In our readings this week, we learned about political advertising, more specifically, negative political advertising. As we saw in “Effects of Negative Political Advertising and Message Repetition on Candidate Evaluation,” negative ads are meant to make the opponent look bad, but sometimes, they backfire and actually benefit the opponent.
Our current presidential candidates are no strangers to these types of ads. Both Trump and Clinton have released ads in which the primary goal is to speak negatively of their opponent. In article I chose, “Clinton Buries Trump in Negative Ads,” the reporter discusses the numerous negative ads sponsored by Clinton.
At the time this article was written, pro-Clinton advertising was at $104 million, while pro-Trump advertising had reached about one-ninth of that figure. With little paid advertising by Trump’s campaign, Trump runs the risk of letting Clinton define him the way she wants in her advertisements.
Before Trump even went on air for the first time, Clinton’s campaign had spent about $60 million on television ads. The majority of these ads have been attacks on Trump for being “rash, lacking in basic decency, and for engaging in outsourcing as a businessman only to oppose it as a presidential candidate.” Clinton’s lead in the polls suggests that her TV advertising is working.