Campaign propaganda is a way to promote a candidate into office. Different ways of propaganda are endorsements, glittering generalities, image molding, bandwagon, stacked cards, name calling, plain folks, and more. Many candidates use these different ways of propaganda. Most win by the use of their propaganda. In 1984, the two candidates running for vice president were Walter Mondale, and Geraldine Ferraro. The two used buttons to promote themselves so they could win. These buttons were a type of propaganda known as plain folks. The primary strategy of the buttons was ethical, as one of the buttons had the statement “Asian Americans For Mondale Ferraro.” This appealed to the Asian Americans, as they were the ones being targeted. The evidence
…show more content…
This ad was talking about how life will supposedly get “better” with Reagan as our president. It talks about men going to work, interest rates, inflation, etc. These examples are all a type of propaganda called stacked cards. This ad used an effective primary strategy, as it was persuasive, and it persuaded people to vote for Reagan. The evidence that the Reagan-Bush campaign was using this strategy is that it helped the candidates get elected, because it shifted people’s opinions and made them want to vote for Reagan. This document is not informative, as it does not give any useful information in the ad. This ad would be expected to be an effective strategy, because it was supposed to make people vote for Reagan. This ad was not an ethical strategy, because it appealed to everyone, and not just a certain group of …show more content…
Bush had a man named Governor Michael Dukakis run against him. In response to this, Bush made an ad about Dukakis to make people think that Dukakis was a bad person. In 1992, Bill Clinton made an ad about George H.W. Bush, talking about how he promised “No new taxes” then made new taxes. Bush and Clinton both used a strategy called negative or attack ads in their campaign. The Bush-Clinton campaign was an informative campaign. The evidence for this is that both candidates informed the public about their opposing candidates. This would be considered an effective strategy, as both Clinton and Bush had more votes than their opposing candidates. This was not an ethical campaign, as it did not appeal to a certain ethnically
This ad was talking about how life will supposedly get “better” with Reagan as our president. It talks about men going to work, interest rates, inflation, etc. These examples are all a type of propaganda called stacked cards. This ad used an effective primary strategy, as it was persuasive, and it persuaded people to vote for Reagan. The evidence that the Reagan-Bush campaign was using this strategy is that it helped the candidates get elected, because it shifted people’s opinions and made them want to vote for Reagan. This document is not informative, as it does not give any useful information in the ad. This ad would be expected to be an effective strategy, because it was supposed to make people vote for Reagan. This ad was not an ethical strategy, because it appealed to everyone, and not just a certain group of …show more content…
Bush had a man named Governor Michael Dukakis run against him. In response to this, Bush made an ad about Dukakis to make people think that Dukakis was a bad person. In 1992, Bill Clinton made an ad about George H.W. Bush, talking about how he promised “No new taxes” then made new taxes. Bush and Clinton both used a strategy called negative or attack ads in their campaign. The Bush-Clinton campaign was an informative campaign. The evidence for this is that both candidates informed the public about their opposing candidates. This would be considered an effective strategy, as both Clinton and Bush had more votes than their opposing candidates. This was not an ethical campaign, as it did not appeal to a certain ethnically