Hey, I'm Zach and I'm on the attack. I think I've done that one recently, but it just fits this one a lot better. Like we're talking about attack ads and I'm Zach attack. That was like the nickname people gave me all the time and I hated it. I was like, what a like, I'm not a very attacky person, but they were just just cause it rhymed, you know? I gotta bring it back. Did you know that any joke you have to explain is not a joke worth telling?
I didn't think it was the joke was hilarious in the first place, but it's Friday evening my time. So I'm out of steam and I'm just coming at it, you know? Instead of my usual coffee, I got my gin and lemonade right next to me. So I may not be sharp, but we're gonna be okay. We're gonna get through it. My name's Caitlin and I can think of a few people that I would post an attack ad about. Okay, two follow-ups. Are you able to, are these public figures that you would post attack ads about?
Or are they like personal vendettas? Personal vendettas, of course. Okay, good. My follow-up is irrelevant. So yeah, I would do the same thing. I would definitely, and I'm not above it. I have some ideas in the works and some people that I think we could use our marketing skills for. So watch out. That is a real thing. Yep, that's based on a true story. He actually does have things in the works. He pitches us once a quarter, hey, can we do this yet? Can we do this yet? Can we do this yet?
No, we can spend our money on different things. Well, hey, well, I think we can readdress it after this because our conversation today is attack ads by politicians. And if they work, we're gonna see if attack ads really work. So with that, welcome to Manipulating the Masses. All right. So as I said in the intro, attack ads today. I mean, let's just kick it off, Caitlin. We're in marketing. We're diving into politics this season. So simple question. Do you think they work?
Do you think attack ads sway voters? Oh, that's a great question. People that may have been voting for someone and swayed to the other side based on an attack ad. I don't think it would sway voters. I think it would put question in voters minds. And just that's from personal experience. So if I see an attack, well, actually, you know what? Hold up. If I see an attack ad, I'm fucking annoyed.
Like the attack ad is so vindictive and outlandish and they're making these outrageous claims that I immediately am like, hold up. All of this shit is false. I know it's basically like or twisted. And I think we're in that era now. It's 2023. We're used to seeing these ads. And I think the average television consumer can spot a false narrative when they see it. I could be giving the public too much credit though. Am I? I think you are. I think you are.
I would say but my caveat to say where you're right is, in my opinion, is you're right. TV when we see like typical commercial attack ads, we're like, all right, bro, like, OK, cool. You just took some facts and you're just making me hate the other person rather than saying what you stand for. Right? You're taking this television spot where I would counter you and say that it's still swayable is online. And the attack ads have shifted to the digital space. I think they're a lot more subtle.
I think they're a lot more thought out and they're expanded by media outlets to which we have discussed. You read certain media outlets based on your political preference. Your overall opinion TV ads don't work. How what's your opinion on like the digital space? Do you think because attack ads may be more short form video graphics, do you think those work on people?
It's hard to determine in the digital space who is putting out those quote unquote attack ads because we're so inundated with misinformation that it could it might not even be from your political opponent. So I don't know that I've seen an attack ad from an opponent that I can remember. Does that make sense? Yeah, and I think it speaks to our point where they're becoming a lot more subtle, right? They're subtle. The yes and then I'll learn some way. Is it a Russian bar? Is it? Is it?
Or is it a mysterious super PAC or is it? Yeah, who cares, you know? So with that, we'll get into that. I think we both have our theories. But we're going to start off as we typically do with the original the OG probably one of the most famous attack ads in the political sphere. So this attack ad was launched in 1964 by Lyndon B Johnson who had just taken over the presidency from JFK. So he was an elected president. JFK was assassinated. He was president at the time.
He's seeking reelection for an office that he wasn't originally elected to and my man originated the attack ad. And the ad is pretty famous. It's called Daisy Girl. And here I'm going to chat it to you. So you can pull it up on your end. I will share my screen so the viewers on our YouTube channel can see and watch the video. And then for those of you listening at home, we will play the audio. One, two, three, four, five, seven, six, six, eight, nine, nine.
Seven, eight, seven, six, five, four, three, two, one. Zero. These are the stakes to make a world in which all of God's children can live or to go into the dark. We must either love each other or we must die. Vote for President Johnson on November 3rd. The stakes are too high for you to stay home. Bombastic. Literally. I don't know. In terms of attack ads, I feel like that one was really tame. I think they progressed, yes, to a lot more harsh.
But saying that it's either vote for Lynda Meade Johnson or suffer nuclear annihilation fits the time that was going on. But also very different than the typical presidential ads that came out beforehand. This one just kind of changed the game, right? Nuclear annihilation is not what I got from that. I thought a spaceship was blowing up. Oh, yeah. I mean, the graphics aren't great, but it is meant to be a nuclear bomb. How was I supposed to know that?
You know, I think it was the zeitgeist of the time. Like nuclear, Russia, Cold War was going on, right? Like that was top of people's minds. So that's what I think people would associate it with. You know? But that's, it was protect our children, love each other, or suffer a nuclear annihilation.
And typically I went on a very deep dive into presidential ads and typically I watched a bunch of old ones and typically like the original TV ads were like the president sitting at a table being like, I stand for this. I believe in this. I believe in this. We should do this. And this was the first one to be like, yo, that guy sucks. You're going to, we're going to blow up if you vote for that guy. Right? Do you have any thoughts on that?
I don't feel like that messaging was maybe I just wasn't the target audience and maybe it was a result of me not living in the times. But also when it started off with a girl picking a daisy and her just fucking up the count, I was like, oh, this is a girl who can't count correctly. I thought it was going to be like about. I thought it was going to be about Linda B Johnson not knowing how to count. Oh, no, this was from Linda. Yeah. Oh, I'm sorry.
Goldwater versus Goldwater Goldwater can't count. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. I thought I was about to be like Goldwater is illiterate and now the spaceship is I don't know. It did not hit the way it thought it. Okay. Yeah. It did not stand the test of time, but we'll get into the impact of this ad because it did hit its audience at the time. They resonated with people at the time. So moving on, let's flip to the other side. Right. As a comparison, right?
Goldwater instead of directly attacking LBJ, he went with that classic approach. Goldwater ran an attack at on the Democrats as a whole. So I think the different tactic was like they both started attacking each other. This is the first presidential campaign where they're running TV spots to like attack each other. LBJ was like Goldwater is going to blow us up.
Goldwater takes a different approach and see if you can pick up any Republican points during this that have stood the test of time on their platform. So I chatted you the link. You let me know when you're ready. I'll share my screen for the viewers at home. Hand over your heart. Ready? Begin. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. We will stand for which it stands, one nation under God. In the name of the Fatherland.
We will stand for which it stands, one nation under God. In the name of the Fatherland. We will stand for which it stands, one nation under God. In the name of the Fatherland. I want American kids to grow up as Americans, and they will. If we have the guts to make our intentions clear. So clear they don't need translation or interpretation. Just respect for a country prepared as no country in all history ever was. In your heart, you know he's right. Vote for Barry Goldwater.
I'm just laughing at these marketing slogans are so basic. Like in your heart, you know he's right. Come on, we can have thought of something better. Um, classic, pledge allegiance. I'm just going to make it American straight again. Pledge of allegiance mirrored with Russian Gorbachev, who was the premier of Russia at the time, like them just cutting back and forth. It's like the basics of subliminal messaging being like you hear America, see Russia, hear America, see Russia, you know.
Okay, that's what I didn't understand. Can you explain that to me because it was cutting back and forth to a communist, right? And, and meanwhile the children are pledging allegiance to the United States of America flag. And so my subliminal messaging flag red flag was if you pledge allegiance to the flag, then you are a communist. Oh, you're reading these. You would never make it in the 60s, Caitlin. You would, you would be the anomaly.
You know, it was meant to say like, oh, America, Russia and like the kids like the Russians want our kids to be speaking Russians. They want us to take us over. Barry Goldwater is right that he's you don't need translations as a kid. Like they want to be American. We're American true blue. Like we're all American. Screw the Russians. Screw the idea of communism. America. I totally got the America thing.
And I think I was just maybe Zach, it's just because I am not a history buff and I have no fucking idea what's happening in the 60s beyond the fact that Twiggy was on every Vogue magazine. That's a deep cut. That's good though. That's a deep cut. Well, a lot of things were going on in the 60s. Let's just a high recap civil rights. You know, assassination of JFK Vietnam Cold War, nuclear arsenal, all of those things very traumatic time hippies, burning bras, Woodstock.
It's an it's an impactful period. But you can see what was on the lexicon of these two politicals like they're both saying vote for the other one or our country is going to cease to be what we know. Yeah, one person is saying, if you don't vote for me, we're going into nuclear war. And the other person is saying, if you don't vote for me, we're all going to become communists. Correct. Okay. Correct. So those acts did not serve the way they thought they served.
But I would argue that one of them did. So, you know, you're not a history buff, but you know, so let's not cheat here if you genuinely who won the election. Johnson Johnson. Okay. Okay, I'm just checking. I'm just checking. Johnson not only one, he won in a landslide, like one of the biggest victories in presidential history. Right. Like he had 486 electoral votes compared to Goldwater 52.
Goldwater only one Arizona, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina, he won like this, a few South states, and that's it. And a lot of them credit it to this that Daisy girl ad where it's like they people were afraid of nuclear annihilation. They were running drills in schools for kids to hide under their desk in case of a bomb drop Cuba had nuclear on nuclear they had the whole Bay of Pigs situation. They were worried that Goldwater couldn't count correctly.
Exactly. They were like, we need a president who can do math. Count to 10. Okay. So this is one example that they credit that victory in part to this attack ad, the Daisy girl ad. Right. Let's keep going. So let's jump ahead to maybe more, more your speed. Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. 1980 Ronald Reagan to be exact. This was a new fold of attack ads. Ronald Reagan was the first president to have like a full media team behind him with such.
This is a central podcast. So we're going to say with such impactful people as Carl Rove, who is credited to be the architect of the current Republican parties. He's, you know, messaging. He's like the messaging guru of the Republican Party Carl Rove. Roger Ailes was on this ad to who was the CEO of Fox News kind of founded the entire Fox News company.
And so this was this Ronald Reagan. This is the first time there was a media team. Right. So you could like, I think to your point of like the 1964 ads didn't hit the mark was because they just had people like putting out ads. This was the first time there was like media people on a campaign. I think wasn't Reagan in the media before he even became a politician too. Like wasn't he. Yeah, he was, he was an actor. Correct.
So he understood. He was like, all right, like he got the power TV is a big deal. Right. TV is a big deal. All right, so let's let's pop over to this one. I'll share my screen again. 1980 Ronald Reagan. Let's see if we can pick up on any tone changes in those 14 years.
In a copyrighted story in the New York Times on October 27th, William Sapphire wrote, the smoothest of Iran's diplomatic criminals was shown on American television this weekend, warning American voters that they had better not elect Ronald Reagan. Ayatollah Khomeini and his men prefer a weak and manageable U.S. president and have decided to do everything in their power to determine our election result. A reminder from Democrats for Reagan. Wait, that's really funny. Isn't Reagan a Republican?
He is. He is. So this was your point of, you know, you never really know who the ads are going for. So Democrats for Reagan is actually founded by Republicans. They just named it Democrats for Reagan. Sure, sure. You don't see that ever though. Like you would never say Democrats for Trump. No, no. And we didn't even have Republicans for Biden, right? Or Republicans for Hillary. No, no, no, that's not a thing. That's very thick now.
So with that ad, you can kind of see, and this is what these ads do originally, they kind of capture what the big talking point of the time is, right? So obviously the other one was nuclear war. This one's Iran. The Iran hostages are going on. Do you have any thoughts on that before we jump to the other side, the Democratic Jimmy Carter? No, I laughed really hard. I thought it was really funny. It's something that I feel like we would have put out.
It's like, it's so childish. It's like, if you don't like a stupid president, vote for Reagan. Reagan is smart. They want a weak president. The bad guys would prefer we have a weak president. It's so childish and it's so wonderful all at the same time. I agree. So I think the thing is, the ones that are, we see this common thread coming to light where it's like, they're not really these attack ads at least originally weren't really going after the person.
It was basically saying a vote for this person is a vote for the enemy, right? Whether that be Iran, whether that be Russia, whether that be nuclear war, like the bad thing that's going on in your head, like the bad situations, if you vote for them, it's going to happen, you know? So that's the kind of thread we see coming out. So I just chatted you, let's take a look at Carter on the other side.
I think you're going to like this one. I think you're going to like this one based on the feedback that you had. Ready? Oh, let me show my screen. So the viewers at home can see it. I just can't imagine him being president. It's too complex a job. I'd hate to see him involved in a Near East Peace Discussion or Solve Free Agreement and come up with one of these ill-informed shoot from the hip types of comments.
When I go into the polling booth on November 4th, I'm not just going to think of the politics. I've got to think of my family. Two men are the real contenders for the presidency today. The people of California remember one of them quite well. Ronald Reagan is not a man that I would want meeting our country for any period of time. Ronald Reagan is not a leader. I think he would have gotten us into a war right by this time. Carter certainly hasn't.
It wasn't until President Carter came that we really had for the first time peace between Egypt and Israel. I think it's a big rest to have Reagan as president. Reagan scares me. He really scares me. I think I've got to go for President Carter. On November 4th, re-elect President Carter. Thoughts. Thoughts on that. So it takes a little bit different tone. Well, this one is much more direct. This one's the most direct ad that we've seen in the past four.
But I have to say that I liked the other one the best. So why did you like it? So childish and comical. But to be fair, I'm doing this from my own personality. And I appreciate that type of silliness, I guess. And I'm also like what literally 50 years were moved from the times. So if I probably saw this ad come across my TV, I'd probably would question it. I'd probably think it was stupid. But now looking back on it, I think it's hilarious. Yeah, I think Reagan earns my vote.
Yep. There you go. Clip it, quote it, put it out on the socials. Caitlyn votes for Reagan. I think to your point, this, why I pulled this one out, I think you're right. Everybody leans towards the Reagan one. And that's why I prefaced this with like a common enemy. Wait, did you, everyone leans towards the Reagan one? Like everyone in history or? I think the voters at the time and I think looking back, it was much more impactful because they tied.
It's so stupid. It's so stupid. It's a stupid ad. I don't find it impactful at all. I find it silly, which is why I like, I'm like, oh, a president with a little bit of humor. But you know what? And during the time, I don't think he had humor going into this. I think he was dead serious and was like, well, let's put out the most impactful campaign that I possibly can.
And he came up with that garbage. It worked. So actually, Reagan in this election won in the biggest landslide in American history. He won 489 electoral votes, only losing three states, Minnesota, West Virginia, oh, four, Maryland and Georgia. Georgia is where Jimmy Carter's from. So not even California voted for Carter. The whole video was taking place in San Francisco. Come on, people of San Francisco.
California Republican. Yeah, California went Republican. And I agree. It's like, it's like, so what I'm, what we're seeing here is when you look at these attack ads and they're trying to create an outside enemy and link that candidate to an outside enemy. Those work, right? Like the difference. I don't know if you have that in your notes or if you just came up with that on the spot, but that's the ticket. I like that. An outside enemy.
That's exactly what it is. Because like Jimmy Carter's ad, as we saw, it's just all talking about Reagan. They're like shitting on Reagan. They're like, he's awful. Nobody cares. That that's up to our opinion. It's like, oh, I kind of like him. I kind of don't like him. But when you're like, yo, a vote for Carter is a vote for Iran and the Ayatollah who's holding our people hostages. I'm going Reagan.
You know, which you're probably going to get to this. But as we have a dug in prior podcast, it's like save the children. A lot of politicians go after save the children. So if it's like, if it's a vote, vote for Biden, then you're actually voting for sex trafficking. And you're like, well, fuck, I don't believe in sex trafficking. So I guess I have to vote the other way.
Yeah. And at that point, if like you're debating with someone, even if it's a friendly debate about politics and they're like, yeah, he's a sex traffi- you've already lost. You're in a conversation realm that's like, I have to defend Biden against sex trafficking? Like, what? You're already losing. And that's why they do that, right? That's so true. You're like, how did we get here? Yeah.
Like, it's impossible. So like this ad set the tone for all future ads, right? Like Republicans saw winning. Democrats saw huge losses. And they're like, you know, we got to just mimic this campaign for all future. We have to go at each other. We have to tie it to anything that we can. This existential threat we need to tie our opponent to. Not to put you on the spot, but do you know the national census of how many Republicans and how many Democrats were registered?
Oh, I don't know. In 1980? Yeah. I can look it up. I, I, yeah, just curious. It surprises me that in 1980, states like Washington and Oregon, who are so left-leaning now, were right-leaning in 1980, which doesn't seem like that long ago. So I'm wondering if there were generally just more Republicans versus Democrats? You know, it's a good, yeah. So I couldn't see that, but I do think what we can indicate is also, I think party lines were a little more blurred.
Totally were. Yes, absolutely. You know, it's a little more, it's a little more absolute now, but I am looking at like the voting demographics, right? And those white people say no more. White males. Yep. Yep. And you're so right. Yep. Yep. White men. The women vote is about 50-50 between Carter and Reagan, men skew 55-38 Republican. And the interesting piece though is that even the younger demographics, the 18 to 29 year olds, it's about 50-50.
So I think maybe for younger people, it was less like affiliating with a party. It was more like you kind of affiliate with one as you get older. But yeah, it's a huge, huge trend, right? I think I'm like just talking the talk out loud for a second, but I'm also thinking in terms of moral issues, Democrats obviously lean more toward social. Political issues versus Republicans lean towards, I don't know, how do we say like financial more? No, not moral. I would say moral is Democrat.
Okay, we can we can edit this part out. No, I think that's great. No, I think that's a great point. Like, Democrat is more like large moral, you know, whatever we're thinking is like in the 1980s, like you mentioned, in the 1960s, we're seeing the civil rights movement. In the 80s, we're seeing women demanding more rights. We're seeing them get integrated into the workplace a little bit more.
But it is surprising. That's all I'm saying is it's surprising to me because Democrats lean more of the social issues like women's rights and like race issues that we didn't see more Democrats voting for Carter or more states swing Democrat, I should say. Yeah, I think it's a great point. I would agree with that. I just think maybe Reagan hit this zeitgeist of like feeling American, because that is, you know, that's where I draw the morals is like, we have social morals.
I say we I'm working hard to be central on this. Democrats have morals that is I wouldn't say so closely tethered to America as an idea. Right. We just need to take take care of each other. Everybody's equal. That's not that's not American values. I would say Democrats are morality. Republicans are American values, and they really closely tie tie it to the country to just piggyback on the American values.
It's actually more like community values, right? We kind of talked about this in one of our old podcasts or one of our prior podcasts where they really care about their immediate community. So their neighbors, they want to make sure that they're well taken care of versus Democrats are typically thinking more on a global scale or national scale, thinking about the human rights and everything like that. So, um, uh, yeah, yeah, just piggybacking off of what you said.
Yeah. And I just to tie that back to like, I love it. I think, but I'm just saying like that that triggered something in me. I was watching the news maybe earlier this week, it all blends together when you run a company.
But it they the right is using this word globalism with such negative connotation. They're calling people globalists. They're calling the globalism movement. And it just made me think of our conversation that there there is such this negative weight to thinking about the world and being a globalist, because they're just so anti, they're just so stitched in their community. I think there's just a nice reinforcement of that. Do you have anything to piggyback off my piggyback off your piggyback?
No, let's circle back. Okay, well, rain it back in. Well, I'm going to bring us back to the 2000s then the 2000 election. Yes. Why to K many skirts and crop tops led the way that you are coming in hot with the fashion references today. I don't know why you know I'm all about it. Yeah, I'm not against it at all.
2000 Al Gore, George Bush, classic, you know, battle. So we're going to take a look at actually two bush ads. First, not so much an attack ad, but definitely an ad that strikes a very odd tone, a weird tone. And I want to take a look at this and try to understand. I want us to you and I to sit in the George Bush media room. We are the head of George W. Bush's campaign. We are overseeing their media and their script and their messaging.
I want to watch the ad and then reverse engineer the discussion that we think that they had on why to 911 was framed. It was a conspiracy and we never laid it on the moon. Well, he got blamed for it. So, you know, he would be like, isn't that phrase Bush did 911, you know. Okay, let me show you again. Oh, yeah, you're right. You're right.
Today we live in a world of terror, madmen and missiles. Our military is challenged by aging weapons and low morale. Because a dangerous world still requires a sharpened sword, I will rebuild our military. I will move quickly defend our country and allies against blackmail by building missile defense systems. As president, I will have a foreign policy with a touch of iron driven by American interests and American values. Okay, I want some reaction. I had so many reactions to this.
Okay, I got reactions. Hit me. I don't mind that one. I thought it plays to the sentimental value of Americans. He does use the word terror. Like is this pre 911 or post 911. It is pre 911. So, oh my God, use the word terror. Just pre 911. Wild. But yeah, and guess what? We see a child. What is with the children? Exactly. The child struck me.
But I didn't mind it because here's a couple of things that you've already made note of is he's used a third party as the enemy. So he's not directly attacking Gore. It's actually doesn't seem like an attack ad to me. It's very much like a vote for me. It's like class president vote for me type ad. I will rebuild our military and you will get good grades and no more hall passes. If I am president. Yep. Yeah. Free candy in the vending machines. Yeah. Extra reaction.
My okay. This is why I pulled it. You're right. I tried to preface. It's not really an attack at on Gore.
I think this spoke to our previous conversations of a using children like okay I want to dissect as the media people here like why are you talking about the military while having a little girl run around and why is she like gripping a military base with barbed wire like she's trying to get out or trying to get in like have we trapped a little girl like the imagery and the message are totally disconnected to me but meant to strike this like exactly what you'd like this sentimental tone.
Why would like why what do you think the reasoning behind that. Interesting to that he's talking about rebuilding the military. At a time when we weren't at war yet. Yeah that's a good call. And I don't know what the conversation was pre 911 like but it's so it's interesting that he started to focus on the military but that I totally agree with you and it didn't really like the girl.
I paid more attention to the messaging and the music behind it more so than I did the imagery so to your point if they actually had some impactful imagery I feel like this campaign would have been solid but it's pretty disingenuine at this point because like you said where is that girl you said military base I present but she was in a prison yard prison is any better what's that. What's the difference honestly but yeah really.
No I agree I agree like the imagery didn't make sense so I have a theory I have a theory is is they wanted they wanted to appeal to both men and women and I feel like if you're talking about the military and rebuilding the military that's men. And then when you have a little girl. Running around a prison gripping barbed wire fence while just talking about reinstating the military. You know I'm like yeah it just feels so obvious looking back on it but it's crazy it's crazy.
So the next one that will do is actually one that we've reviewed in a prior episode. I was going to see if you could recall I know we have difficulty because we write these we produce these we edit these we put these out and then we forget about them. I'm wondering if you have any memory of this one that we've done. Can you recall like a George Bush attack at like what episode we went over. Do you want me to guess what ad we're going to watch before we watch it.
Yeah or guess what episode we covered the George Bush add on. It's a George Bush attack. Okay first of all you said do I have any memory and just hard stop. No, no memory. George Bush attack ad. Yeah I put you on the army was it the army episode. No. Oh good guess though really good guess but no thank you. It was it was one that you did you want me to narrow it down it's one that you did that you wrote produced and it's actually one of our most popular episodes.
It's not got milk it's the gender. Subliminal messaging it's the subliminal messaging one and as soon as you start watching it you'll absolutely remember I did like and you will talk about the subliminal messaging. It's actually the freeze frame. It's actually what they freeze frame it right. All right. Let's watch. I mean not very dirty right like not kind of in your face.
Gorky Gorky pretty nice but for those watching at home there's a quick moment on that ad when they say the word bureaucrats that the word rat. Pop up in your screen right and that was our discussion on subliminal messaging he was accused of like trying to subliminally message the United States populist by saying associating Algor with being a rat. Yeah I thought that was pretty light do you have any knee jerk reactions to that one. No snore. Snore.
All right we have a then let's move on to Algor because I have I wrote in my notes that I have a lot of thoughts on this but I don't particularly remember this one. So we'll watch it together. George W. Bush wants to bring his Texas ideas to Ohio. Manufacturing workers in Texas of the eighth worst paid in the nation in Ohio were the fourth best paid. The Texas minimum wage is three thirty five an hour. Six times Bush's inaction killed increases three thirty five an hour.
Under Bush Texas went from twenty ninth to the forty eighth worst place to raise a child. Bush even opposed providing health care for two hundred twenty thousand more Texas children on November seventh. Is that the change we really want for Ohio. There are so many numbers that you have to digest and understand and like form your own opinion about because when it said we have the eight. So Texas has the eighth worst pay wage and Ohio has the fourth best.
I'm trying to think like is it really that big of a discrepancy. I'm like trying to do math and not math. Yeah yeah it's like thirty something. There's so many numbers like stick to one fact. I agree and the imagery that accompanying it like oh goodness like just turning Ohio into Texas like. I just like that basic. You liked it like this basic like animation. I didn't think it was that bad like.
I don't know I have no other thoughts like this not even worth discussing I didn't mind it I didn't like it there you go. Yeah OK well. My point on this is like like this is a broader discussion but this is my issue with a democratic marketing currently and in the past couple years like you were exactly right. They use their media space to talk about facts so much and numbers so much and they try to pack so much into 30 seconds like they're not wrong but it's not impactful like.
I don't know it's too much. Yeah yeah turning turning from the twenty seven to the forty eighth worst place to raise a kid like what does that mean. Yeah OK on what yeah on what scale and like where do where does my state sit on that scale. Yeah how bad can forty seven place be. It's like I don't get it I don't get it it doesn't make any sense to me.
OK that was like a snore one and I think part of the reason was like they didn't find or they didn't choose to go after each other very hard and that's why it came down to like 300 boats in Florida. It was a very tight race. So you can see the point I'm getting at is that I think attack ads work. You know OK let's keep going. We have a few of these how we're doing on time. Look at us go. Obama McCain.
Our boy our boy Obama this is a central podcast our forty whatever President Obama who is awesome. OK obviously we know Obama won this election but it's for the first time in my opinion that Democrats went for the jugular. They went after McCain. There's a famous attack at Obama ran and I really want you as we're watching this next one to pay particular attention to the tagline at the end of the. Yes we. Yeah I don't I wrote this weeks ago so I don't remember the tagline are we ready.
Let's go. Senator McCain or Americans better off than they were eight years ago. I think you could argue that Americans overall are better off because we have had a pretty good prosperous time with low unemployment low inflation. A lot of good things have happened. A lot of jobs have been created. I think we are better off overall. Do you feel better off the Democratic National Committee is responsible for the content of this advertising. So again go ahead. Impactful.
Yeah so again they are I wouldn't so much create an outside enemy but again creating this is John McCain right for the future. Right. Are you better off than you were eight years ago. And to put it in context right like 20 2008 we just had the financial crash right like people were losing their homes all of that stuff. Very impactful not even a word about Obama. In that.
I think there's also a couple of things to pull point out on this ad specifically that we hadn't seen in prior ads is they used McCain's own words against him which we haven't seen before. And I think this is the start of the divisiveness that we're now seeing in politics today. Yes. Everything's recorded in the whole of history. And you can miss it however you want. And maybe this would thanks Obama. You started this thanks Obama way to bring that one back.
You're coming in with the deep cuts today. Okay so let's go to let's jump to McCain's just. I really have no comments on this one we just kind of got to watch it it's not for lack of impactfulness but. I think this one is a. You see that you saw the holding screen. It is. Let's just watch it. Let's just watch it. I think we can make our conversation.
Ready. Education Week says Obama hasn't made a significant mark on education that he's elusive on accountability a staunch defender of the existing public school monopoly. Obama's one accomplishment legislation to teach comprehensive sex education to kindergarteners learning about sex before learning to read Barack Obama wrong on education wrong for your family. I'm John McCain and I approve this message. Yeah hit me with your thoughts on that one.
I don't know this is like maybe this is the ad that tires me out because this is the one that we've seen so. From this very moment forward these are the tech ads that I'm used to seeing is like taking apart one little thing manipulating it and then. Just telling a quasi truth. It's tiring I'm tired I have no response to this. I think part of it is you're tired because they're having the same arguments now their arguments haven't changed since 2008.
It's it's still save the children and that's what it started with right. Well I didn't even think about save the child like I didn't even. Of course they're talking about kindergarten and teaching sex out in kindergarten but for me it was like. They said oh the one thing that Obama has done is. Is right legislature to teach sex ed to kindergarteners and it's like OK that's how true is that.
Like that that is the question that I want to pose is like those are the little little truths that we are now getting fed. In this day and age of just like little tiny half truths. It's like really that's all Obama did in four years that's all he did OK. It's not true but they're like little half truths. I agree but it is it's this play of like sexualizing young kids that nobody wants to do. But like you have to you have to protect the children and not vote for Obama.
You know and that's the tactic clearly it didn't work this that time. OK how are we doing on time. Are we ready. Are we in the good mind state to. 2016. Are we going into 2016. Yes. Are we in the right mind state to check out some Trump and Clinton ads. I am because up until this point it's actually been kind of tame. So let's let's bring in the heat. Let's let's ramp it up. OK. So the first ad that I have for I believe it's Trump's campaign.
This is what. So let me preface as we get into 2016 2016 is where I think the landscape shifted dramatically from static TV ads that we see to very just massive produced amounts of video content very targeted to specific people. Right. So the delivery the medium changed. And now we're seeing instead of one like kind of overarching campaign ad like we've seen previously. It's like these people are dropping about 50 videos all targeted to different people.
So well I pulled out a few one a few of them. Let's talk about who we think they're targeting. And then let's talk about what we think the messaging is. So let me pull up the first one's a Trump ad. That he ran in the 2016 election. You ready. Let's do it. A lot of people say they're not going to vote this November because their candidate didn't win. Well I know some other people who won't be voting this year either. Oh my God. President. No thanks. Oh my God. They did their part. Do yours.
The NRA political victory fund is responsible for the content of this advertising. The NRA fucking sponsored that. No way. Okay. Okay. Comical. Comical to say the least. Like the dramatics is just so telling of who our former president was like just full of drama. The littlest things too. Oh my God. The fact that he was staying. He said. Repeat this. The imagery he's standing in a fucking graveyard and he said yes I know some other people that will not be voting. And then he used Benghazi.
Yeah. I served in Benghazi. And not only is that a graveyard. That's Arlington Cemetery where it's like all the soldiers are buried. Right. Like if you're a soldier and you're killed in action like that's where you're buried. That is next level. That was next level drama drama. Okay. So let's agree. Who do we think was the target demo for that ad right there. Soldiers military army that completely agree completely agree.
All right. Let's bounce back and forth because the Trump ones are admittedly hilarious and amazing. Let's let's go. Let's switch gears to Clinton real quick. Oh my God. I am so excited. I don't remember seeing any of these so clearly I was not the target demo or maybe I just wasn't watching TV. We had moved on to Netflix. No. These were these were. Yeah. I mean Netflix was a thing but these were like tailored ads like these were mostly delivered on Facebook and mostly Facebook at the time.
So these were like the tailored ads. All right. You ready. Let's pop into the two. Yeah. I love the old days. You know what they used to do to guys like that when they were in a place like this. They'd be carried out of the stretcher folks and you can tell them to go themselves. I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose any voters. OK. It's like incredible. When Mexico sends its people they're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists.
You know you could see there was blood coming out of her eyes blood coming out of her. Wherever you got to see this guy. I don't know what I said. I don't remember. He's going like I don't remember. Our children and grandchildren will look back at this time at the choices we are about to make the goals we will strive for the principles we will live by. And we need to make sure that they can be proud of us. I'm Hillary Clinton and I approve this message. Yeah.
That was that was impactful. I 100 percent approve Hillary. Yeah. That was great. Hey that was an example of using Trump's words against him which we saw with the McCain ad or the McCain attack ad. So she used that and man what other what other the phone. That well like brilliant. But the children what's so great about children. Can we just talk about it. Can we get a mother on here. Our children really that great.
It's up for debate. But I think as a former child myself you know they're pretty awesome. I'm just kidding. So I do think like the difference is that's why I like jumping back and forth between these two. It's an impactful ad. I don't think it's going to swing anybody though. Right. Like I was swayed. Yeah but you're already on that side. Right. OK. Question. Question though because the Mexican piece of it where they talked about Mexican immigrants and then it flashed to a Mexican child.
Now Mexicans tend to vote Republican because of their Catholic morals. Yes. So if you were Mexican that could have been the ad that would sway you. It could have been. It should have been. It wasn't to be. I completely agree with you. I think the ad is very well done. Very well done. Subtle. But I don't think it addressed. I think we were like at some point when someone punches you you punch back to me that wasn't like a punch back. That was more like putting on us on us to do the right thing.
Like it wasn't. It wasn't like we've seen it like it didn't connect it to an outside threat. Right. It was just like yo. Your kids are watching you but they're not watching you in the voting booth. You can still have. Yeah. Yeah. Like there's there's just it's there. It's like almost there for me as far as the messaging goes like it's impactful. It'll make it but like there's got to be some kind of like jab.
No I think you bring up a good point. I think it was a great campaign had it stood alone. But because the Trump campaign was like you said if he punches you punch back. So he was dirty. He was dramatic and. He was like he said put the onus back on the people which. Yeah. I'll leave it at that. It just yeah I think it's like it doesn't really do the job that it should be doing. You know I think I think you said it great. I think he said great. No more words from me.
All right. Well let's let's jump back to Trump real quick. We only have two more. So let's jump back to Trump. And I think both of these are going to be Trump ads just because Hillary's all kind of followed that model. Right. Like our children are watching. What are you going to do for our future. You know elect a woman president to inspire the children. You know it was really focusing on the next generation.
Trump took a very different tone. Are you ready. In Hillary Clinton's America the system stays rigged against Americans Syrian refugees flood in illegal immigrants convicted of committing crimes get to stay collecting social security benefits skipping the line. Our border open. It's more of the same but worse. Donald Trump's America is secure. Terrorist and dangerous criminals kept out. The border secure. Our families safe change that makes America safe again.
Donald Trump for president. I'm Donald Trump and I approve this message. So good. So good in the classic in the in the sense of like so Trump. Yep. So I'm brand. Yeah. So any takeaways from there. I had one takeaway in my notes. I think it's pretty standard. Like keep us safe. Protect your family. Border secure. People are coming in. There's crime. I mean it's it's Republican like you know it's the billy Joel P and I'm like you said it's creating a third enemy which is refugees it's immigrants.
It's what they're going to take our job there. We're paying their social security and from an American standpoint if you don't know any better you're like fuck I can barely support myself. I mean I need to I need America to stay America. Yeah I agree. And we want to preserve the history whatever nostalgia whatever it is. You know Trump created a threat. Clinton created emotional do the right thing marketing language. And so our takeaway from this is threats work.
When in doubt threaten threaten the people create an outside threat. It always works. It always works. The one note that I had to take away and I just wanted to like we've gone through a few of these especially recently since 2000 the Republicans use the same voiceover guy since like 2000. It's the same voiceover guy. I mean I think all voiceover guys sound like the voiceover guy. So I think there's not one actor I think they're all the same.
Fair enough but like this guy's just gets a job every four years like I to me he's the exact same dude I'm like who is this guy that just keeps getting hired for these Republican ads like that's a gig that just keeps selling.
Nice job to that guy way to find your pocket. Yeah yeah yeah. You know what I'm seeing in Hillary and Trump and this could be a test of the times to because they are on media a lot more than the prior presidents but Hillary and Trump used each other as like happen it's like they made a mockery of each other they used clips that were very unattractive made them look very angry and stupid and made them look like a buffoon.
And that was kind of the first time that we had seen that too. Definitely like intentionally like disparaging the other candidate not through just words but through like what you pull out and the images you use in your yes yes yes exactly. Yeah yeah that's another thing I mean now that we're talking about imagery we talked about Bush's imagery not totally sinking in because it was a child she's in this like I think she's in a prison yard you think she's in a military base.
We don't really know she's trapped somewhere. She's just trapped somewhere. But so he's trying to evoke some emotion from this imagery versus Trump and Hillary just straight up use imagery from their opponents like they're not even trying to use outside imagery they're just going straight for the jugular and making them making a mockery out of their opponent which is again really interesting. That was the most divisive campaign. 2020. Okay I was going to say are we going to watch 2020.
Do we have time. Do I have some 2020 ads. Yeah. You and you're still good to go. Yeah I'm still good to go. We'll make this a little longer episodes since we're running all these ads. But the so the most recent one 2020 I have some examples. Trump takes an interesting approach. Right. In 2020. I don't want to give it away but I'll see if you pick up on it. Trump takes a very interesting approach with his ads.
But this is where we even see these hyper targeted ads in 2016 even become more hyper targeted. And we'll see the Democrats really playing to their hyper targeted audience they want to vote while I wonder is taking swings. I also wonder though if that's because of the digital marketing landscape you were able to further hit your target demo and like define that demographic. Do you know what I'm talking about. Yes. Am I saying complete sentences. Yes you are. You know you absolutely are.
So you're able to target people a lot better right you're able to distinguish people by the things that they put in their social profile their race their age their likes their dislikes. So you know it makes sense to be creating a wide range of these video ads and then send them. I think yeah I think the problem is it clearly it's a double edged sword because it does feel like it's specifically talking to you.
And when it's coming from campaigns from two old white men it's it's hard to feel authentic right. I feel like the benefit of giving these broad campaigns is like you can speak to a broader audience. You're laughing at the word authentic. No no no I'm laughing at the fact that you said if it comes from two old white men it doesn't hit correctly which is true. Well with anything. And particularly these ads because I will just let you know it's they're not subtle about it at all.
Both Trump and Biden put out an ad targeting the black community of America. It's not subtle. They're clearly targeting them. We're going to watch Biden's first and then we'll watch Trump's see their different messaging to the same demographic. Yeah. The story of black America is the story of America. It's the story of a people who have pushed this country to live up to its stated ideas. But black people have always believed in the promise of a better America.
So at this moment we're in now we must choose to fight for that better America. And just like our ancestors who stood up to the violent racist of a generation ago we will stand up to this president and say no more. Because America is better than him. So we choose to be bigger. We choose to be bold. We choose to bring back justice respect and dignity to this country. We choose Joe Biden to lead us all towards that American promise together. All right. The yes.
All music of that ad was just like come on. Yep. They got they have a black gospel choir singing. I mean the messaging is great. Yeah. I'm probably going to talk out of my ass. I am going to put a foot in my mouth right now. But here's what I'm thinking. It says the black people are America. Yet it's so hyper targeted. That it's separating the black population from the rest of America.
And in this ad they're using I don't know the word because it's fucking 530 on a Friday and my brain is mush but they're using these stereotypical us founds and stereotypical is not the right word. It's kind of like I identify your race signaling right like they're a signaling. Thank you. Where were you five minutes ago.
I was going to let you struggle with the gospel music like the beats I was getting down with ads and they're obviously using a black woman to narrate and it's using an entire demographic as a prop almost. Yes. Yes. Yes. That is exactly what I went for with the double edged sword right. You're targeting these people you want to speak to them but you're separating them at the same time. You know the black community is America. I think that they're right in that messaging.
It's just the tone and even at the end. You know for those watching like they only showed clips of him shaking hands and hugging black members of the community. Right. And the last one was him doing like the the DAP the like grow five with like a guy. I didn't even watch that. I didn't even see that. Yeah. Like it's like it's it's just it's it's too much right and that is what I mean when it comes across tone deaf right like you can be for America.
You can include black America in your in your messaging as America as a whole right. You know it's a whole other I won't put my foot in my mouth anymore it's two white people talking about this and I recognize that but that's just. From our marketing side like we don't want to separate people right. You can't appeal to everyone but you don't want to isolate people as well.
So I'm sure you're on the edge of your seat but Trump came out with a an ad targeting black America as well and let's go let's go. They know what they know more. Let's let's just let's just out of pure curiosity dive into this. Are you ready. Let's go. Unlike the African American community with notable exceptions the Latino community is an incredibly diverse community. You have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or Trump and you ain't black.
Poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids. My Democratic colleagues don't like me saying this I think the two party system is good for the South and good for the Negro good for the black. And other than the fact that they still call me boy I don't think they've I think they've changed. They're gonna put you all back in chains.
It was hurtful to hear you talk about the reputation of two United States senators who built their reputation and career on the segregation of race in this country. Are you going to apologize like Cory's going to apologize. Oh Josh for what for what. Oh my God. Yeah. The clips that they chose to use in that video were just fill in at any time here. Tame. Like were they really that divisive.
Like they positioned they positioned Biden as anti black and but every clip in there was like he he fucked up. He said a couple of weird weird off colored things that were yes weird but they were outright racist by any means and this whole ad portrayed him as anti anti black community. Yeah. Yeah. He's he's an old man. He said some things in his past that maybe aren't cool today. Like we're not going to cancel him. And the I would say those are more gaffes than anything.
But you can see Trump was pulling at straws as is the Republican Party when targeting this community there. There's great in the bottom of the barrel to try to find something right. It is interesting too because out of both of their campaigns Trump was like I'm not going to integrate with the black community. I'm just going to position Biden as anti black versus Biden was like I'm going to do my best to integrate myself into this community. Yeah. It was in poor taste.
It was tone deaf like you said. But at least it wasn't just like Trump is racist. I mean I agree. I agree. I agree. And I mean it's just like both of these the one where Hillary Clinton is talking about Anthony Weiner and this one it's just like the irony is so rich like saying you can't govern under criminal investigation and this dude like has so many investigations. Calling Biden a racist. We're not saying I know I mean but then calling African countries a shit.
Hole when you're in office like it is it's it's not in the way that they said pervert in the campaign was just too much is too rich coming from a Trump campaign. You know like pervert. It is just nuts. It's nuts. OK we have and this one just represents our last one. I'm so excited. I could go all night. I mean I do have to. I know I have. I could go all night.
Yeah I have a bunch more that we didn't get to and we can post them you know on YouTube and run some shorts and maybe do a follow up to talk about it more. But this is the one we'll close with tonight. And this highlights is a Trump ad. It highlights his campaign strategy during 2020. And it is my note is it's hard for an old white man to attack an old white man. And Trump is not a man who changes his tactics very much. So what does he do in his attack.
It's true. Like you guys are both equally awful in terms of morals and yeah. So what does he do. He doesn't attack Joe Biden directly. He goes after his running mate. You ready. Let's watch this. Kamala Harris ran for president by rushing to the radical left embracing Bernie's plan for socialized medicine calling for trillions of new taxes attacking Joe Biden for racist policies. Voters rejected Harris. They smartly spotted a phony but not Joe Biden. He's not that smart.
Biden calls himself a transition candidate. He is handing over the reins to Kamala while they jointly embrace the radical left. Slow Joe and phony Kamala perfect together. Wrong for America. The name calling. How old are we. I completely agree. I but that is why I wanted to end on this one because that works. It's so it does. It's it's stupid. But you're tying a person to I mean crooked Hillary works. You know slow Joe works right like people call it just it's agonizing.
I just think like this one we're seeing and to watch out to predict it to end this episode saying what we're watching for in 2024. It's these hyper targeted ads. They're going to be the same way. They're going to come out. You just need to understand that you are not getting the full message as a as a person. You're only going to see the message they want white women to see in your demographic.
I'm only going to see the message they want young white men to see and these other campaigns are going to be totally out of the picture. But it's important to do our research as we've been talking about to take your time and see what they're saying. To other demographics there's resources available. They have to publicly say that they've released all of these ads. There's a freaking website a single website that I used for all of these ads right like they aggregate every single ad.
It's it's you got to pay attention and know that the messaging you're getting is extremely tailored to you almost individualized to you. And it's important to see what they're saying to other people as well because it might not be the same thing. Right. The other thing is just like we talked about how did how did divisive the nation is at this point and it all kind of started in the 2016 campaign. And it's not necessarily because of politics. It's about social media.
It's about the digital marketing landscape and how they are able to tailor messaging. Taylor videos Taylor ad campaigns directly to their demographic that they want to hit and you don't ever get an opportunity unless you seek it out to see other ads. Yep. Down with Facebook. Yeah. I feel like I agree. But I feel like we say that to people so much right like and everybody knows oh I get targeted ads.
I think what I'm trying to get across is how to the level of detail that they can target you is astonishing. And they these political campaigns are going to flex it to all their might just like just like all of our campaigns do we get some deep level targeting. And these campaigns are going to deep level target you not to buy some socks but to vote for the future of America. And I'll leave it at that. Do you have any finer points. Caitlin. Are shaking my head. No. Tune in next week.
If you like the show give us a follow. You know check us out on YouTube. Caitlin and I are producing more content out there putting out a little short. Maybe if you want to submit some questions in the comments we could do a Q&A a live stream maybe is in the future. Give us a follow. Check it. Do it. We'll be back next week. See you. Bye.