New Bush Campaign Ad is impressive

[Almighty Colin]

After a number of lackluster Bush campaign ads I actually saw one I am impressed with. The ad begins with Bush saying "I'm optimistic about America because I believe in the people of America. " Then the ad highlights the booming economy. It then finishes with one of Kerry's recent quotes comparing the current economic situation to the Great Depression.

A. Bush = optimist
B. American economy is strong and growing
C. Kerry = pessimist

Well, after just noting Bushes weak speech at the World War II Memorial, he has made two strong speeches, held a good interview with Brokaw, and run a decent ad.

[Rolo]

"Pessimism never created a job" - good point, hard to argue with :)

http://www.georgewbush.com/News/MultiMedia...aspx?ID=866&T=5 (http://www.georgewbush.com/News/MultiMedia/VideoPlayer.aspx?ID=866&T=5)

[RawAlex]

Colin, I agree, it is a much better ad than the direct Kerry attack ads, which basically say "George Bush is bad, but that Kerry guy is worse!". Nothing turns voters off faster than negative ads that don't stand up to the light of day.

Bush should claim the good economic numbers now, I can't really be sure what those numbers will be like by the time the election comes around. Gas prices, probable interest rate increases (with the appreciation of the US dollar as a result) will slow things down a bit.. plus Kerry can always pull out those "net job numbers" for the Bush term to show how much things are really booming! :-)

Seriously though, Bush team started WAY early on the negative ads, and they have done nothing but lose ground. Maybe they will take a more positive tone for a while and see if that helps.

Alex

[JoesHO]

he made a lot more profit lately off of the gas prices, while he was helping boost his cronies economy, so he was able to hire better advertising firm LOL :P

[JR]

i doubt its a coincidence that it sounds like a Ronald Reagan ad.

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by JR@Jun 14 2004, 02:04 AM
i doubt its a coincidence that it sounds like a Ronald Reagan ad.
nope, it's not
;_)
there no coincendences in politiks
;-))

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by JR@Jun 14 2004, 02:04 AM
i doubt its a coincidence that it sounds like a Ronald Reagan ad.
Check out the Reagan ad. I haven't seen this one on TV yet. I imagine I will this week.

http://www.georgewbush.com/News/MultiMedia...aspx?ID=866&T=5 (http://www.georgewbush.com/News/MultiMedia/VideoPlayer.aspx?ID=866&T=5)

[RawAlex]

Colin, I don't think you will see that one on TV, it is a little too much. It is a great ad, don't get me wrong, but I think it goes over the line and would lead to some VERY bad press.

Invoking the recently dead isn't a good idea.

Alex

[Almighty Colin]

Some classics:

LBJ
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/candid.../daisy_long.mov (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/candidates/ad.archive/daisy_long.mov)

Kennedy
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/candid...ive/kennedy.mov (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/candidates/ad.archive/kennedy.mov)

Bush
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/candid...hive/horton.mov (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/candidates/ad.archive/horton.mov)

And in memory of Reagan
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/candid...reagan_bear.mov (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/candidates/ad.archive/reagan_bear.mov)
(This one is clever)

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Jun 14 2004, 08:30 AM
Colin, I don't think you will see that one on TV, it is a little too much. It is a great ad, don't get me wrong, but I think it goes over the line and would lead to some VERY bad press.

Invoking the recently dead isn't a good idea.

Alex
Yeah, you're right.

[RawAlex]

I think the Bush ad is the perfect example of a good negative ad. It addresses a point, comes up 100% on fact, not opinion, and links an obviously bad thing to the other candidate.

When you compare that to the "Kerry changed a vote while in congress" negative ads, I think it is easy to see why Junior's ads aren't having the same effect.

Reagan ad is a nice one, no negatives there. ;-)

Alex

[Buff]

Bush should have ads showing:

1. Kerry's communist book
2. Kerry talking trash about his fellow troops and admitting to war crimes
3. Kerry waffling on positions ("I voted for it before I voted against it.")

Kerry should have ads showing:

1. The WMD fiasco
2. Bush stumbling through speeches
3. Bush and Republican Congress' record high spending ($1.4 trillion budget) and record deficits.
4. Bush's incompetence sealing the borders to this day
5. Bush making idiotic statements, like when he said he looked into mr. Putin's soul and determined he could trust him (and cast in in light of Russia's opposition to the war effort and the recent evience that Russia was profiting under the Hussein regime at the expense of the Iraqi people)

There are just so many possiblities....

[Almighty Colin]

Buff,

Nice ones :-)

From what I've seen of the state polls, I think Kerry would win a majority of the electoral votes if the election were held today.

The critical area where Bush could really gain ground is the economy. To date, the Democrats have done a much better job of describing the economy as weak than the Republicans have of convincing people it is strong. Also, according to Gallup, oil prices have been weighing on people's opinion of the economy.

Considering the unprecedented polarity of this election, how does Kerry go about getting any of the 86% of Republicans who support Bush or how does Bush go about getting any of the 86% of Democrats who don't support him. Where will the swing voters go? I'm a swing voter and leaning toward Kerry but Bush could still get my vote depending on the next six months, I think.

[Buff]

Kerry should just do what he's doing now -- stay out of the spotlight. Reagan was in the spotlight, now Clinton will be in it. Let Bush destroy himself with his mumble mouth speeches and out of control neocon spending (with the help of a Republican Congress). The more people see of Kerry, the worse his poll numbers are. Looks like the Kerry campaing finally recognized this and is keeping him in the background for now. I think that's a winning strategy. More people will vote against Bush then for Kerry if they continue this strategy, and Kerry will win. If Kerry gets back in the spotlight, it is likely to be a repeat of the 2000 election.

Also, there's no way I would watch Bush/Kerry debates. Can you imagine the tedium of listening to them? The whole time all I'd be able to wonder is how these are the two best options in all of America to be President.



Last edited by Buff at Jun 14 2004, 08:46 AM

[RawAlex]

Buff, you post is a clear indication of why Kerry will likely win this election (based on what is on the table):

The three items on the "bush should use" list, 2 of them are old old things... and every time you go there, there is a good defence of "Kerry went to war, Bush went missing". Bush camp has already learned that discussing military roles isn't a good deal for them, so they stay away from it.

The votes in congress thing has more power, but it is confusing in nature, and would take a long time to explain to the average voter. Not sure that it has power.

The "kerry should use" list contains many things that Bush couldn't or won't be able to combat: Deficits, dead soldiers, poor intelligence, poor public presentations, etc.

Kerry's team would be wise to keep their ad dollars on the sidelines for a little while, and let Bush run off at the mouth, then turn around and slam the living crap out of him for the last couple of weeks of the campaign. As long as Kerry doesn't do anything really stupid, he has this one pretty much in the bag.

Alex

[Buff]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Jun 14 2004, 09:58 AM
Buff, you post is a clear indication of why Kerry will likely win this election (based on what is on the table):

The three items on the "bush should use" list, 2 of them are old old things... and every time you go there, there is a good defence of "Kerry went to war, Bush went missing". Bush camp has already learned that discussing military roles isn't a good deal for them, so they stay away from it.

The votes in congress thing has more power, but it is confusing in nature, and would take a long time to explain to the average voter. Not sure that it has power.

The "kerry should use" list contains many things that Bush couldn't or won't be able to combat: Deficits, dead soldiers, poor intelligence, poor public presentations, etc.

Kerry's team would be wise to keep their ad dollars on the sidelines for a little while, and let Bush run off at the mouth, then turn around and slam the living crap out of him for the last couple of weeks of the campaign. As long as Kerry doesn't do anything really stupid, he has this one pretty much in the bag.

Alex
I wouldn't give the election to Kerry just yet. The handover in Iraq is this month and that leaves 4 full months plus a few days for things to settle down over there before our elections. If the steady diet of casualties we read and hear about every day trickles off and the stateside economy doesn't take before the election, and the Bush camp keeps Bush from mumble-mouthing too much, Bush has a decent shot at it.

Honestly, I am expecting a repeat of the 2000 election as far as the voter and electoral counts are concerned.

[TheEnforcer]

Considering a recent study published in the Washington post that found that Bush has run 75% negative/attack ads vs 25% positive ads and Kerry has done exactly the opposite I would say Bush is full of shit on this one.

[Rolo]

4.5 months is a very long time in politics...

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by TheEnforcer@Jun 14 2004, 05:19 PM
Considering a recent study published in the Washington post that found that Bush has run 75% negative/attack ads vs 25% positive ads and Kerry has done exactly the opposite I would say Bush is full of shit on this one.
You think he doesn't believe the economy is doing well?