make WWAY your homepage  Become a fan on facebook  Follow us on twitter  Receive RSS Newsfeeds  MEMBERS: Register | Login

Political ads heat up

READ MORE: Political ads heat up
pol300.jpg

Political ads are seemingly everywhere as candidates try to reach voters. It is a way for them to get their message across completely uninterrupted by any other sources. It's the only type of media that they have control over. Jennifer Brubaker teaches a class on political communications at UNCW. She said candidates will spend some 3 billion dollars on electronic media in this election cycle, even as voters move away from traditional media. That is why more advertising is going online. Especially to capture the short attentions of young voters like her students. But Brubaker said the future is not in text messages and direct e-mail. It is the fact that voters sign up for those media means they "are preaching to the choir." Instead the focus is shifting to sponsored link ads, a cost-effective way to drive voters to candidate and issue websites. Brubaker said "Either Obama can purchase it so that if you're searching for information on McCain, well, here. Maybe I should look and see what Obama has to say as well. Or if you're looking for information on McCain, then maybe you need a little bit of a push." Of course, whether online or on TV, arguably the most effective ads are the negative ones, which Brubaker said are often more issue-oriented. "Even though we don't like them, we tend to learn a lot more. We also tend to remember, just as human nature, we remember negative things." Brubaker said. Like Lyndon Johnson's "daisy girl" ad. It ran only once in 1964, but is given a lot of credit for Johnsons defeat of Barry Goldwater. Brubaker said campaigns go negative because it works and some of the most negative ads today come from independent groups, which can push even harder than the candidates' messages. So hard that candidates like Bev Perdue and Pat McCrory have said publicly they wish groups supporting each of their campaigns for governor would stop attacking their opponent. Independent groups can take a lot more risks when it comes to the ads they run.

Disclaimer: Comments posted on this, or any story are opinions of those people posting them, and not the views or opinions of WWAY NewsChannel 3, its management or employees. You can view our comment policy here.

»

Mud Slinging Demos

The TV political ads are expensive and out of control character assassinations. The NC Senate and Governor race are especially brutal. Kay Hagan started her ads by slinging so much mud at Elizabeth Dole, that Dole had no choice but to change the tone of her ads. Ditto with Bev Perdue. The Democrats are a good study in spending the most dollars on the most slanted negative ads.

Don't decide based on ads

Take the time to review voting records. See firsthand how Obama voted to prosecute law abiding citizens who use a firearm in self defense in their home. (IL State Senate SB 2165, vote 20, 3/25/04) See how he voted to effectively outlaw all hunting but bird hunting, by voting to outlaw the sale of any ammunition that could penetrate a Kevlar vest. That means just about every centerfire rifle round made. (US Senate, S.397, vote 217, 7/29/05) See how he supported a 3% tax increase for anyone making $42k (AGI of $31,850) or more. (Senate CR 70, 3/14/08 Take the time to learn their voting records before you vote for them. You may be truly surprised about left-wing Sicialists masquerading as "middle of the road Mister America."

And Pass Up a Chance...

And pass up a chance to see the rich get soaked? I wouldn't miss it for the world.

$42k is rich???

You poor guy! If you think $42k is rich, you must be...what? A professional burger flipper? Career busboy? Part-time waiter/part-time surfer/part-time UNCW student? From the U.S. Census Bureau: 2007 national median income for a male who works full time - $45,113 2007 median income for a female who works full time - $35,102 Sounds more like $42k is middle class, to me. Now we know what Obama means when he says he wants to "take care of" the middle class....kinda like Luca Brasi "took care of" problems for Don Corleone. When you try to "soak the rich," two things happen: 1. They find some of the innumerable legal loopholes in which to hide income. (I already have mine picked out, in case your Socialist comrade gets elected with a Democratic House and Senate.) 2. They don't have as much discretionary income to invest in the growth of America. Who do you think funds new businesses, business growth, and the resulting increase in jobs? You? (Good trolling - I just couldn't resist an opportunity to get the truth out about this guy.)

He could be a teacher. I'm

He could be a teacher. I'm a teacher with a Masters Degree and I don't make that much.

Well, if you're a history teacher...

...you know how successful "soaking the rich" has been in the past. Every time they try it, the government's revenues drop. Unless Obama plans a massive, across the board tax increase (as Clinton did) that targets more than "the rich" tax revenue will actually decline. Look at the IRS figures for 2006. The rich are paying a higher percentage of taxes than ever before in the history of America. When Bush cut taxes "for all his rich oil buddies," we saw a predictable event unfold. More money to invest resulting in massive increases in capital gains, which, even taxed at the lower rate, brought more money into the treasury. BTW, if you have a master's degree and don't gross $42k, I highly recommend becoming a FORMER teacher and joining the corporate zombies.

Where did all this money

Where did all this money go??? To help other countries when our own is falling apart? In order to make $42K a year you have to make a little under $810 per week. Not to many people that I know make that or even more. Maybe if we could get better paying jobs in this country instead of shipping them over seas we wouldn't really care about who is getting taxed at what rate.

The jobs that moved overseas...

...rarely paid $42k a year. You didn't earn that much money sewing collars on shirts, or tightening screws on a coffee maker. Light manufacturing was never a road to riches. You can rage against the global eceonomy, but it's here to stay. No one is going to pay $9.89 for a pack of three undershirts made by ILGWU mill workers in Gilford County when they can pay $5.99 for three sewn in the Philippines that are just as good. I'm sure the CNH workers in Holland are just as upset that John Deere and Caterpillar outsell their products in Europe, but that's the nature of our world. No one country can stand alone and survive without the rest of the world anymore. Getting back to Obama and his taxes, remember this. When you give the power to punitively tax selected corporations or "the rich" to the government this week, you are giving them a green light to punitively tax YOU next week. Class warfare helps no one.

Sounds like...

Wow, a faithful follower of Bush/Clinton/Bush economics 101. Those practices sure has done America well! Let's kick Americans in the teeth, tell them how worthless they are, take as many jobs from them as possible and open their borders up to allow more cheap labor/tax burdens in. But in the same breath, allow corporate welfare; Tax breaks for off shoring; Handouts for drummed up relocations; Bailouts for corporations who cannot cut the mustard; Foreign sell off of (taxpayer funded) national treasures and monuments and now the $800,000,000,000 give away! Now everyone is so mad, we are going to get a socialist in office! Great job, good going!

Do you have a PhD in rehetoric?

I'll skip over all the unrelated sound bites you've obviously memorized and stick with the basic economic realities of America in 2008. The simple fact that you blame two Republicans and a Democrat proves that it transcends simple politics. You evidently believe that making an accurate assessment of our national capabilities is somehow kicking Americans in the teeth. Actually, it should be awakening you to realize that we are a totally different country than we were fifty years ago. If we pretend we are that same country, we WILL get kicked in the teeth. What you seemingly fail to see is that when you pay four dollars less for those undershirts I mentioned, that gives you four dollars to invest, save, or spend on another product. So ten-thousand undershirt workers may lose their jobs in the Southeast US, but seventy million undershirt purchasers benefit from it. It's interesting to note that disposable/discretionary income rose across ALL income levels until the past year when fuel prices soared and inflation started to climb. That happened consistently during the three administrations you feel have done so much harm. So you're about to get a Socialist in office because the majority of people in this country don't understand that the economy of fifty years ago or even twenty years ago is not the economy of today. You adapt and change or like the Luddites, you get left behind while you rage against the machines instead of learning how to operate them. Times change. Global markets change. I've used this example a dozen times: As long as I can manufacture steel in Pohang and ship it to a jobsite on the East Coast cheaper than I can maufacture it in Pittsburg and get it to that jobsite, you can bet the steel will be made in Korea. No one in their right mind wants to go back to paying three times as much for steel that's no better, simply because it was made in the USA. You will see the American steel industry fully recover when the domestically manufactured steel is cheaper at the final destination....and yes, that means that American steel workers will have to work for a lot less than they made as USW unionized workers in 1979, when the Korean steel became a cheaper alternative. Whether you're talking about undershirts or steel, you can't FORCE a change without destroying the very economy we all seek to preserve.