In this week’s installment of “Evaluating Campaign Ads”, we travel to North Carolina for a hotly contested United States Senate seat. The incumbent is Democrat Kay Hagan. Her opponent is Republican Thom Tillis. He is North Carolina’s House Speaker.
Senator Hagan’s ad is up first.
Who is this ad aimed at? Does this ad appeal to you?
Here is Speaker Tillis’s ad.
Is this an effective way of utilizing contrasting data in an ad?
For more insight into the race, here is a recent Elon Poll.
Politics Matters 
Kay Hagen’s ad is targeting a couple different demographics. First off It’s also sort of a given that she’s working to get votes from those who consider themselves moderate. To go along with this, the ad can probably manage to tap into some of the votes from independents, as they might be more likely to vote for someone looking out for the best interest of the common man as opposed to their political party.
With all that being said, I suppose the ad appeals to me at some level; provided what is said is true. It’s also sort of refreshing to see a political ad that doesn’t instantly go to mud-slinging as many of the ads we see on television do (there are plenty that don’t as well though). So it at least appeals to me through that.
One thing I can say about Tom Tillis’s ad is that it is memorable for me personally. Starting off with the note about teacher’s seven percent pay raise then going into a basic skit with the blackboard and more “math” by writing the numbers he’s speaking about Kay Hagen’s voting history and the related debt with the same seven amount (only in trillions of dollars as opposed to percent this time around) from Obama’s policies stuck in my brain much better than other negatively based political ads. I would say that it is a fairly effective use of contrasting data.
Hagans ad is more targeted towards the citizens. She says she votes for whatever works and that she listens to both sides. Thoms ad targets hagan,he claims that shes is not in the middle when it comes to her voting on issues. He shows fact that she votes far more democratic. I think Thoms ad was more effective, Hagans ad was just about herself.
Hagans ad shows what she stands for. she wants to do what she thinks is best not just because she is a republican or democrat. she uses her ad to talk about herself rather then talking negative about her opponent. while Tillis uses his ad not to talk about what he is going to do as a senator rather about his opponent but he does mention how he raised pay for teacher. I think Tillis had the more effective ad because he talked about what he has already done for North Carolina where as Hagans talked about what people have said about her and how she is the most moderate politician.
Senator Hagan’s ad is more targeted towards the people, the middle class, the republic and democrat. She is using the ad to get her self out there more than her opponent. Her ad did some what appeal to me because she is trying to better north Carolina and how she is more moderate then left or right.
While Tillis showed what he has achieved in north Carolina and what Hagan has not and how she votes not towards the middle class. He also showed facts how she supports Obama and the 7 trillion dollars of debt. His ad is more affective because he had facts and he shows what he has achieved. It also is a effective way in contrasting the data because you remember the numbers more.
In Hagan’s add she points out that the people shouldn’t have to choose like they do with basketball teams. Her ad is aimed towards everyone, including the middle class and both political parties. This ad appeals to me because she isn’t using negative wording and is pointing out that the vote belongs to the people.
Tillis uses a few pieces of data to get his message across. That message is that his opponent has similar viewpoints as president Obama. So, his ad is targeting people that may not agree with Obama or want something different out of who they’re choosing to vote for. By using specific numbers he is being more effective because they are facts and not made up number.
Kay Hagan’s ad was aimed at middle class citizens. She made me feel like she was open to my thoughts and opinions and she would be on my side. Thom Tillis really just used stats that he didn’t explain. He claimed that Kay voted with Obama 96% of the time. He didn’t mention exactly what Kay voted on.
Senator Hagan’s ad is promoting herself as a moderate. Hagan is not leaning towards any particular party, and puts herself right in the middle of the Republicans and Democrats. It does appeal to me, as she is representing her self as the people’s senator instead of a particular party. This gives me the idea that she is open to tough decisions and wont lean one way based on her party. Speaker Tillis mentions how a 7% increase for teachers was passed, but for all we know is that Senator Hagan supported that as well since he never mentions her side of it. He goes from that to unrelated numbers regarding how much she supports Obama, insinuating that she automatically is a part of the problem of the 7 trillion dollar debt. I think the two are unrelated as there is a lot more to the debt problem then the fact of how much she supports Obama, as we don’t have any details on what she exactly supports him for.
Kay Hagan’s ad was targeted the middle class. Kay Hagan stated in her ad that she was not too left or not too right which meant that she didn’t let political party get involved in her planing. This ad did appeal because Kay Hagan didn’t let her political party get in the way of her plans; if the plan was right then it didn’t matter what party came up with it. Kay Hagan wanted to do what was right for North Carolina.
Thom Tillis ad did not utilize data properly. Tillis only wrote that she was for Obama 96%of the time and she was for America to be in trillions of dollars in debt because she voted for Obama.The way he portrayed his data was very poor. Tillis didn’t give good reasoning for his data. It seemed like Tillis said Kay Hagan voted for Obama which meant that she was a bad candidate.
Kay Hagan’s ad is targeted to middle class, which appealed to me, she has an open mind to all things. She is able to see from the all points of views and all sides before making a decision. She doesn’t allow political views get in her way of planning, The way Thom Tillis was so focused on Kay Hagan’s ad, his ad was just ranting about Kay Hagan. This ad didn’t appealed to me, gave a negative feedback about his personality.
Kay Hagan’s ad appealed to middle class families. She also mentioned how she won an award about being the most moderate senator, “not to far left not to far right”. I liked that Senator Hagan seemed to have an open mind and cares about middle class families.
Thom Tillis’s ad was all about how Senator Hagan is not a good senator and how she doesn’t seem to care about North Carolina like he does. I think its good that he used data but at the same time, he just seemed to give hints that he is better and that he wouldn’t do what she did.
Hagan’s ad is meant to aim at middle class Americans and makes it clear that she is not for one specific party or “side”. It appeals to me because of how open minded she makes herself appear.
Tillis’s ad is basically a complete bust for trying to call out Hagan and at the same time, trying to present stats he thinks are relevant, which they definitely are not. He presents a number for his pay increase for teachers, a number for Ms. Hagan’s “96% votes” for democrats, and the 7 billion dollars debt the country has. He tries to make it look like it Hagan’s fault for the fact that we have 7 billion dollars of debt because of her 96 votes for Obama WHILE trying to compare it to his raise in teacher salary. If he wanted to talk about the those specific stats, he should have made it clear why they are relevant to each other. It doesn’t make any logical relation, therefore, his ad is invalid in my opinion.
Hagan’s ad was aimed to middle class Americans. She helps both sides no matter if democrat or Republican she specified being moderate. On the other side Tilli’s is showing data and i think it is being effective because it shows facts that people can visualize.
Who do you believe?
They can’t both be telling the truth.
And when you explore you only hear what that party is supporting.
All of this mudd slinging is just driving people away from the polls!
I’m not voting because of all this negative comments and I’m sure I’m not alone!
Thanks Hagan and Tillis for showing us the American way!
Jerry Jupina