Can Kerry's May Ad Buy be (in part) Behind Bush's Sinking Poll Numbers?

Bush's approval number are sinking. That's a fact that is attested to in even the most Bush-friendly and GOP-skewed polls. Now, we've heard plenty of explanations for this phenomenon, most of them focusing on the Iraq Torture Scandal and the manifest lack of direction in Iraq policy. But here's an explanation we haven't heard:

Kerry's positive advertising campaign may be contributing to Bush's falling support.

Maybe you have heard this explanation proferred by one of the talking heads. I have not. But it's something that should be looked into. The main distinction between the two ad campaigns - up to this point - is pretty simple. Bush's ads do little but tear down and attack Kerry. There is simply NO POSITIVE MESSAGE in the Bush ads. I suppose this goes along with the strategy of "defining your opponent early" that seems to be the darling of the Rovians and their allies in the national mass media. Kerry's ads are certainly aimed against this move, providing a counter-definition of the candidate. This struggle between forces, however, yields the following result: All Bush's ads are negative; are Kerry's ads are positive.

Given the general uneasiness (malaise?!?) actuated by the faltering Iraq War, could it be that Kerry's positive messages are touching off a positive affect, while Bush's negative messages are giving off a feeling of the downward spiral? It's curious, in any case, that when Bush's ratings ticked back up slightly after his $60 million April ad buy, it was regarded as effective, yet when Bush plummets in the midst of Kerry's $25 million May ad buy, nobody says word one!

Counter-argument: While Bush's approval rating is down, he is not down significantly relative to Kerry. Therefore, it could not be Kerry's ads, which one would expect to produce a concomitant positive growth for Kerry relative to Bush.

Yes. Perhaps. It may also be that the positive message does the tearing down of Bush first, with the growth in Kerry's number following. We shall see. At the very least, those in the media should look at the Kerry ads for their effectiveness in the same detail that they looked at the Bush ads.

people saying what a wonderful thoughtful man he is. America needs some good news these days.

You point that it was not being equated by talking heads is interesting, I hadn't thought about it but it's a good point

Dam that liberal media anyway!! <sarcasm/off>

n/t

Most thinking Americans are very concerned and not at all happy with what is happening in the world. They are aware that the majority of the world is very unhappy with America and it is demoralizing. Bush* is not good at positive re-enforcement. He is good at attacking and belittling and smirking but not making Americans feel good about themselves. Kerry makes me feel good about America's future and I'm sure I'm not alone. There is 20% of Americans that are totally enraptured with the GOP and will never examine reason. Most americans are not that way and they have yet to get too interested in the campaign. When they do I think the GOP as a whole is in trouble. They have been proved wrong on virtually every single issue. The only thing they have going for them is their spreading of hatred and fear.

I notice that Bush's statement "I approved this message" is at the beginning of the ad, not the end. I think that is because they are trying to preserve the myth that Bush is not the one slamming Kerry - Bush is a good man. Hearing Bush say (after seeing the slam) I approved this message - makes the connection between Bush - negative.

You have pundits saying Bush's advertising defined Kerry. I've heard RWers (Jay Severin in Boston, radio host) say that Kerry's positive messages come too late because Bush has already defined him. Thus, Bush's shrinking support is connected to Iraq and the economy.

The message from pundits is that Kerry has no solutions, he is just attacking Bush.

The ads by Kerry show that Kerry is able to define himself -- and that Kerry offers credibility. He doesn't have to beat Bush down to make himself look good. Kerry comes at Bush differently - more directly -- "don't let the door hit you on the way out of DC" directly.

While Bush's numbers have indeed been dropping, Kerry's numbers have not been going up, at least not yet. I would think that if Bush's number have been going down because of Kerry's ads, you'd see more of a rise in Kerry's numbers. Kerry's numbers will go up, but not until he makes more of a push and people start to pay more attention to the election.

I think Kerry's positive ads are due in large part to the way people felt about John Edwards' positive campaign during the primaries. People have shown that they are getting fed up with all the mud slinging. That's not to say that negative ads don't have a place in campaigning. But right now, Kerry's doing the smart thing by staying positive and letting Bush kill himself.

It is a persuasive counter-argument, to be sure, but I'm not entirely convinced. Good point, in any case.

Clinton inspired people. He brought out the best in people not the worst. That is what made him such an effective politician. He Always remained above the frey. Bush* wallows in it.

& means the american people are finally waking up.

Hope the ads work too of course.

Not sure I understand your meaning.

I hope it doesn't take advertising to get the american people to vote for Kerry and vote Bush out of office.
I hope they will actually have some morals and common sense without having to be persuaded by advertising.
That is, that the horrific events of the past couple of years have an impact.

I hope the ads do their part, but I really wish we didn't need ads at all. I know it's a silly wish.

With another act of persuasion.

Not with a sudden recognition, which would depend on previous persuasion in any case. Now, that is not to say that ads are the only form of persuasion, but neither do I buy the notion that people will "wake up" without being prompted by something.

I'm just saying I hope the something that wakes people up is the events, not the advertising.
That would make me have a greater faith in americans.

Whatever wakes them up, events or advertising is fine, as long as they wake up.


By the way, this is what I said in the first two posts also. So where's the argument?

Seems to me that you've got some sort of investment in the idea that the ads are good & that you are perceiving my comment that I'd like actual events to wake people up as a critique of the ads. It's not a critique of the ads, OK?

wrt advertising. I just didn't understand your point.

I do, however, think that events do not speak for themselves, but must be valued positively or negatively by arguments.

I had hoped you were just missing my point.

As for arguments making the point, I'm trying to stay optimistic.
They only recently seem to be having much effect.

Can anyone else comment on the relative ratio of Bush:Kerry ads? While the Bush ad is the despiccable hpocritical lying ad depicting Kerry as voting against funding for the military.... it probably is effective in swaying many lazy, ignorant segments of the populace.

Kerry's: postive
Bush's: negative

She voted for Bush in 2000 but says now no way is she going to make that mistake again. She likes Kerry's ads because they are positive and informs people about his views, rather than just instill fear like the shrub's ads.