With their threatening music and grainy mug-shot photos, they warn of shady pasts and terrifying outcomes if a certain candidate is elected. We explore the themes presented, where the truth may or may not come in, and who’s paying for these ads. And then, another election season pet-peeve: polls.
Wayne Lesperance – professor of political science at New England College, and director of the Center for Civic Engagement, which includes the New England College Polling Institute.
The State Supreme Court Thursday considered the question, does New Hampshire have the right to regulate polling conducted by federal political campaigns?
The question arises because of an alleged push-poll conducted for Former Congressman Charlie Bass’ in 2010. The call in question refer to Bass’ opponent congresswoman Annie Kuster’s work for pharmaceutical company which made what the call referred to as a date-rape drug.
The ads are constant, the sums are staggering. In the presidential race, spending has crossed the half-billion dollar mark. State races meanwhile have seen an influx of big money from outside groups. The ads have ranged from tough to downright zany, even with zombies making an appearance. We look at the latest commercials and whether they’re effective.
John Carroll: assistant professor of mass communication at Boston University with a background in advertising and media. His blog is Campaign Outsider.
New Hampshire is one of seven swing states targeted by a new two-minute television ad launched by the Obama campaign.
The ad, which began running Thursday, is titled, ‘Table.” It features a seated Obama speaking directly to the camera. The ad opens with Obama reminding voters that the country was at war with Iraq and losing 800,000 jobs a month when he took office.
The campaigns of Carol Shea-Porter and Frank Guinta are trading sharp words over a Shea-Porter ad claiming Guinta voted to cut money for veterans’ programs. The ad that Shea-Porter’s campaign released last week stuck to the aggressive tone that the former congresswoman has adopted this election cycle.
Pundits and commentators are forecasting that this fall's general election will see an avalanche of negative advertising. But as voters gird for the onslaught, political scientists are asking a different question: Will it matter?
When the Supreme Court lifted restrictions on private advertising in elections, superPACs supporting President Obama and the most likely Republican nominee, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, promised to unleash negative attacks on the other side.
Originally published on Fri March 16, 2012 10:10 am
There was a big movie premier Thursday — big in the political world, anyway. This movie is actually an ad of sorts, designed in hopes that it will go viral and help President Obama's re-election prospects.
There's been a collective notion swirling among New Hampshire politicos and pundits that this year's Republican primary just doesn't stack up to past events. Candidates aren't as anxious to go to town hall meetings and shake hands at nondescript diners. By and large, they're not throwing astronomical sums of cash into unending TV ads. Yes, they're here, touting the importance of the early New England vote.
In the closing hours of the primary, the campaigns are turning to the airwaves to make one last push for votes. About a third of the electorate say they have yet to make up their mind. Some 60 television ads a day might help them decide. That might sound like a lot but the real story of advertising in this primary is, there’s so little of it.
Two candidates have dominated the New Hampshire television market for several months. Texas congressman Ron Paul, often cast as a firebrand, is now running an ad aimed at burnishing his image as a reliable leader.