Jessica Sullivan

Presidential Campaign Advertisements and their Implications for Change in Presidential Campaigns

Jessica Sullivan

Televised campaign advertisements have been an unrivaled benefit to candidates since their debut during the 1952 election cycle. They allow candidates to deliver their message directly to voters, unhindered by the dissenting voice of their opponents. Unlike in debates, candidates are able to say whatever they please without being contradicted or proven incorrect. Campaign ads also allow candidates to reach voters who may not be engaged in the political process. These voters may not attend rallies or read newspapers, but they watch television and so are still able to receive the candidate’s message.

Perhaps most importantly, campaign advertisements give candidates the ability to decide the issues of the election. Iyengar, Peters, and Kinder (1982), among many others, have tested the agenda-setting potential of news coverage. They have found that frequent news coverage of certain issues leads viewers to perceive them as more important. Campaign advertisements, which primarily function to repeat messages, work in a very similar way. In making campaign ads, candidates are able to focus on issues which they want to discuss, therefore shaping the discourse of the election.

Their capability to set agendas gives campaign advertisements historical significance, as their messages tend to reflect, and in many ways to inform, the issues and values important during a particular election cycle. In studying these ads, I hoped to identify ways in which presidential elections have changed since the introduction of this form of political communication. This project, however, is not purely historical; it attempts to make sense of current and future political conditions by analyzing those of the past.

In this project, I decided to study the political and historical patterns of presidential elections and the campaign advertisements which function as windows into the important issues of the time. To do so, I have watched every presidential campaign advertisement from 1952 to 2016, placing each election from 1952 to 2012 into a particular group. The groups are as follows: 1952-1956, 1960-1968, 1972-1984, 1988-2000, and 2004-2012. I have deliberately excluded the 2016 election from this grouping, as it does not yet have the historical context necessary to be included. These groups allow for more in-depth analysis of the larger political trends. T he Post-War Elections, from 1952-1956, are the first of these eras. These two elections are unique in that they feature the same two major-party candidates: Dwight D. Eisenhower for the Republicans, and Adlai Stevenson for the Democrats. Despite having the same candidates, however, these two elections were different in that they showed how the candidates became more confident in their use of the medium. The 1952 campaign was the first to use television advertisements. Candidates used ads as brief speeches, public forums, and jingles. This diversity of form is unrivaled in subsequent elections, even in 1956.

These elections are characterized not only by the diversity of form of the ads but by their content. In both years there were several ads on national defense and the economy, issues that may have been so prominent because of their proximity to the Second World War and the Great Depression. In fact, in one Stevenson jingle, he recalls the turmoil the Depression caused for farmers (“Let’s Not Forget the Farmer”). This ad, aimed at those affected most seriously by the Great Depression, encouraged voters to draw upon their experience with FDR—a Democratic icon whose support Stevenson hoped to tap into.

This era gets its name, of course, from its position as the era immediately after the wartime elections. Its political climate was one in search of a new identity in response to the Second World War. Situated between the party shifts of the late 1930s and early 1960s (Knuckey 1999), the PostWar Elections were influenced by World War 2, the Korean War, and the Cold War. Combined with the constant threat of nuclear war, these conflicts threatened the perception, in the United States and abroad, that the nation was emerging as a world superpower, and that peace could be achieved through strength. Similarly, domestic matters reflected a contradiction within the nation’s values. The country celebrated economic stability and a sense of post-war prosperity that women and members of other marginalized groups often were not recipients of. As a result of this tension between the real and perceived state of affairs, there was a desire amongst the electorate for strength, stability, and a patriotic leader. In both elections, General Dwight D. Eisenhower filled this role.

The next era, the Change Elections, occurred during the politically and socially tumultuous years of 1960-1968.

These three elections used the form of their advertisements to reflect the political climate of the year. In 1960, both Nixon and Kennedy ran fairly straight-forward, policy-oriented advertisements. These reflected the comparative calm of that election year, although still addressing controversies such as Kennedy’s Catholic faith. This election was actually difficult to assign to a group, as it embodied both the fears and Cold War tensions of the Post-War Elections and the desire for social and political change at home that became symbolic of the 1964 and 1968 campaigns. Ultimately, I decided to put it into this group because of its position as a transitional election: the messages and issues it featured made the discussion of the later two possible. In 1964 and especially in 1968, the ads became more chaotic to reflect the unrest occurring in the nation as a whole. This and the riots at the Democratic National Convention prompted Nixon to run “Convention,” an ad which juxtaposes happy music and images of Humphrey at the convention with violent depictions of the Vietnam War, riots, and poverty. Several ads, including “Convention,” were filmed in jarring, quick-moving styles that matched the chaos of the era. This disorienting form reflected the larger discontent of the 1960s.

These ads focused on a variety of foreign and domestic policy issues, including (but certainly not limited to) the Vietnam War, Civil Rights, and nuclear fears. Unlike the Post-War elections, there is very little tension between the real and the perceived. In the ads and in the electorate as a whole, there was a sense of discontent, both with the state of society and with those who were discontent with the state of society. This charged the political discussion, allowing candidates like Barry Goldwater, a Republican seen as a threat to the Republican party itself (“Confessions of a Republican”), to gain support with his rhetoric railing against the lack of morality in America. These issues were emblematic of the era as a whole: a time of unrest seemingly on the cusp of change. Thus these elections gain their name.

The next set of elections, the Character Elections, run from 1972 to 1984. These elections are characterized more by the content of their advertisements than by their form. In each of these elections, there is attention paid to the candidate as an individual. He is made to seem strong, patriotic, kind, etc. depending on the candidate and the year. 1972, perhaps one of the most glaring displays of poor character in politics, may seem an odd fit with the perceived moral superiority of candidates like Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. In this election, however, Nixon attempted to portray himself both as the strong, law and order president he promised to be in 1968, and the compassionate man desired during this era. He drew upon his character in “Nixon the Man,” an ad in which he is shown being friendly and funny in less-structured, “behind the scenes” moments. In another ad, “Passport,” he emphasizes his strength and achievements as president. I categorized the 1972 election as a Character Election not because of the moral superiority of the year, but because of its insistence on Nixon’s character as a reason for his electability.

After the Watergate Scandal and Nixon’s subsequent resignation, the American people were in dire need of a political jumpstart: a president who could restore public trust in the office. Nixon’s successor, Gerald Ford, did not quite fill this role, especially after his pardoning of Nixon. However, the next two presidents, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan, made attempts to do so. Both men ran advertisements emphasizing their upstanding character, humility, patriotism, and personal goodness, often tying those qualities to America itself. The content of these ads reflected the electorate’s desire for a strong, trustworthy leader.

After the “race to the top” of the Character Elections came the “race to the bottom” of the Negative Elections. This era, from 1988-2000, was characterized by a turn towards negative advertisements. Initiated by George H.W. Bush in the 1988 election, campaigns began to run more attack ads and focus more on their opponents’ flaws than their own strengths. In 1988 and in 1992, Bush used a very similar line of attack. In fact, his ad attacking Clinton’s record in Arkansas (“Arkansas 2”) is nearly identical to his 1988 ad attacking Dukakis’ record in Massachusetts (“Harbor”), even with the lines “And now Bill Clinton wants to do for America what he’s done for Arkansas” / “And Michael Dukakis promises to do for America what he’s done for Massachusetts.”

Another hallmark of this era, however, is the candidates’ responses to being attacked. Bush was able to win in 1988 because Dukakis did not respond effectively enough to his attacks. Although Dukakis ran several ads attempting to set the record straight, these ads merely gave more attention to Bush’s attacks and diverted Dukakis’ attention from his own policy. Clinton, who won in 1992, handled Bush’s attacks much more effectively. Unlike Dukakis, Clinton determined his own narrative with a slew of policy ads and a narrative-style biographical ad, “Journey,” in which he frames himself as a small-town, All-American man. His ability to reshape his own narrative allowed Clinton to secure the presidency not only in 1992, but in 1996. In a shift away from the personal attacks of the previous three elections, the 2000 campaign mainly aired policy ads that compared one candidate to another, in hopes of simultaneously encouraging support in one candidate and discouraging support in the other. Although negative campaign ads are certainly not unique to this era, all four of these elections were characterized by an intense negativity and a coarsening of political discourse.

The final era, the Modern Elections, runs from 2004 to 2012. In the same way that television changed the nature of the campaign in 1952, the rise of the internet and the shortening of the news cycle through social media fundamentally redefined the way Americans see presidential elections. Advertisements, including those paid for by PACs, for the first time were aired online—yet again reducing the agency required to become politically aware. Candidates also drastically increased the number of ads they released, with some

candidates airing nearly twenty in one election cycle.

These elections were also impacted by the attacks on September 11th, 2001. After these terrorist attacks, the perception of the president changed to one who must be capable of dealing with such a tragedy. This was amplified by the changing powers of the president after the attacks, as well as the endless war in the Middle East. As a result, many candidates since have portrayed themselves as strong and masculine, often emphasizing their military service (John Kerry in 2004, John McCain in 2008).

Any analysis of this era remains necessarily incomplete, as the era itself does not yet have an end. However, it is safe to say that the advertisements of the Modern Elections are influenced by many significant events and developments from the start of the new millennium, including but not limited to 9/11 and the Great Recession.

There is widespread debate among political scientists about whether or not campaigning actually sways voters. Some argue that it is only important in swing states, that other states are decided by economic conditions or previous voting patterns (McClurg & Holbrook 2008). However, the impact of campaign ads in defining a candidate’s narrative—especially in recent elections—is undeniable. As Mark McKinnon said, “ads are about news coverage these days” (Geer 2012). Advertisements allow the candidates to get more attention and spread their messages to wider audiences. Campaign ads, like media outlets, have the ability to set the public agenda and focus (or, as the case may be, refocus) public attention on issues that benefit them.

Campaign ads have agenda-setting power, so the ad shifts between eras indicate larger trends between elections. In my project I looked at the differences between these campaigns, but there were many similarities across all or most election cycles. Elections are, inherently, an expression of the desire for a better future and a better country. This is consistent across all of the elections I studied, even when expressed in different forms. In studying these campaign ads, we are able to see the hopes and fears of each generation.

The ads from the 2016 Presidential election certainly reflected this, with the divisive nature of the election permeating these messages. There were only four total ads in this election cycle that did not attack the other candidate: three from Trump and one from Clinton. This election was different from those of the Modern Elections in that it was far more negative, even more so than the Negative Elections from 1988-2000. However, it is consistent with the tenets of diversity and a desire for strength which are characteristic of the Modern Elections. As Knuckey wrote, “A critical election does not simply deviate from earlier patterns; it marks the start of a new pattern” (642). Only time will tell whether this election was a continuation of the pattern started by Kerry and Bush or if it began the next era of American presidential elections.

Arkansas 2 [Advertisement]. (1992).

Bio [Advertisement]. (1976).

Confessions of a Republican [Advertisement]. (1964).

Convention [Advertisement]. (1968).

Essence [Advertisement]. (1976).

Geer, J. G. (2012). The News Media and the Rise of Negativity in Presidential Campaigns. PS: Political Science & Politics APSC, 45(3), 422-427.

Harbor [Advertisement]. (1988).

Iyengar, S., Peters, M. D., & Kinder, D. R. (1982). Experimental Demonstrations of the “Not-So-Minimal” Consequences of Television News Programs. The American Political Science Review, 76(4), 848-858.

Journey [Advertisement]. (1992).

Knuckey, J. (1999, Summer). Classification of Presidential Elections: An Update. Polity, 31(4), 639- 653.

Let’s Not Forget the Farmer [Advertisement]. (1952).

Liberty Park/Hope Campaign 80 [Advertisement]. (1980).

McClurg, S. D., & Holbrook, T. M. (2008). Living in a Battleground: Presidential Campaigns and Fundamental Predictors of Vote Choice. Political Research Quarterly, 62(3), 495-506.

Nixon the Man [Advertisement]. (1972).

Passport [Advertisement]. (1972).

Peace [Advertisement]. (1980).

Prouder, Stronger, Better [Advertisement]. (1984).

Safire [Advertisement]. (1980).

South [Advertisement]. (1976).