because this show the bad and good of those people and makes it more challenging for themselves as well. This helps because it shows the public how they really are and their backgrounds so that they could maybe think twice of voting for who they really want.

    ReplyDelete
  150. T.V. attacks ads because they want to see the bad things in people. Candidates always have bad things said about them. People just want the best thing and people running the country.

    ReplyDelete
  151. enrique salazar sloanper5December 15, 2010 at 3:58 PM

    I believe in tv attacks but for politicians to do it in my eyes seems kinda kidish. its alright for brands to do that but for a profession it doesnt look to good on their part

    ReplyDelete

All comments will be reviewed before they are published. Make sure to leave your name to receive credit.