There’s an election under way. Local, state and national candidates are spending millions to introduce themselves and win your vote. But in this age of information overload, what’s working?
In a study released this week by AP-Knowledge Networks, for example, some undecided voters said they weren’t moved by negative advertising. “About 60 percent of so-called ‘persuadable’ voters said the ads made them no more or less likely to vote for McCain or Obama,” the study said. “And about a third appeared to throw up their hands, saying they were less likely to vote for either candidate after watching the ads.”
So tell me, dear bloggers, what media did you find most informative and persuasive during this campaign?
Do you simply pull the same party lever you always pull?
Is it the ads?
The debates?
Newspapers?
TV news shows?
Web sites?
Online media?
Blogs?
Robocalls?
The Daily Show or Saturday Night Live?
An in-church voter guide?
A rally?
A knock on your door?
A postcard in the mail?
Text messages?
Twitter?
Facebook?
Endorsements?
Word of mouth?
None of the above?
All of the above?
If you believe some of the candidates and coverage, nothing less than the future of our democracy (maybe even the planet) is at stake. So tell me: How did the candidates push your buttons to convince you to push theirs?
And please, be sure to vote on Nov 4.
Posts
All the above forms of media were informative in one way or another. For the big race, my candidate’s message convinced me. Trying several blind “match your answer” types of test online, my candidate’s views on the issues match mine 90%. His persona is also engaging. And if that weren’t enough my candidate’s opponent was the clincher.
Good question Bruce! TV ads did make me seek out the candidates web sites, but the ads themselves really didn’t do it. The debates had big influence, and I like to read opinions about the candidates, but will then attempt to check the facts myself. Then overall, it’s the candidate’s parties historical approach to issues.
I can tell you what doesnt work for me - negative ads on why I shouldnt vote for the other candidate, the fancy postcards and mailings which come frequently (almost as much as my Anderson casino mailings!) and go into the trash, and robocalls.
I guess I’m an example of the adage: Half of all advertising dollars are wasted. The problem is, you don’t know which half.
In a world filled with numerous ways to stay informed about candidates, their trails, their failues, their triumphs, I turned to CNN, MSNBC, local TV newscasts (ABC, CBS, & NBC), Indianapolis Star, online websites, text messages, email blasts, the debates. Some of the blogs I encountered were depressing, discriminatory, and too bias. I’ll stick to the major news outlets.
CNN by far. I get a voice feed on my XM and the Cafferty file is a real hoot. I also listen to POTUS 08 a live feed of all presidential campaigns stops. CNN’s coverage of the debates was exceptional.
As a political junkie, I’m usually following every form of media I can find, primarily mainstream print media like the Washington Post, NY Times, and Indianapolis Star as well as a number of local and national blogs (whose opinions and articles I try to read with knowledge of bias).
But the biggest factor that I have taken into account for local, statewide, and national races alike is the way in which candidates manage their campaigns and control their image and message. I think this election cycle we have seen a number of campaigns that did not do justice to the candidate and conversely a number of situations in which the campaign or party provides opportunities and resources that the candidate does not properly take advantage of.
There’s no one source for this kind of information (though in-depth investigation articles help immensely, eg NY Times Magazine this weekend on McCain’s campaign) but rather a composite sketch drawn from mailers, TV ads, print articles, blog posts, and the best political news team on television.
I took a close look at the way my candidate responded to unanticipated questions (if there is such a thing), especially very early in the campaign, when he seemed more free to be himself. I was impressed with his thoughtfulness and I imagined how someone with his qualities (and stated beliefs/vision) would withstand the pressures that he surely would face as president. How would he react in a crisis, for instance? Who would he pull in around him? What I have NOT to put much credence in (besides the handy fact-checking) is what the newsies say after a debate. I rarely agree and would rather make my own read of how it went. Most of my serious consideration was done via the more user-driven environment of the Internet, but I watched the debates the old fashioned way.I don’t appreciate negative ads and feel that they reflect as negatively on the accuser,as on the accused. If they were done in a more neutral tone, they might have more value. When I want to feel good about my choice I go read a corresponding blog and watch the comedy news and entertainment on the tube. No surprises there, just good fun!
The media always turns into such a circus come election time, with opinions being construed into facts and lies being told just to make a story hot. We watch certain television stations, who claim they are unbiased, just to hear what we want to hear or what we think we need to hear. Who can we trust? The media? I don’t think so. The candidates? I’m not even sure about them.
They didn’t and haven’t yet; they have just made me angry with all their bickering and hatefulness and I think I just may sit this one out. If this makes me a bad person, then so be it. With all the fraudulent voting going on, we will never know if our vote counted anyway. Sorry to be so negative. It’s just the mood they have put me in.
I read my candidate’s books before the primary.