As I watched the debate, I was mainly looking for two results.  The first result being a stronger motivation to vote for the republican candidate, Donald Trump, and the second being to see if Trump would behave in an eyebrow-raising manner.  As the debate drew to a close, the first result failed.  Trump still has not bought my full support, although he has my vote due to his place on the republican ticket.  His comments on international trade agreements, such as NAFTA and our business dealings with China, still cause me to doubt his promise to “make America great again.”  How can we bring these long lost manufacturing and industry jobs back to the States and still maintain a high standard of living we enjoy thanks to cheaply produced Mexican and Chinese goods?  There is no good answer; the issue was brought up, but not delved into during the debate.  Trump maintains his quasi-isolationist economic policy beliefs, which leave me unconvinced.  However, he did make agreeable points about our sometimes thankless role in international security.  Our 70% funding of NATO and expensive international presence does not provide a sustainable return on investment, and perhaps we should heed George Washington’s farewell address guidance of avoiding foreign entanglements.

On the other hand, the debate did deliver on heated, eyebrow-raising exchanges between Trump and Clinton.  Trump made repeated jabs at Clinton, often interrupting her and the moderator even by commenting “wrong” or “lies” when they were citing factual information, specifically regarding the discussion on stop and frisk, and Obama’s birth certificate.  He repeatedly criticized Clinton’s lack of producing results in the battle against ISIS and terrorism, as well as predictably bringing up her poor health and email scandal.  Clinton responded by bringing up Trumps history of insensitivity regarding race relations and feminism.  I have trouble trying to determine who I think won this debate.  Hillary Clinton played the role of the astute and careful politician as only she can, while Trump remained prickly, aggressive and sharp-tongued.  The contrast between the businessman and politician was visible during the debate, but neither seemed to distinguish themselves as the superior choice for President of the United States.

1952- Eisenhower vs. Stevenson:  The Man from Abilene, Endorsement Woman

Eisenhower’s Man from Abilene ad briefly mentioned his humble beginnings, then escalated to comment on his wartime achievements and connections from his service in World War II.  Then an abbreviated interview gave a look into his insight to the ongoing Korean War.  All of this information was thrown at the viewer in rapid succession in a very digestible format.  Stevenson’s ad featured a woman speaking on his aims of socioeconomic equality across the country, appealing to female voters and working class Americans.

1964- Johnson vs. Goldwater: Peace Little Girl, Communism

Johnson’s famous ad featuring a little girl picking a daisy followed by a nuclear explosion clearly appealed to the audience’s fear of nuclear war, utilizing the sharp contrast of innocence with death to motivate voters.  Goldwater makes use of a typical female American in his Communism ad to address its spread and his plan to reinvigorate U.S. relations with NATO as a solution.

1976- Carter vs. Ford: Bio (Carter), Peace

Carter uses a lengthy biographical ad to showcase his humble, hard-working farm boy origins, military service and honest personality to connect with voters.  His wife also gives a supportive endorsement of her husband, along with Carter’s endearing parents in order to humanize him before a patriotic speech given as governor of Georgia wraps up the ad.  Ford’s ad features a catchy song played over a slideshow of ethnically-diverse, smiling Americans.  A voice over then  advocates for Ford’s ability to sustain peace in America and his gives a hopeful message for the future.

1984- Reagan vs. Mondale: Bear, Orbiting

Reagan’s brief ad featuring a grizzly bear creates a metaphor for the Soviet Union, advocating for strength to match the bear.  This creates a sense of need for security, suggesting that America should err on the side of caution and have the strength to face the bear.  In an interesting contrast to Reagan’s Bear ad, Mondale’s Orbiting ad attacks Reagan by creating a sense of fear of a nuclear arms race.  This is illustrated through footage of space, warning of the weaponization of outer space.

1996- Clinton vs. Dole: Surgeon, Pants on Fire

Clinton’s Surgeon ad features multiple photogenic American children saying what they aspire to be when they grow up in order to preface his initiatives to make college affordable.  This ad makes the audience sympathetic to the goals of the children and more or less paints Clinton as a champion of the American Dream, while briefly attacking Dole as an opponent of education.  Dole’s Pants on Fire ad is a blatant attack on Clinton, calling him a liar.  Dole backs this claim with footage of Clinton, and a quote of Bob Kerrey calling Clinton an unusually good liar.

2000- Bush vs. Gore: Dangerous World,

In his Dangerous World ad, Bush displays a little girl running around an abandoned airport while his voice over addresses the threat of terrorism and the need for strong foreign policy.  The video ends with a soldier taking the girl by the hand, signifying the protective stance of the military for American security.  Gore’s Bean Counter ad showcases his stance on healthcare, advocating for a “patient’s bill of rights,” to combat the current status of health insurers denying treatments to patients.

2016- Clinton vs. Trump: Who We Are,

Clinton’s ad, Who We Are, is a combination attack ad on Trump and a self promotion.  She contrasts Trump’s irreverent, bullyish public demeanor with footage of her visiting factories and working-class Americans.  Her voice over indirectly criticizes Trump’s behavior while providing an optimistic message for America’s political future.  The NRA’s ad for Trump points a big finger at Clinton for the Benghazi scandal, blaming her for the deaths of military personnel who now cannot vote in the 2016 election. This is a simple attack ad at Clinton, calling republican voters to stop her from winning the presidency, regardless of who they supported in the primaries.

Conclusion:

Over the past six decades, presidential campaign ads have changed substantially, yet remain somewhat singular in their messages.  In the 50s and 60s, fear of communism and war spurred ads to appeal to voter’s security.  Appeals to women and humble American values seemed to be more prevalent, with candidates striving to relate to potential voters.  These early ads feature catchy tunes and a more upbeat tone (with the exception of Peace Little Girl), are easy to follow, to the point and have minimal editing/post-production.  In the 1990s we see attack ads outright defaming the opponent candidate, featuring bold claims and harsh video editing to demonize their target.  This trend continues until today, while the production value and intensity of the ads have increased over time.  All of these advertisements share the appeal to American values of a strong economy, humanization of candidates and the protection of the American Dream.

During the first meeting of the Election of a President class, I voted for Donald Trump in the straw poll.  I align politically with the Republican party, especially regarding immigration, 2nd amendment, military spending, healthcare and economic issues.  However, I sympathize with liberal beliefs on marijuana and abortion.  As far as the 2016 Presidential race goes, I fall in with the majority of my peers regarding how unappealing Clinton and Trump are as candidates.  Trump lacks professionalism and diplomacy, while Clinton has an ugly history of scandal.  While neither are ideal, Trump’s political aims are more in line with the direction I want America to develop in.  Unsurprisingly, I side 85% with Trump, and only 13% with Clinton.