Landslide victories and great television campaigns

[King]

http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/

Looking at our history of TV ads in Presidential race, one thing that is clear is that three biggest landslides in our history: the biggest landslides all had the best, most iconic campaigns by the victor.

Reagan's 84 campaign was probably the best there ever was or will be. Nixon's 1972 Nixon Now song was super catchy and running all attack ads under the name Democrats for Nixon was brilliant. Johnson in 1964 with Daisy and the urgent slogan of "The stakes are too high for you to stay home" were chilling.

Every other year? Incredibly stale. Our three closest elections--1960, 2000, and 2004--had terribly meandering and generic advertisements. Clinton, Bush, and Obama were re-elected but never had that iconic Morning in America or Daisy-type ad that defined the landslide victors.

My question is pretty simple, do you think the reason LBJ, Nixon and Reagan were able to have such greatly iconic ad campaigns was because they were cruising or did they create their own magic in the air through sheer confidence? The case could be made all three campaigns were flat out lies. LBJ wasn't a dove compared to Goldwater, Nixon hadn't turned the corner in Vietnam, Reagan's economy wasn't utopian; but they all ran with it.

[bedstuy]

I think the underlying question is, what makes a good television advertisement? 

My quick take is that the best ads are for so-called, "lifestyle brands."  Apple, Nike, MTV, Marlboro, etc.  They're all well-known and have a specific cultural meaning that people are excited about.  You couldn't  make a great TV ad for something like Windex or aluminum siding.  Michael Dukakis and Bob Dole were Windex and aluminum siding.     

Specifically, politicians like Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama are comfortable turning themselves into lifestyle brands.  People felt like voting for Reagan or Obama (but only in 2008) meant something about who they were.  And, that's the best position to be selling a product, you know what your appeal is and you know people want what you're selling.

[Mr. Smith]

http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/

Looking at our history of TV ads in Presidential race, one thing that is clear is that three biggest landslides in our history: the biggest landslides all had the best, most iconic campaigns by the victor.

Reagan's 84 campaign was probably the best there ever was or will be. Nixon's 1972 Nixon Now song was super catchy and running all attack ads under the name Democrats for Nixon was brilliant. Johnson in 1964 with Daisy and the urgent slogan of "The stakes are too high for you to stay home" were chilling.

Every other year? Incredibly stale. Our three closest elections--1960, 2000, and 2004--had terribly meandering and generic advertisements. Clinton, Bush, and Obama were re-elected but never had that iconic Morning in America or Daisy-type ad that defined the landslide victors.

My question is pretty simple, do you think the reason LBJ, Nixon and Reagan were able to have such greatly iconic ad campaigns was because they were cruising or did they create their own magic in the air through sheer confidence? The case could be made all three campaigns were flat out lies. LBJ wasn't a dove compared to Goldwater, Nixon hadn't turned the corner in Vietnam, Reagan's economy wasn't utopian; but they all ran with it.

The Kennedy jingle doesn't suit you?

[Sumner 1868]

1964 and 1972 benefited from technological advancements that the ads a unique feel. This is especially evident when compared to the low-budget Goldwater and McGovern ads. I think, therefore, it made LBJ and Nixon subconsciously seem more of the times than their already vulnerable opponents.

With 1984, I find the ads mediocre on both sides, personally. The Morning in America ad is the only one that stood out (I find the "bear ad" uninspiring) and you can see it somewhat influenced later reelection campaigns. However, the Mondale ads are especially bad. Particularly bad is the "Orbiting" ad, which gives the subtle unintended implication Mondale would start nuclear war over a Soviet SDI system.

More recently it seems there is a race to find other venues for campaigning, and so far the Democrats have won. Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign used cable television to his advantage, and it is widely believed the so-called "social media"  websites fueled Obama's victory in the 2008 primaries. I'm guessing this is because ads have gotten stale and predictable.

[King]

http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/

Looking at our history of TV ads in Presidential race, one thing that is clear is that three biggest landslides in our history: the biggest landslides all had the best, most iconic campaigns by the victor.

Reagan's 84 campaign was probably the best there ever was or will be. Nixon's 1972 Nixon Now song was super catchy and running all attack ads under the name Democrats for Nixon was brilliant. Johnson in 1964 with Daisy and the urgent slogan of "The stakes are too high for you to stay home" were chilling.

Every other year? Incredibly stale. Our three closest elections--1960, 2000, and 2004--had terribly meandering and generic advertisements. Clinton, Bush, and Obama were re-elected but never had that iconic Morning in America or Daisy-type ad that defined the landslide victors.

My question is pretty simple, do you think the reason LBJ, Nixon and Reagan were able to have such greatly iconic ad campaigns was because they were cruising or did they create their own magic in the air through sheer confidence? The case could be made all three campaigns were flat out lies. LBJ wasn't a dove compared to Goldwater, Nixon hadn't turned the corner in Vietnam, Reagan's economy wasn't utopian; but they all ran with it.

The Kennedy jingle doesn't suit you?

The jingle was good but the campaign as a whole was generic talking to the camera. The others had multiple good ads.

[Mister Mets]

I think we also remember the ads of landslide campaigns more.

Losing campaigns might have terrific ads, but those don't necessarily get played very often.

[CapoteMonster]

Considering there were plenty of landslides before TV ever existed, I'll say the latter.

The majority of newspapers opposed all of FDR's presidential campaigns but he won every election in landslide fashion.