Around election season, political
ads become a part of American daily life. If you watch TV, these ads become
essentially unavoidable. The purpose of these ads are not only to inform, but
also to elicit an emotional response in the viewer. Viewers may not be
particularly well informed, or they may be otherwise indifferent to politics.
However, these short, often about 30 second snapshots, not only set and
describe the political agenda of the election, but are presented in a way which
provoke an emotive response. It is
important to understand that nothing in these ads are accidental. The makers of
these ads choose their words, images and colors wisely—the idea is to provoke
an immediate emotional response that will influence future voting decisions.
They
may want the viewer to dislike, distrust, or condemn the opponent. Or, they may
be eliciting a positive response—hoping that the viewer will like, trust, and
in the future promote the candidate.
The
operative word in all of this is hope—although the ads may have the intention
of promoting a particular response, ads do not always receive the attention
intended.
So
the question is—what happens when an ad goes wrong?
Democratic
gubernatorial candidate, Wendy Davis, issued an interesting attack ad against
republican opponent, Greg Abbott, in early October.
Davis’s
ad is an impeccable example of an ad that receives an unintended response.
The
ad, which displays only two images (an empty wheelchair at the beginning, and
Abbott’s face at the end) within its 32 second run time, seeks to attack
Abbott’s hypocrisy regarding healthcare and aid to disabled citizens. Abbott, a
paraplegic, is cited as refusing aid to a female amputee victim, ruling against
a rape victim (during his tenure in the Texas supreme court) who sued a
corporation for failing to do a background check on a sexual predator, and
sided with a Hospital which neglected to fire a surgeon who paralyzed patients.
Davis claims that this ad seeks to reveal Abbott’s hypocrisy, as a disabled man
himself.
And
maybe that is true—but I think there is more to this ad than simply an attack
on Abbott’s character.
In
my opinion, through this ad, Davis is trying to mobilize and energize her supporters,
as well as perhaps incite others (particularly the disabled, or those
associated with the disabled) to turn to her side of the campaign.
I
think if you watch this ad closely, this intention becomes pretty clear. She includes
two examples of how Abbott directly neglected to protect the disabled—the
example about the amputee victim and the example regarding the hospital and the
dangerous, unfit surgeon. These examples are intended to energize an electorate
she may not have yet touched. Perhaps, other amputee victims or disabled
peoples will see the ad and feel (if they were previously voting on the side of
Greg Abbott) that they cannot vote for him anymore. Ads like these seek to
reveal a single, intense, aspect of a candidate which will be a game changer.
Something that a viewer can’t un-see.
But,
Davis also includes the example about the rape victim, which really has nothing
to do with Abbott being an amputee. In reality, it’s just showcasing something
about Abbott we all already know—he doesn’t support women’s rights. So, I think
Davis includes something we already know to energize a group that she already
has—women’s rights supporters.
However,
Davis failed to receive neither the claimed (to reveal Abbott’s hypocrisy) nor
the underlying (to mobilize current supporters and energize new ones) response.
Rather, the ad sparked quite a backlash from both republican opponents and
democratic supporters. Republican opponents deem the ad extreme and offensive,
at is it clearly underscoring Abbott’s disability (and it doesn’t help that
Davis’s campaign slogan is “Stand With Wendy”). Democrats agree with Davis’s opponents
regarding the extremity of the ad, and think it was perhaps not the classiest
or most productive choice for an ad topic.
Still,
regardless of the extensive backlash and negative media coverage of the ad,
Davis continues to perilously support her ad. In fact, her support of this ad
has effectively become the centerpiece of her current campaign. Davis takes photos
with disabled supporters and immediately publicizes them. She does talks and speeches
that defend the ad and continue to attack Abbott for his hypocrisy. And, she continues to get the same response.
This
leads me to answer the above question in perhaps an unexpected way—I think an
ad can’t go wrong. Any media attention, even negative media attention, is
attention nonetheless.
I
think Davis may want to reveal Abbott’s hypocrisy. And she may also have
intended to gain a wider voter base. But at its core, I think the ad sought to
ensure that Davis wouldn’t be forgotten. Davis is only trailing Abbott by 10%
(which in a largely republican state, isn’t half bad) but she is by no means
trailing close. Real Clear Politics cites the race as having a 95.3% chance of
victory for Abbott. I think she knows that she is, in all likelihood, going to
lose. But, in knowing that she is going to lose, she also has nothing left to
lose. She continues to support this ad, regardless of the backlash she
receives. She knows she’s got nothing left to lose, so she might as well give
the fight her all. She knows how this race will end up. But I think her refusal
to give up demonstrates that she wants this race to be as close as possible.
She wants to show that a democrat can cut it close and make an impact in Texas.
So any and all attention will ensure that it
won’t be forgotten that a left, left, left, left, candidate received 40% of the
vote in Texas.
Link to ad-- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lush7TZB860
"Election 2014 - Texas Governor - Abbott vs. Davis." RealClearPolitics -. Accessed October 17, 2014.
No comments:
Post a Comment