Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: MP-Ryan on July 03, 2012, 11:05:27 am
-
I admit that I didn't pay much attention to the USSC rulings in 2010 that paved the way for these Super PACs, but I find it stunning that 2012 appears to be the year where big money - multi-million and billionaires with truly unlimited cash flows - are literally going to buy the Oval office for their favored candidate. It stuns me that individuals can now donate essentially uncapped amounts of money. How the hell can anyone else compete with that?
A wikipedia primer on the subject for anyone who has no idea what I'm talking about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee
The middle class in the US has been on political life support for a couple decades now, but I strongly suspect this election may finally kill the power. Am I missing something, or is this as truly crazy as it seems?
-
Well, we could get Battuta in here to point out it doesn't appear to actually matter again.
-
Colbert has been mocking the whole system for a while now. That decision paved the way for mass corruption that doesn't need to hide behind scandals any more. It's all there right in the open now and perfectly leagal. Be prepared to absolutely be bombarded with political propaganda for the next several months as both sides put their unprecedented deep coffers to use.
-
solution
1. don't be a sheep
the advertisement problem only exists if every one follows the commercials with the best production value if your not a sheep no amount of money will influence you. though paying off politicians to do stuff is still a concern(see sopa)
-
Be prepared to absolutely be bombarded with political propaganda for the next several months as both sides put their unprecedented deep coffers to use.
And this is different from previous years how?
-
So basically, we are going to see a repeat of what the Wisconsin Recall Election was like, only on a national scale?
Come voting day, I am going to have to unplug my phone again. Good grief...
-
What about people who don't really follow politics and still vote? Or people who don't have the internet? The money spent will matter.
On the plus side, this will drive more people to vote so the wingnuts will have less influence on the outcome. Voter turnout was 56% last presidential election.
-
What about people who don't really follow politics and still vote?
Vote straight party tickets and are so set in their ways this won't matter. These are the people who normally vote. Nothing will change there.
-
And regardless who actually wins the election, we are still going to wind up with a crook in the oval office, and we won't see any real change on anything but relatively minor issues.
-
indeed the problem won't be advertising money influencing us its money money influencing politicians
-
Be prepared to absolutely be bombarded with political propaganda for the next several months as both sides put their unprecedented deep coffers to use.
And this is different from previous years how?
The sheer volume of cash being dumped into this election season combined with new media outlets means that it will be exponentially worse than previous years. Before one could simply ignore most of it if they choose to, now it will be in your face constantly. Don't believe me watch a youtube video, just about every single clip is preceded by a political attack ad that can't be closed after 15 seconds like other ads.
-
if the add doesn't let me skip after 5 i just hit refresh till youtube agrees with me or hit mute and do something else while i wait
-
if the add doesn't let me skip after 5 i just hit refresh till youtube agrees with me or hit mute and do something else while i wait
Unless Youtube makes a change that makes the former impossible.
Muting seems like a good idea though, will have to try that.
-
youtube will try to serve me the same ad over and over but i win in the end
-
adblock still works on youtube. for now.
-
solution
1. don't be a sheep
the advertisement problem only exists if every one follows the commercials with the best production value if your not a sheep no amount of money will influence you. though paying off politicians to do stuff is still a concern(see sopa)
What this guy said. Though I won't lie, it'll be annoying as all hell.
-
solution
1. don't be a sheep
the advertisement problem only exists if every one follows the commercials with the best production value if your not a sheep no amount of money will influence you. though paying off politicians to do stuff is still a concern(see sopa)
What this guy said. Though I won't lie, it'll be annoying as all hell.
Campaign ads, like any type of advertisement, have an effect on everyone who sees them, not just the "sheep". Even if your main takeaway from the bombardment is just being annoyed with both parties, they've still triggered an emotional response (or at least been recognized in some way by your brain), which is half the battle for them, and that effect works even if you make a determined effort not to absorb the actual content of their messages. IMO, the most important thing is the sheer media saturation, which is huge for both parties in projecting the idea that they are the only viable options.
TL/DR: No one is above the influence of Cash Money.
-
Why would you try not to absorb the content of the message? Be skeptical and analyze, sure. But ignore? Well, I suppose if the ad was just talking points with no real data to back it up, designed solely to goad people to vote based on emotions with no facts backing it up (that's what footnotes are for, lrn 2 use, people!).
-
Why would you try not to absorb the content of the message? Be skeptical and analyze, sure. But ignore? Well, I suppose if the ad was just talking points with no real data to back it up, designed solely to goad people to vote based on emotions with no facts backing it up (that's what footnotes are for, lrn 2 use, people!).
you're talking like you've never seen a campaign ad.
-
Perhaps because if it doesn't contain information that at least claims to be verifiable, I simply get slightly peeved and cut the power cycles to the related memory sector. :P I actually used to subscribe to the e-mail newsletters for one of the parties, IIRC I unsubscribed cause it was all "Rah! Rah! Look at the evilness! Donate so we can fight it!" :ick:
-
Yeah, politicians use those kinds of ads because on most people, on the general population, they work.
-
Yeah, politicians use those kinds of ads because on most people, on the general population, they work.
I dunno, I'm kinda under the impression that the kinds of people that would find political ads convincing (by any means) aren't the people that go out and vote in any respectable number. I think people are 9999999 times more swayed by family and friends and no 30 second TV, internet, telephone, newspaper, or radio commercial is going to convince them of anything they weren't already thinking. Granted, I have zero statistics or evidence to present in either support or opposition to my claim and I'm too lazy to look it up, but that's what I learned in my AP Government class and it seems legitimate sounding enough.
-
What about people who don't really follow politics and still vote?
Vote straight party tickets and are so set in their ways this won't matter. These are the people who normally vote. Nothing will change there.
Not always. Depends on the state. Ohio changed its tickets multiple times. For this swing state, it depends on who's on the ballot, and who they expect to win. This election seems pretty close right now.
I remember battuta saying that according to some statistics that ads don't matter, but awhile ago a Democrat won a seat in New York (can't remember what kind of seat), but they believed it was influenced because of a commercial of an old lady being pushed off a cliff, meaning that Republicans are against healthcare. I remembered that place being traditionally Republican too.
-
the democrats love to use old ladies in attack ads on the republicans. i've seen several this year. of course, those are NEVER by the official campaign, it's by some OTHER group campaigning on their behalf. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
-
Not always. Depends on the state. Ohio changed its tickets multiple times. For this swing state, it depends on who's on the ballot, and who they expect to win. This election seems pretty close right now.
I remember battuta saying that according to some statistics that ads don't matter, but awhile ago a Democrat won a seat in New York (can't remember what kind of seat), but they believed it was influenced because of a commercial of an old lady being pushed off a cliff, meaning that Republicans are against healthcare. I remembered that place being traditionally Republican too.
It's funny but there's nothing in your post that actually refutes what I said. Or even seems to engage with it directly. Maybe you should find something?
-
Maybe you should be more polite.
-
Maybe you should be more polite.
That was polite.
I suppose I could add a please, but really, I didn't go "what the hell are you talking about, that's not related to what I said at all", which would be the impolite version. If an invitation to come to relevant point and salvage the post isn't polite compared to a complete dismissal...that's your problem.
-
As an interesting aside to the general discussion here, apparently a recent Gallup poll suggests campaign fatigue has already set in, with a 60 percent response to the campaign being too long already, and 49 saying it's gotten annoying. Apparently there's not much difference cross-party.
I'm quoting those from memory so they might be off. Possibility of backlash?
-
Not always. Depends on the state. Ohio changed its tickets multiple times. For this swing state, it depends on who's on the ballot, and who they expect to win. This election seems pretty close right now.
I remember battuta saying that according to some statistics that ads don't matter, but awhile ago a Democrat won a seat in New York (can't remember what kind of seat), but they believed it was influenced because of a commercial of an old lady being pushed off a cliff, meaning that Republicans are against healthcare. I remembered that place being traditionally Republican too.
It's funny but there's nothing in your post that actually refutes what I said. Or even seems to engage with it directly. Maybe you should find something?
I quoted your post because you mentioned that straight ticket voting makes ads not matter (I fail to see a connection), and I pointed out that a swing state as important as Ohio doesn't use straight ticket voting. You could simply google it, but here's a link: http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/straight-ticket-voting-states.aspx
As an aside, I wasn't interested in what you said, nor do I have an intent to refute anything. I was mostly responding to the thread. If battuta was here however, I'd ask him to elaborate on why spending doesn't matter.
-
I quoted your post because you mentioned that straight ticket voting makes ads not matter
Ah.
That's not it. I was quoting someone else about people who don't pay attention to politics but vote anyways. There's more context to it then you apparently saw.
These people comprise about 30% of the population, vote every time, vote straight party tickets, and never waver. They're a known factor. They actually compose the majority of voters in most elections.
-
If an invitation to come to relevant point and salvage the post isn't polite compared to a complete dismissal...that's your problem.
Ah, the I wasn't as rude as I could have been therefore I wasn't rude defence. Classic.
-
i dont care about the issues everyone seems to talk about. we got a pro healthcare candidate out of the last election and we still dont have a healthcare system i can exploit and get free **** from. and no matter who we get were gonna keep sticking it to the terrorists. the economy is a sinking ship no matter who you put at the helm. no the issue that motivates my voting is quite a different one. i vote for the guy who i think has the best shot at starting a nuclear war.
-
Yeah, we know already. Save yourself some time at the keyboard and just put it in your signature. :p
RE: effectiveness of political ads (and being 'immune' to them): I think one of the biggest strength of ads is that they can bring up big scary issues to introduce doubt, and even if that doubt is unfounded, people are too lazy to do the research.