The New Exchange

You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?



3/12/2017 3:45 pm  #1


Study: Hillary’s Advertising Spending Couldn’t Offset

Study: Hillary’s Advertising Spending Couldn’t Offset Lack of Resonating Message

“Baskets full of deplorables” unmoved by massive advertising expenditures
http://legalinsurrection.com/


The 2016 presidential election was, by almost any measure, unconventional and unique.  The Democrats’ unfathomable decision to run Hillary Clinton, a woman whose deep and abiding unpopularity among many Americans goes back to the 1990’s and HillaryCare—an antipathy that resurfaced when ObamaCare became the focus of the Obama administration, will go down in history as a world-class blunder.A new study of the usefulness and effectiveness of advertising in presidential campaigns addresses the unique nature of the 2016 presidential election and offers insight into the catastrophic failure of the Democrats generally and of Hillary in particular.

The Wesleyan Media Project reports:
The 2016 presidential campaign broke the mold when it comes to patterns of political advertising.. . . . The article published in The Forum: A Journal of Applied Research in Contemporary Politics (open access through mid-April 2017) shows that the presidential race featured far less advertising than the previous cycle, a huge imbalance in the number of ads across candidates, and one candidate who almost ignored discussions of policy. . . . The authors share lessons about advertising in the 2016 campaign, and argue that its seeming lack of effectiveness may owe to the unusual nature of the presidential campaign with one nonconventional candidate and the other using an unconventional message strategy.Furthermore, the authors demonstrate that:

1) Clinton’s unexpected losses came in states in which she failed to air ads until the last week.

2) Clinton’s message was devoid of policy discussions in a way not seen in the previous four presidential contests.

Other big lessons drawn in the paper include:


  • The impact of advertising may depend on the larger media environment and knowledge of the candidates. Ie. It’s much more difficult for advertising to have an impact in a media environment that is saturated with sensational media coverage of the campaign—and of two already well-known candidates—but that does not mean that all advertising fails to work
  • Message matters, and a message repeated endlessly does no good unless it resonates with a sufficient number of the right voters. Team Clinton’s message that Trump was unfit for the presidency may not have been enough
  • What happens at the presidential level does not always follow down ballot.






 


 “We hold these truths to be self-evident,”  former vice president Biden said during a campaign event in Texas on Monday. "All men and women created by — you know, you know, the thing.”

 
 

3/12/2017 3:52 pm  #2


Re: Study: Hillary’s Advertising Spending Couldn’t Offset

Still reliving the last election?
What relevance does this have to our lives?
Maybe you should post this in the American History section?

Unless you look at politics like a soccer match.
I guess it's more fun that watching Trump twist in the wind after his unsubstantiated claim of wiretapping,,,
More fun than the Trumpers who will lose out in the new healthcare bill.
More fun than thinking about Michael Flynn,,,,,
Certainly more fun than worrying about what that racist lunatic Steve Bannon might do.
More fun than dealing with the problem of North Korea.


You just keep looking back.

Last edited by Goose (3/12/2017 3:54 pm)


We live in a time in which decent and otherwise sensible people are surrendering too easily to the hectoring of morons or extremists. 
 

3/12/2017 4:39 pm  #3


Re: Study: Hillary’s Advertising Spending Couldn’t Offset

Goose has a point, Common. Time to move on.  Trump is president.  He won the election.  I hope you aren't one of those people who sit back in the glory of your team winning the game and ignore the future of your team.

Reminds me of a joke I heard a few years ago:

Question - How many Alabama fans does it take to screw in a light bulb?

Answer - Three.  One to screw the new bulb in and two to talk about how great the old one was.

Let's look ahead now.  It's time.  You gotta jettison legalinsurrection.com.  That thing lives in the past.

 

3/12/2017 10:51 pm  #4


Re: Study: Hillary’s Advertising Spending Couldn’t Offset

It was not like EITHER was hugely popular. 

Many voted AGAINST the other. 

The looser even got millions more votes than the winner. 

Those that think Trump did something amazing are fooling themselves. 


"Do not confuse motion and progress, A rocking horse keeps moving but does not make any progress"
 
 

Board footera

 

Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum