This week’s installment of Evaluating the Ads takes us to Alaska, where the polls close at a given time, but the results may take days before anyone knows of a winner. Desolate and out of the way places can get in the way of a timely outcome.
United States Senator Mark Begich (D) is looking for a second term in Washington. His opponent, former state Attorney General Dan Sullivan (R) has a waged spirited campaign against him.
Here are two ads that were run at the end of each campaign.
The first is from Senator Begich.
This ad is from Attorney General Sullivan.
For this week’s question, I want you to think of how negative campaigns can be. Mudslinging is a term that we like to use in political circles. To dirty up an opponent is almost a necessity in a campaign. However, here are two ads that are positive and are being run at the end or near the end of each candidate’s bid for the Senate. Do you think that it is a good strategy to end a campaign on a positive note? Would you rather see the candidates finish on a contrast/negative ad?
We are in the last few hours of campaigning time for candidates before the midterm election takes place. In Illinois, most of the ads that are running are candidates attempting to make their opponent look bad. It was refreshing to watch the Alaska ad to see something positive. I believe the positive ads are more effective and more professional than simply attempting to take down an opponent.
I think it is a good way to end it. I hate when they throw people under the bus. At least with both these ads they talk about loyalty, honesty, and hardwork. I hate when they talk about that stuff and then back stab people.
I believe that is good thing to end a campaign on a good note and not give a negative output on others, I enjoy watching ad’s that are positive, its more professional. I believe it is immature to talk negative about others, if you believe this person is not good for the seat, then make yourself shine and show others how you can make our state a better place to live in as a community.
Personally I would rather see a positive ad over a negative one any day. Giving the voters an idea of what you will actually do in office over digging up dirt on the other guy seems more practical and generates more respect and interest in a candidate. While many believe it is necessary to get your hands dirty in a political race, I’d rather see candidates wash their hands of it altogether, unless they have solid, factual, important information to relay about an opponent.
While I would agree that it’s almost a necessity to go negative today in politics, it’s always nice to see candidates take a positive message to the campaign. I feel that it is a good strategy to run positive ads at the end of a campaign to have the last thing the voter sees before voting to be a positive message from the candidate. I feel that the ad run by Senator Begich was a better message because it showed the voters what he has accomplished in his time as a public servant. I don’t think that Attorney General Sullivan’s commercial really does much other than show his character, which isn’t really a bad thing, but I don’t feel that it really adds much.
I believe that you have to end the election on a positive note because that’s when the majority of the people will be watching a good candidate and they can’t see that if the candidate is only running negative ads about their opponent. Both these ads are positive which will give the voters what they want to see, a god man running in their favor. Negative ads are extremely important even if some people don’t agree with them but you can’t run a campaign relying on those ads.
Begich uses actual facts and statistics in his ad. Sullivan’s ad uses no actual facts and is basically just people vouching for him. Both ads are positive but you don’t know where they stand just from watching these ads.