Political Ads: Effective or Not?
 

Every time I see political ad on TV I immediately zone out and go, "ugh. Here we go again."

Am I alone in this?

I have yet to be swayed by a political ad. Personally I look at how much is spent on campaigning and I just think to myself "I think they could send a stronger message by putting all of that money into programs to help people".

I'd be swayed a helluva lot quicker to a candidate that did that.

THAT IS SO TRUE.

What's keeping them from using their money towards a good end right now? Why wait until they are in office???!

I have a theory that the purpose of 'attack adds' isn't so much about talking smack about ones opponent as it is about waging a monetary war of attrition. Basically, if a political campaign make some crazy accusation in an ad, and their opponent doesn't respond to it, they can legitimize their claim by saying "Oh look, he didn't deny it when we said he likes sex with underage sheep! It must be true!" So when one of these ads comes out, the opponent is forced to air an equal or greater number of ads denying it or firing back. That costs them a lot of money that they could have more effectively used for fliers, travel, or campaign staff. And since this is more cost effective than airing good ads about yourself, both sides use attack ads to shell each others bankrolls into the ground until the last candidate standing is able to win by a pack of stamps.

The unthinking majority is still a majority.

There are only certain things you are allowed to spend campaign funds on. It's a huge issue over here at the moment and it's totally ridiculous but it's the system as it is.

Also, let's not forget that if you're running for office... it's no good that you go out spending your hundreds of thousands on aiding sick puppies and childrens, if you cant make ads that will let people KNOW that you're doing that... plus your adversary is a dick and is running a Ad that says that you're killing the puppies and sending THEM as food for the children.

The adversary wins, for stupid are the peoplez

The media takes care of letting the people know, be they from the newspaper, tv news, tabloids, or fanatics drooling at the mention of your name, word will spread.

If you really need to, do a low budget ad with a sock monkey representing your opponent.

Unrealistic yes, but I think having/exercising the ability to do better things with your money than blow it on stereotyping your opponent based on party affiliation on national television would most likely earn my vote.

Unfortunately, getting the American public-at-large to do critical thinking on a large scale on complex issues with multiple facets and approaches to dealing with them is kinda like teaching seals to fly; sure you can throw them high in the air with a catapult so they have plenty of time to grasp the mechanics of what they need to do, you could even send instructions with them - but what you end up with is a bloody mess on the ground.

^ how do you know?

Have you ever tried catapaulting seals?

If they can't use "campaign" money for it, what's to stop them from raising money for a charity rather than their campaign funds?