There is a lot going on here in this week’s “Evaluating the Ads” post. For some perspective on the Congressional race in the 12th District of Illinois between first term Congressman Bill Enyart (D) and Illinois State Representative Mike Bost (R), please watch this video on an outburst Rep. Bost made in 2012 regarding the rules set forth by Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan.
Fast forward to 2014. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is running this ad targeting Bost.
Here is the response by Bost.
Please notice the difference in the two ads. An ad that was paid for by the candidate’s team has to say, “I approve this message.” This was a provision from the Bipartisan Campaign Act (McCain-Feingold) of 2002. Any organization outside of a political campaign must declare that they are not affiliated with a campaign team. Therefore, the ad that was run against Bost was not run by the Enyart campaign. Bost’s ad was paid for by the Bost campaign.
If you were a voter in this race, how would you rate each ad? Do you believe the DCCC’s ad is effective? Do you believe Bost’s response was a strong one?
Politics Matters 
I would give the DCCC’s ad a much stronger rating than Bost’s response ad. With that being said I also believe that the DCC’s ad is effective. Even if Bost has what’s best for the country in mind, that all is thrown out the window as soon as you have an outburst like that in a professional setting. That sort of behavior completely undermines any message behind it.
In his response ad he states that the actions his opponents do anger him; to a degree that’s all fine and good. However, as a grown adult who is running for any office he should be able to keep calm in a situation like that and still get your message across effectively. Resorting to yelling, throwing papers around, and vulgarity just makes you seem like a child that isn’t happy unless he gets his way. No, I don’t believe Bost’s response is strong.
The DCCC’s add was much stronger than the one approved by Bost and it could change the way an uneducated voter thinks about the topic. The unapproved message makes a lot of claims about Bost and his level of professionalism, but the topic to which he was speaking is not made clear. An active voter should research the candidate and not use unsupported ads to back up their decision on how to vote. Bost’s ad is not as strong as the unsupported ad but it has more information that might help a voter make a decision and should be taken more seriously.
This will definitely backfire, as long as the Bost team is ready for it. And there is no way they aren’t. They had to see this coming and have to be ready for it. The reality is that a lot of people are fed up with their government. If the Bost team can put this in context and show that he was just frustrated with being unable to represent his people, they can turn this into a huge positive. The deems have already tried to use this ad twice before and it’s backfired on them. Not sure why they think it will be different this time. I think there is a big difference between being passionate on an issue and just going into an uncontrolled rant. Undecided voters are the weather vane as to the effect of this ad. Voters who see this ad won’t have a positive view of an inarticulate long time legislator who just yells instead of stating what he wants to get done.
Enyarts ad showed Bost “melting down” but it wasn’t a very strong ad. Bost had a very strong response. Bost showed how he was upset with how things are in the government and made the DCCC ad show how upset he is. He showed how passionate he is about Washington and how he wants to change things in congress. The fact that Bost approved his message gives it more strangth then the DCCC’s ad
I feel like the DCCC ad has a bigger effect on me rather than Bost ad because i will remember that ad more than his. He had a strong response but if you the DCCC ad had you wondering what he was so upset about and makes you want to research it. voters have different points of views on rather these ads effect there vote for each candidate.
The DCCC was a strong ad because they showed Bost having an outburst in a professional setting, which is very childish and possibly a anger issue on his hands. I do see in Bost Ad that he is very passionate about his country and he wants a change, he seems like a strong man that would take care of the issues which we have now and wants change. He also seems like a stern man who wont let things get in his way and he will work hard to change what he wants to change.
I feel that the DCCC ad has a bigger effect because is showed Bost going ballistic in a professional setting. It shows that he has a temper and seems completely unprofessional. I did not like Bost’s response. It seemed very insincere, considering how passionate he can get. I think he could’ve explained why he got so mad and told the future voters that he wont stop being passionate about issues he cares about.
I would rate the DCCC’s ad an 8, and i would rate Bost’s ad an . I believe the DCCC’s ad was ver strong. The ad made Bost look weak, and made Bost look like he was crazy. Overall the DCCC’s ad was very affective. Bost response wasn’t good. Bost’s ad was very basic and didn’t really get a good point across.
The DCCC’s anti-Bost ad didn’t feel that effective to me. It just shows that he is passionate about something and out of context, it’s impossible to see what he’s complaining about. I can’t say I blame him for the outbursts, if I had to deal with some of the things that politicians do, I’d probably do the same thing if it helped to get my point across.
The ad for and by Bost seemed like your average political ad, lots of complaining about what everyone else is doing wrong, but offering no insight on what he would do to change if he were elected.
I don’t feel that either of these ads were achieving what they put out to do. They were both ineffective in my opinion.
The DCCC’s campaign ad plays on the emotion of potential voters. Advertising what the DCCC clearly stated as a mental outburst, gives testament that they are questioning his emotional stability rather than question his career history and his present status on issues concerning the race. Therefore the ad was unoriginal and a sad attempt to get voters to think with emotion rather than rationally comparing to the two’s policies. The Bost one was more effective in bringing the subjects of debate aware to the viewer by stating such things as the VA scandal and health care.
The DCCC cut and trimmed the ad to frame Bost as a hothead. “Mike Bost keeps melting down in Springfield.” This infers that Bost has had more than one outburst like the one that went viral two years ago. It’s an obvious attempt to exaggerate.
Bost’s response was effective. By taking the issue head on, he came off as honest and forthcoming.
Nevertheless, Bost did not conduct himself appropriately during the House debate. Throwing papers around a room like child having a temper tantrum does not paint him as a logical person.
I would say the DCCC’s add was aggressive and I would rate it a 9 because it was strong and sent how the message that Bost is going to crack. The video footage is real of Bost and he can’t deny his actions. I think that Bost handled it well in his response video but it doesn’t excuse his behavior and I think once you’re viewed as an angry person that lashes out there’s really no way for that person to guarantee he won’t keep acting that way.
I think the DCCC’s ad of Mike Bost is only effective for voters who do not have much knowledge of the situation. For the voters who know the whole story the ad it isn’t going to make much of an impact. I think the response by Bost is strong because he doesn’t try to hide the video but instead he justifies what he did.
After watching the ads for the congressional race between Mike Bost and Bill Enyart, I believe I can effectively rate each ad. As a voter, I was not impressed with DCCC’s ad. They targeted Bost by showing him getting emotional, as if that were a detrimental trait. At the end of the ad, they highlight the phase “he will make Washington worse”, which is an unsupported allegation made without evidence other than Bost screaming in some clips. Bost’s response seemed genuine and his passion was evident. If I were voting in this election, solely based on these ads, I would got for Mike Bost.
The video of Enyart’s ad really made me feel like Borst was a bad candidate. I personally don’t want to vote for someone who has a short temper. Borst acknowledged Enyart’s ad in his ad, but didn’t redeem himself. He tried to convince us that he is angry about some things, and wants to fix them.He really lost all credibility, in my opinion.
The video of Enyart’s ad really made me feel like Bost was a bad candidate. I personally don’t want to vote for someone who has a short temper. Bost acknowledged Enyart’s ad in his ad, but didn’t redeem himself. He tried to convince us that he is angry about some things, and wants to fix them.He really lost all credibility, in my opinion.
The clip of Enyard’s ad showed the negative of bost. i wouldn’t not rate it high just because it gives you no credibility. is it effective probably for some voters. Bost response was good he said veterans aren’t getting the help they deserved.
The first clip showing Bost have a meltdown is effective obviously for people who are voting against him. It shows him at his weakest points and reminds the opposing voters that he may or may not continue having meltdowns while in congress. I do believe Bosts response is effective because he is calm, cool and collective and just passionate, I guess you can call it, about these certain topics.
I feel like the democratic ad against him was absolutely terrible. It left way too much up to the viewer’s take on the ad. One could think that maybe he was having a meltdown about the temperature of his soup or possibly for the rights of orphans. It was also very stupid of them to leave in the part where Bost was saying, “Let my people go”, because I saw him as Moses from the Bible standing up for his people.
Bost had a very strong, yet easy, rebuttal ad as he basically was just able to use his viral video to say all the things he was fed up with in government. He took a strong stand on all the things he doesn’t like that is happening right now and it is easy to follow.
I believe DCCC’s ad was an affective one. The way Bost made himself look at that congressional meeting was very negative to his image and the DCCC took advantage of that. I also believe Bost made a good ad because he didn’t target back at the people that made that ad against him. It’s almost like he took the high road and got his point across on key issues that he wants to make a difference on
I think the DCC’s campaign was really strong because it showed him how terrible he is acting and I think it shows voters the look of worry of how he is acting. Nobody would want a crazy person running for because he could provide negative things to the country. I really don’t think Bost response was not strong enough. I feel like his ad was’t strong and I think there is no way he can cover his tracks on his tantrum in the first video.
I believe this add was to make him look like he is emotionally unstable to be in congress. I believe there is two sides to every story. I believe this man has or had a good reason (at least in his opinion) to have those “melt-downs”.