The Living Room Candidate

Karin Ponce writes "I represent the American Museum of the Moving Image , and I wanted to write to you about the Museum's latest online exhibition, The Living Room Candidate. The exhibition maintains a comprehensive and detailed collection of over 300 commercials from the past fourteen elections (1954-2000). As the presidential race heats up, I think this is a very timely exhibition that will equip your readers with insight on the development of the campaign messages crafted by our presidential candidates over the years and provide historical context for the 2004 campaign as the race unfolds. Its convenience (all commercials are available online in the Living Room Candidate website) make this exhibit a must-see for voters and non-voters."

Comments

More accurately

[XanC]

Candidates with the more supporters are more likely to a) win and b) have more contributors.

no need to see ads

[gollum123]

all the political ads have evolved in the same way as normal ads on telivision. Its just a way to sell dumb candidates to the unsuspecting people by making them look intelligent. How many political ads really give anything objective to think about or anything to think about at all. If people are making their choices based on ads in tv thats just really sad. you can keep bombarding the people with really useless stuff u call issues and completely sideline any real issues that people should be paying attention to which is what is happening in this election.

Re:no need to see ads

[b-baggins]

Translation: The television ads aren't talking about things I think are important, therefore they aren't talking about any issues at all, because the only issues that matter are the issues that are important to me, and anyone who disagrees is an unsuspecting idiot.

Re:What *I* want

[JohnnyGTO]

I agree! If I want political crap and ALL the bizare b.s. some people shovel I'll:

• Read magazines like Popular Science or Discover
• Go to a book store
• Wander the streets of Arcata Ca. (WOW Weird)
• Turn on the TV (there is a reason its called the BOOB TUBE)
• Go to websites for MSNBC CBS or Salon

I'm surprised it's not on there weather channel yet!

Politicians

[gustgr]

I was just discussing policitians with my father a few minutes ago while we were lunching. In two weeks brazilians are going to vote to elect municipal mayors and during all the day there are candidates on the TV saying that he/she will do the best for the city and stuff like that. It is always the same bullshit.

These bla bla bla will never win an election, so in my opinion most of the campaign money is throw away with this kind of trash campaign. I don't know how about US, but here in Brazil the candidates usually spend millions and millions in order to get elected while there are hundreds of thousands starving, in such a poverty situation that most of us would not belive.

Re:Politicians

[transient]

The money spent on political campaigns doesn't simply vanish. It has to be spent on something. Someone gets paid to make those advertisements. The TV stations get paid to air them. Real people who work for a living get paid to do these things. Would you rather the candidates just hoarded all that money?

I know fuck all about Brazil and its economy, so I could be way off here. But it seems to me that it's very hard to make a purely economic argument against well-funded political campaigns.

As for it always being the same bullshit, you're definitely on the mark.

Kerry needs a Willie Horton commercial

[circletimessquare]

For those of you unfamiliar with the Bush version 1.0/ Dukakis matchup in 1988, the Republicans made very good negative attack ad use of the case of Willie Horton, a first degree murderer on a weekend furlough program in Massachusetts endorsed by Dukakis. Horton, surprise and shock and awe, became a recidivist violent criminal on his furlough.

Since he's trailing Bush version 2.0 right now, what Kerry needs is a good Willie Horton type attack ad.

Bin Laden anyone?

The Democrats need the balls to launch a full force negative press assault on Bush. The popularity of Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 prove that the public is receptive to serious Bush-bashing. Not wishy washy peripheral attacks and sniffing around the perimeter that Kerry seems married to right now, but a dead on hurricane force teeth gnashing polemic. Especially dismaying in Moore's movie is the revelation that Bush let the Bin Laden family fly out of the country in the days after 9/11/2001, when noone else was allowed to fly anywhere. Clearly a case of allegiance to big oil being more important than allegiance to the American public if there ever was one.

This revelation played well in theatres in Middle America, even in communities near military bases. Hello Kerry campaign: anyone listening? The Democrats need to grow a backbone and start pounding away at Bush where he is weakest.

So let us hope the Democrats find the cojones to attack Bush full force and head on in an attack ad blitz in October, Willie Horton style, or unfortunately for Americans (and the rest of the world for that matter), it's four more years of the drunken frat boy in big oil's pocket in the White House for us all. ;-(

Re:Kerry needs a Willie Horton commercial

[Anonymous Coward]

The Democrats need the balls to launch a full force negative press assault on Bush. The popularity of Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 prove that the public is receptive to serious Bush-bashing.

The exit survey's that were done on people who went to see moore's film showed that it did not change their ideology, or their vote. Most of the Bush haters believed anything, and most of the non-Bush haters thought it was BS.

Not wishy washy peripheral attacks and sniffing around the perimeter that Kerry seems married to right now, but a dead on hurricane force teeth gnashing polemic. Especially dismaying in Moore's movie is the revelation that Bush let the Bin Laden family fly out of the country in the days after 9/11/2001,

And what was he to do? Let them stay so they could be found and lynched? In case you missed it, Putin did the same thing for the families of the Chechynens that held up the school two weeks ago. The Bin Laden family disowned Osama long ago, and the Saudi's exiled him.

when noone else was allowed to fly anywhere. Clearly a case of allegiance to big oil being more important than allegiance to the American public if there ever was one.

No, it was a case of not throwing innocent people to the wolves.

This revelation played well in theatres in Middle America, even in communities near military bases. Hello Kerry campaign: anyone listening? The Democrats need to grow a backbone and start pounding away at Bush where he is weakest.

Which isn't the war on terror. If Kerry were smart, he would attack Bush where he is the weakest, which is on the economy and Jobs. Kerry should come out strongly against unfair trade agreements, especially with countries that have poor human rights records (ie China). He needs to make outsourcing a larger issue. He needs to make a point of repeating that he will only raise taxes on the wealthy, those who make over $200,000. On top of that, he should say that he will help Social Security by making people pay social security tax on incomes over $90,000 and provide means-testing for social security (Not give social security payments to people who have over 1 million in the bank).

Kerry should flank Bush from the right on illegal immigration. He should push for more illegal immigration but for better border patrol and a crackdown on illegals. He should point out that even though we are conducting a "war on terror" and screening people that get on airplanes, no one is paying attention to the mexican border. This is a hot issue in the Republican party and with indpendants.

Kerry should point out that the US gives out an Insane amout of foreign aid, the US gives out 11 billon dollars a year. Why are we helping foreign countries when there is so much to do here at home? Most US citizens (75%) think the US spends to much money to aid other countries. Also most citizens believe that aid goes to starving children in other countries, etc when in fact the country that gets the most aid is Isreal...a whopping 2.1 billion per year in military aid alone, then another 600 million in economic support. The US has ramped up foreign aid to middle east countries that are terrorist havens in the hope that more money will make the problem go away...but we could just be arming the next generation of terrorists... Kerry could appeal to many citizens by bringing up the fact that their tax dollars are going twards Isreali rockets and countries that harbor terrorists.

Overall, Kerry does need to attack Bush, but he needs to do it on the economy where Bush is truely weak. If it gets into a pissing contest over the Iraq war/Terrorism Kerry is a goner.

it's four more years of the drunken frat boy in big oil's pocket in the White House for us all. ;-(

Mindless namecalling doesn't further your cause.

Re:Kerry needs a Willie Horton commercial

[jafac]

The exit survey's that were done on people who went to see moore's film showed that it did not change their ideology, or their vote. Most of the Bush haters believed anything, and most of the non-Bush haters thought it was BS.

I don't think that the exit surveys done immediately after the film are going to be all that relevant. Those who were non-Bush haters, had their minds made up, to be sure. But if evidence comes to light for these people - an Iraqi civil war, a conviction in one of the many cases involving Bush appointees mishandling classified information, etc. - more evidence of Saudi coopration or compliance or support for terrorism, some of these people may change their minds.

And what was he to do? Let them stay so they could be found and lynched?

Don't be silly. Put them in protective custody. Question them. Subpoena their financial records for connections to terrorist funding. That sort of thing.
If your answer to that is: "oh but that would piss off the Saudis, and they'd cut off our oil, and that would destroy the US Economy" - then guess what? Maybe that underscores how WEAK AND INSECURE America has been made by it's dependence on foreign oil. Maybe doing something to eliminate that weakness or at least mitigate it would be a GOOD thing. Any other response is simply oil for blood. The blood of the 3,000 people who died on 9/11/01, and the 1,000 US Troops who've died in Iraq so Saudi Arabia can be "free", and the 30,000+ civillian deaths in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan.

No, it was a case of not throwing innocent people to the wolves.

Nobody proposed that. In America, we're innocent until proven guilty. Nobody said to send the bin Ladens and Sauds to Guantanamo. (however, that raises a different, interesting point re: USA PATRIOT Act). All we're saying is that the Bush Administration went on TV and told the nation that it was going to put Security above Politics. At the same time, it was playing political footsie with influential Saudis, which potentially compromised our Security further. We're saying that they should have been, AT THE VERY LEAST, detained, put into protective custody, and questioned. If found to genuinely not have any ties to terrorism, then released.

The FAA is a PUBLIC agency, which regulates a PUBLIC resource - our nation's Airspace. NOBODY - especially foreign nationals with potential ties to terrorists, should have the privilege of using our PUBLIC RESOURCES when everyone else is being denied access for security reasons.

If Kerry were smart, he would attack Bush where he is the weakest, which is on the economy and Jobs.

While I agree with this personally - UNFORTUNATELY polling data reflects that Iraq/Terror are more important to the overwhelming majority of voters, (with the economy a close second).

Kerry should come out strongly against unfair trade agreements

Agreed

He needs to make outsourcing a larger issue

DEFINATELY (he needs to get past the "protectionist" label that's been slapped on the issue - because it's not at all about protectionism when the current tax code SUBSIDISES outsourcing).

He needs to make a point of repeating that he will only raise taxes on the wealthy, those who make over $200,000.

I think he's made that abundantly clear. Only the hard core wingnuts believe Kerry's going to raise their taxes. More to the point - Kerry needs to prove that Bush is lying about lowering taxes.

On top of that, he should say that he will help Social Security by making people pay social security tax on incomes over $90,000 and provide means-testing for social security (Not give social security payments to people who have over 1 million in the bank).

Agreed - but in all likelyhood, this will never fly in the legislature - until, to take a page from former Gov. Ventura; representatives get rid of their own special retirement pension plan, and cover themselves under

Re:Here's an idea

[Wyatt Earp]

Because people who post to Wikipedia are totally without any political opinion. Some supernatural Neutral peoples. Maybe from the Futurama world of the Neutrals. "Tell my wife...eh."

The George Bush page is locked against editiing because well, perhaps there's been some tainted data. Or something.

Can anyone pinpoint

[stratjakt]

When political ads stopped being about the candidate, and his/her views and platforms, and when they started just being about bashing the other guy?

America has been successfully brainwashed into believing there are, and will only ever by, two choices. This makes politics simple, you only have to smear one guy, and it's just a contest to see who can smear the other guy better. Bushs platform is "Kerry sucks", Kerry's platform is "Bush sucks".

The last Bush commercial I saw said "John Kerry even voted against the Laci Perterson bill which would make it illegal to assault pregnant women." Well, it's obvious, of course, that Kerry is for assaults against pregnant women! What a bastard.

McCain was the rep. frontrunner, until a whisper campaign about his "mentally disabled black daughter" killed his hopes. The whispers of course didn't mention that she was adopted from Somalia or some country, the implied message was McCain knocked boots with a crack whore.

I haven't heard one real issue discussed during the entire pre-election smear fest. It's all about what Bush did or didn't do in the National Guard, and what Kerry did or didn't do in Vietnam. I haven't heard what either man plans to do or not do in Iraq, Syria or North Korea.

The ads are so shallow and transparent it amazes me. There's no subtlety or tact. I guess if Bush's commercials make him look like a petty asshole, it's irrelevant, as long as he's less petty and less of an asshole than Kerry.

The two party system we've imposed on ourselves have turned elections from "who will do the most good for our country?" into "who will do the least evil to our country?"

American politics are fucking sad. Two parties is not democracy, and not representative of the people. How could it be, when there are 50 states + D.C? How could the ideologies of 300 million people fit into either slot A or slot B?

Vote your conscience. Don't be satisfied with the lesser of two evils. Vote for someone you believe in. Whether or not they win, your vote sends a clear message.

I'd love to see the republicrats win, but with 50% or more of the votes going independant. That would send a real message, loud and clear, that people are sick of the way both parties have mangled the country.

Yes, Please Do!

[WombatControl]

Yes, the American people really haven't gotten enough Bush bashing. I mean, c'mon, we haven't even seen Al Franken's Bush Is The Love Child Of Hitler and Tokyo Rose or Jim Hightower's Bush Kidnapped The Linbergh Baby or MoveOn.org's Bush Enjoys Raping Kittens, Small Children ad yet.

Here's what's interesting - note how the successful political campaigns usually say something about their candidate rather than just smear the other guy. Like what has John Kerry been doing for the last 20 years. Where are his major legislative accomplishments. He's had two decades in the Senate, let's see what he's done? As long as we're on it, let's see what his position is on Iraq. What would he do now to end the violence there? How would he fight terrorism? What would he do in Darfur? How will he stop the Iranians from developing nuclear weapons? How will he contain North Korea?

Hell, the Democrats should be doing that sort of thing regardless. I know it's a shock to some, but not everyone in America hates Bush. Some of us (gasp!) actually think he's done rather well given the situation he's had to work with. And some of us do so because we've actually taken the time to do our homework.

Nope, instead just bash Bush. There's a real winning strategy.

Hint, when the server recovers from being Slashdotted, take a look at McGovern's "Morning in America" ads and compare them to the ads Kerry is running. Note McGovern's electoral successes. Look at Mondale's ads against Reagan. Note how well he did.

Then note why campaigns that are just referendums against a relatively popular incumbant but offer no information on the challenger end up failing miserably.

Re:Here's an idea

[nanter]

The Swift Boat allegations ARE mostly untrue. And even that may be generous. They have been thoroughly debunked and the partisan ties and dubious credibility of the members of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (oh, the irony) have been exposed.

So why pay it any more attention than it deserves?

Re:Here's an idea

[Anonymous Coward]

The George Bush page is locked against editiing because well, perhaps there's been some tainted data. Or something.

Wikipedia is horribly biased. Look at their entry on Pat Buchanan if you don't believe it. Wikipedia is great for scientific facts that can't be disputed, but when it comes to politics or anything where opinion comes into play it totally sucks.

Re:Coincidence?

[CreatureComfort]

Except that you get into the problem that we have now, with the Swift Boat Vets, and MoveOn.org. Campaign donation limits were instituted, so now "non-affiliated" groups collect donations and buy advertising that is no longer allowed to the "official" campaign.

If you try to institute a spending limit, first you would have to place a time limit for the spending... say maximum of $50 million in the 90 or 180 days prior to the election. Then the first elegible day, you would see Strongbad and Cartman screaming the name of the candidate over-and-over in a commercial until $50 million in advertising dollars was used up, paid for by the opposition. Then for the remaining time until the election that candidate couldn't spend any more money on "advertising" because it was already done for him.

Re:Coincidence?

[JonKatzIsAnIdiot]

Sounds like as good a reason as any to limit the amount people can spend on a Presidential campaign.

That's a simplistic solution to a complex problem. It does nothing to curtail the ultra-rich and the mega-influential. A corporation could start inserting subtle political messages into its ad campaigns. Or a person could conceivably make a movie with a political message, call it a 'documentary' and have the DVD released just before an important election. Options like these are only available to a select few, but it's these select few that need the restrictions.

Re:Coincidence?

[Com2Kid]

• A corporation could start inserting subtle political messages into its ad campaigns.

Or its news channels. . . .

Re:"... and non-voters."

[Darmox]

I mentioned this in another thread, as well, and the more I read up on it, the more I feel that voting is just giving sanction to a corrupt system.

This is a nice archive of articles on non-voting, and I'd say this one is a good place to start.

Granted, I'll still probably go fill in the blank, knowing that it won't matter, and my vote won't make either party change it's plans -- they'll still go just a socialist no matter who I vote for, but hey, it's nice to read some opposing viewpoints.

(-1, OffTopic)

listen to me very carefully

[circletimessquare]

the family of the man who made the bloodiest attack on us soil ever needed to be detained, not coddled

period

end of story

fanciful orwell embellishments need not apply

simple point

simple concept

stop grasping at imaginative literary straws

Learning the Truth at FactCheck.org

[Izaak]

In every presidential election covered by television, the candidate with the most campaign money has become President.

Yes, and it is unfortante because 30 second commercial spots are absolutely the worst way to inform yourself about the issues. The best resource I have found so far is FactCheck.org, a non-partison voter advocacy site affiliated with the University of Pennsylvania. They examine the various ads and claims made by candidates and do an excellent job separating fact from fiction. They debunk the Republican's swift boat ads. They also deconstruct the Democrat's spin on the economic numbers. All in all, a vary balanced and well researched web site.