Answer these questions about the ad:
1. What type of ad is this?
2. What does it tell you about the race that this type of ad is run at this time?
3. Do you believe this ad is effective (take whatever partisan blinders you have off for the most part)? Why or why not?
24 comments:
This is an attack ad against Mitt Romney, but since it compares the Obama record on energy to Romney, I would say it is more of a comparative ad. Obviously everyone knows that Mitt Romney is the presumptive Republican nominee, so it is time for the Obama campaign to start slinging some mud at their challenger. The ad basically tries to make the case that Obama is some environmental warrior who has led us into a new energy future, and he is sticking it to those evil oil millionaires. The truth is, gas has almost doubled in his term in office and he is taking the heat, so his campaign team is trying to get out in front of the issue. The ad leaves out all of the failed public investments in financially insolvent green energy companies as well as President Obama’s administration shutting down permitting in certain areas. Also, it leaves out his war on oil in West Texas with the phony dunes sagebrush lizard controversy and his unwillingness to approve the keystone XL pipeline. This president owns the high price of gas, and as with everything he does, they have to change the narrative to divert attention away from it (as they did when the birth control controversy was ginned up out of the blue). Now, from a non-partisan perspective, I do not think this ad is effective. It looks nice, but basically all it says is Mitt Romney and President Obama don’t agree on energy issues. Unfortunately for the president, everyone in this country is suffering from high gas prices, and Mitt Romney wants to try a new strategy because the one we have now is obviously not working.
This is a support ad for Barack Obama highlighting how he has done so many great things for our economy in regard to big oil while cutting their tax breaks at the same time. It is also an attack ad on Mitt Romney because it portrays him as a supporter of big business and not the greater population due to his stance on oil tax breaks. This tells me that Barack Obama is feeling the pressure in the race thus feeling the need to attack his opponent rather than build himself up, however he does not have much ground to build his stance since the US has already seen what he has done and thus what he most likely will do in office if re-elected, thus he may not feel the need to spend his grants on support ads. I do not think that this ad was effective because it did not come off as a supportive ad in the beginning and once you realize it is supporting Barack they turn it into an attack ad on Mitt, however at the end it throws a curve ball when it asks the viewer to consider who payed for that ad and what they really want. This ad is very bipolar as to what direction it is taking in regard to attack and support (although sometimes they are one in the same) and thus I believe that it is not a strong ad either way.
This is a negative ad. It is an ad, put out by Obama, against Mitt Romney. Gas prices are one of the most important issues for Americans these days and putting a ad that would make a candidate look good or better then another candidate on the gas price issue is good these days. Obama's team put an ad that did exactly that. Obama's team might know that prices of gas are going up and Americans are not liking that the prices are going up. So the Obama's team tried to dig up some information that might make their candidate look better than the other one. They dug that information specifically for him because that's who they are thinking will be their opponent in the next general election. They wanted to put that ad out now because they might want to get in American's heads that even though gas prices are going up, Obama is still the better choice than Mitt Romney. This is an effective ad. It's effective because it shows that when it comes to the gas price issue, Obama is the better candidate, out of the two, that could help Americans feel better about the gas prices. Many candidates don't put negative ads out but when they do, they're usually effective, like this one. Mitt Romney has been putting a lot of negative ads against his fellow republican candidates and has been effective. Obama's team decided to put a negative ad as well and, in my opinion, has put an effective ad.
This ad is a comparative advertisement for Obama aimed at attacking Romney. It lists off Obama’s record in oil and renewable energy related policy decisions. It then compares that with Romney’s record to attack his stance on oil. Obama says he approves of the ad at the beginning of the advertisement. This is done because it is an attack ad and the viewer may forget who sponsored the ad if it’s at the beginning of the ad.
An attack ad is used when a candidate is down in the polls. However, in this case they are both running attack ads. It is early enough in the race that any negative ad would be mostly forgotten by the time of voting starts while also possibly providing a few percentage points in the polls.
I think this ad is effective in defending and attacking. It takes the punch out of the negative ad that Romney used, and it allowed for a counter attack ad without much of the negative stigma an attack ad would bring.
This is a comparative advertisement/attack ad for Obama towards against Romney. It begins with Obama's political standing with the oil industry and renewable resources. It then compares it with Romney’s political standing on oil. Also, Obama's approval is at the beginning of the ad, in which this achieves the end goal of making the viewer possibly disregard the sponsor of the ad and tune in into the main message being said. This type of ad is used when a candidate is low in the race, however, I think this ad is effective. Mostly because it removes the negative ad aspect that Romney used, and it was able to be followed by a counter attack ad that wouldn't hurt the candidates reputation in the race.
I would have to go with comparative ad on this one. I say that because right off the bat, the ad starts "comparing" oil polices i.e. tax breaks etc. I would say this ad might have come out in the earlier part of the race. This is because of the nature of the ad, its a "hot topic" and probably will make waves. I also took note on the Obama endorsement at the beginning of the ad as well as the note at the bottom of the screen at the end. However, the Obama campaign must see Romney as a viable, potent threat or else they would not be flying ads of this nature so quickly. I almost wonder if that ad is jumping the gun on Romney in that the Obama campaign is getting worried that their approval will hold up under pressure. Now do I think this ad will be effective, yes. This is because it is no secret that Romney is from big money. I think, from a society aspect, that it is hard for large money to be concerned for the smaller guys. I really feel as if the general public has an authentic fear of the way our economy is heading and they feel that oil prices are close to the center of it.
This is clearly a comparative ad. The ad attempts to make Obama look like the fighter for the people by showing his work with alternative energies and his involvement with domestic oil. In the same breath, the ad condemns Romney for his support of tax breaks for major oil companies. This comparison of the two candidates' stances on this issue is the factor that defines this as a comparative ad. Due to this and the fact that this is an Obama ad, it is clear why Obama is given the highlight while Romney gets the condemnation.
This ad couldn't be run at a more opportune time. Romney has just recently secured his spot as the Republican candidate for president, and as such is not exactly viewed in the best light, large in part to Santorum and Gingrich. This ad seems to be meant to kill some of Romney's momentum before he ever has any. This seems to say that the Obama campaign sees Romney as a legitimate threat, as the timing is both too opportune and a bit early for the November election.
Personally, I think the ad is effective. One could easily argue the merits of the attack itself, but that's not how ads are supposed to work. Ads are used to draw attention to an issue without going too in-depth. Generally, people don't want the rich to easily become richer, so tax breaks for oil companies is not something they want to see. By choosing that data to reveal, it makes Romney look like the bad guy, which makes the ad effective in accomplishing its goal: helping Obama win the election. Partisanship has nothing to do with it, the majority of people don't really care about the intricacies of the issues, so ads like this are effective.
This advertisement is a comparative ad which ways the decisions between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney is attacked in the ad by his decisions towards oil tax breaks. The advertisement portrays him as an advocate for corporations and the rich rather than a view for the people. The advertisement quickly reveals Barack Obama as one of those characters that is for the people. As oil rises anyone in office would be taking the heat for it. This article works in many ways but its main goal is to seperate Barack Obama from Mitt Romney and the views that they dont have in common. Romney has been well known now as a man from money and Obama as a hard working man from a lower class that has worked his way up and is here to stand by and for the people of America. This advertisment does not attack Romney personally just views he stand for then compares Obamas views and stances he has and lets the viwer decide which is best. This advertisement will eventually help Barack Obama if not immideatley to whomever watches it.
This was a comparison ad that featured President Obama's track record on oil against Mitt Romney's record. Obviously, since it was supported by Obama, it had to have Obama put out as the better person. It showed how Obama had put the United States into new energy and ended big oil tax breaks and increased higher mileage on cars. This type of ad run at this period of time shows that Obama understands what Mitt Romney's game plan is. Which, if it is anything like the primaries have been, they will feature a large number of attack ads against Obama. Especially by putting this ad out at a time where gas prices are high, and it is the biggest topic in the media, it helps Obama. But it doesn't help him much, because we are still under Obama's term as president and gas prices increased a large percentage under his term. This tells me that this race will probably be a really nasty one, and it will go personal a lot. Obama understands that Mitt Romney is the man to beat, and that the perception is Romney is a business man with a lot of money that wants to protect his rich friends. So Obama is using that as a focus point in this ad. I don't feel this ad was effective for Obama. It was a bit confusing and clearly didn't tell the whole story. It did take things out of context and that will probably hurt Obama in the general election. This was effective in that it showed me that Obama showing an attack ad this early means that the US is set for a long, and very mean general election race.
This is a comparative ad. It is an ad, put out by Obama, against Mitt Romney. Gas prices are one of the most important issues for Americans these days and putting a ad that would make a candidate look good or better then another candidate on the gas price issue is good these days. Obama's team put an ad that did exactly that. Obama's team might know that prices of gas are going up and Americans are not liking that the prices are going up. So the Obama's team tried to dig up some information that might make their candidate look better than the other one. They dug that information specifically for him because that's who they are thinking will be their opponent in the next general election. They wanted to put that ad out now because they might want to get in American's heads that even though gas prices are going up, Obama is still the better choice than Mitt Romney. This is an effective ad. It's effective because it shows that when it comes to the gas price issue, Obama is the better candidate, out of the two, that could help Americans feel better about the gas prices. Many candidates don't put negative ads out but when they do, they're usually effective, like this one. Mitt Romney has been putting a lot of negative ads against his fellow republican candidates and has been effective. Obama's team decided to put a comparative ad and, in my opinion, has put an effective ad.
This is a comparative ad. This race is going to focus on trying to alienate Mitt Romney from the American public. We have already seen in the primary that not everybody likes Romney and he seems to be distant and not understand the average American. What this ad is attempting to do is to show us that Obama is looking out for us and has put pressure on oil companies to make gas more affordable, while contrasting Romney as someone who has stood on the side of big oil and therefore is against making gas more affordable to the average American, and thereby saying Mitt Romney is not for the average American public. I would say that it is effective in the sense that we are all feeling the pinch of high gas prices and we have seen ads attacking Obama on the rising gas prices, but what this ad does is lays the behind the scenes context that we as the public were unaware of. Obama has been fighting big oil to cut tax breaks, raising mileage standards, etc. and answers an attack ad by Mitt Romney.
This is a comparative ad. This race is going to focus on trying to alienate Mitt Romney from the American public. We have already seen in the primary that not everybody likes Romney and he seems to be distant and not understand the average American. What this ad is attempting to do is to show us that Obama is looking out for us and has put pressure on oil companies to make gas more affordable, while contrasting Romney as someone who has stood on the side of big oil and therefore is against making gas more affordable to the average American, and thereby saying Mitt Romney is not for the average American public. I would say that it is effective in the sense that we are all feeling the pinch of high gas prices and we have seen ads attacking Obama on the rising gas prices, but what this ad does is lays the behind the scenes context that we as the public were unaware of. Obama has been fighting big oil to cut tax breaks, raising mileage standards, etc. and answers an attack ad by Mitt Romney.
This is a comparative ad. This race is going to focus on trying to alienate Mitt Romney from the American public. We have already seen in the primary that not everybody likes Romney and he seems to be distant and not understand the average American. What this ad is attempting to do is to show us that Obama is looking out for us and has put pressure on oil companies to make gas more affordable, while contrasting Romney as someone who has stood on the side of big oil and therefore is against making gas more affordable to the average American, and thereby saying Mitt Romney is not for the average American public. I would say that it is effective in the sense that we are all feeling the pinch of high gas prices and we have seen ads attacking Obama on the rising gas prices, but what this ad does is lays the behind the scenes context that we as the public were unaware of. Obama has been fighting big oil to cut tax breaks, raising mileage standards, etc. and answers an attack ad by Mitt Romney.
This is a comparative ad. This race is going to focus on trying to alienate Mitt Romney from the American public. We have already seen in the primary that not everybody likes Romney and he seems to be distant and not understand the average American. What this ad is attempting to do is to show us that Obama is looking out for us and has put pressure on oil companies to make gas more affordable, while contrasting Romney as someone who has stood on the side of big oil and therefore is against making gas more affordable to the average American, and thereby saying Mitt Romney is not for the average American public. I would say that it is effective in the sense that we are all feeling the pinch of high gas prices and we have seen ads attacking Obama on the rising gas prices, but what this ad does is lays the behind the scenes context that we as the public were unaware of. Obama has been fighting big oil to cut tax breaks, raising mileage standards, etc. and answers an attack ad by Mitt Romney.
In my opinion, Obama’s advertisement would be considered a comparative ad, because he is informing the audience (potential voters) about his opponent’s (Mitt Romney) position and comparing his own to Mitt Romney. Obama uses a bar graph that is representing his own record in the United States oil production from 2009 through 2011 and calls it an “8-year high”, which would only make it three years. The ad then shows how Mitt Romney is talking against Obama and his oil tax breaks-mind you- Obama says in his ad that American Energy Alliance supports Romney?
This advertisement tells me that it is an attack advertisement, which are used usually when the candidate running the ad.is lower in the polls. I know it is an attack advertisement from Obama, because he states at the beginning of his ad that he “approves this message.” When candidates use this tactic, they are striving for the audience to comprehend the point trying to be made without looking immature.
I personally, do not believe this ad is THAT effective, because I feel that Obama should have not shown a graph showing only three years (out of the eight) and then call it “an 8- year high”? Obama then used a commercial advertisement from CNBC that ran LAST NOVEMEBER (2011)…showing an interview with Romney and his “Attacking Mileage Standard Renewables.” I guess I do not think the advertisement was brought together very well; kind of confused me, but then again, I may just not like comparative advertising, because it goes back-and-forth which is annoying.
I believe this is a comparative ad in favor of Barack Obama. Mainly, because in the beginning he says that he approves this message and it starts out by highlighting obama's plan on this issue of oil and renewable energy. Basically, this ad is showing that the race is hitting the bigger, more popular issues according to most americans. Gas has always been a major political issue for a lot of americans and obamas campaign is starting with them to maybe get a head start on this particular issue. I really do not believe this ad is affective at all. Obama simply points out that he is in favor of lowering gas prices or maybe even maintaining them a the current level and points out that hit romney just supports big oil companies. I don't believe this ad was had enough power to persuade a undecided voter from one side to the other. If i was a undecided voter i do not believe this would be enough to move me to the other side.
This is an ad on how Obama and Ramney feel about oil prices. They start off at the beginning by saying that Obama has reached and all time high in oil prices in eight years. But i think that the video is in favor of Obama because they explain Obamas plan for renewable energy which makes me believe that they are in support of him. I think that this ad is being used because they know that Ramney is going to be the Republican candidate, so they are starting to create negative ads towards Ramney. I noticed that they touch on the gas subject, becuase this has been an issue that appeals to many Americans and they can create a plan that is approved by the citizens to get a jump start. YOu can see with Ramney having so much money, he is in favor of big companies as stated in the video. Obama is wanting to lower the overall price of oil and gas in this video. I wasnt quite sure why the ad was so short in length, i feel that they could of covered more information on how they were going to lower the oil and gas prices to make the other candidate look bad.
This is a comparative ad in which President Obama attacks presidential candidate, Mitt Romney. The ad shown at this time shoes that Obama’s likely opponent in the 2012 general election will be Romney. I think this ad is very effective because gas and oil prices are an important issue for most American families. Statistics at the beginning of the ad report that in the past 3 years under Obama domestic oil is at an all time high, and he voted against tax breaks for big oil companies. The ad then goes on to tell viewers that Romney voted for tax breaks on these oil companies. This links Romney to big businesses and portrays Obama as trying to help the everyday, middle-class American.
This is a comparative ad between President Obama and republican candidate, Romney. The ad overall was effective because it touched on important issues that our society is facing. It makes you think about why you are supporting the candidate of your choice. If the add was longer I believe it might have been more effective. A longer ad would have made you think longer on the topic and maybe really consider what it had to say. The ad shows how Obama is trying to lower gas prices while Romney supports big oil companies. It enhances the reputation Romney has as a rich business man. Obama is seen as a more practical. The ad emphasizes how Romney would rather reduce taxes for the rich instead of helping the average citizen.
This is a comparative ad between President Obama and Governor Romney. The ad states that Romney is for big oil and is not looking out for the consumers interests when he defends big oil and their tax breaks. The ad suggests that Obama is increasing domestic oil production and is against big oil companies receiving tax breaks, and that he is looking out for the consumer with his resources in renewable energy.
This comparative ad is negative on Mitt Romney. I believe the incumbent should be running on his own record and showing the people what he has achieved. He should be highlighting his accomplishments in office and not go completely negative on ads. The problem is he can't really brag or boast about his accomplishments when the economy is still hurting.
I believe this is an effective ad because it shows Romney as an advocate for big oil. The ad portrays Romney as a 1% type of guy and he is in the big oil's pocket.
This is a comparative ad. Romney is being shown as different from the american society. Trying to remove Romney from the American public. It compares Obama and Romney with their take on Oil and gas prices. Obama focuses on the positive strive for trying to lower prices while contrasting to Romney. I think that it is effective due to the fact that the issue is relevant to all Americans and is an issue that will be debated against.
In my opinion this is an attack ad against Mitt Romney. This ad's purpose is to compare the Obama record on energy to Romney. The ad basically tries to make the case that Obama is helping our environment and helping the energy future. He is getting a lot of the blame for the high gas prices and such, so he is tackling that criticism head on by making this ad to make viewers think otherwise. I don't really find this specific ad effective. I'm not only saying that because I'm not an Obama fan, I'm saying that because this ad isn't that strong....especially compared to some of his other ads that are so well made. The main thing a viewer would get from this ad is that Romney and Obama have different views and beliefs when it comes to oil.
This is a negative ad towards Mitt Romney but, it is also comparing their stances on the oil industry. Throughout the ad they talk about the problems with oil/energy and what Obama has or is going to do to fix the problem. It basically states everything that he has been attacked for about the oil industry and is defending himself and saying "look at what I have achieved". This could also be seen as a comparative ad because it compares Obama's stance on the issue to Romney's stance on the issue. Obama attacks Romney by basically saying that he is on the American people side while Romney is siding on the side of the big oil industry. Overall I found it to be effective because this is a huge issue in politics and Obama did a good job at defending his stance while attacking Mitt Romney.
Post a Comment