Which was the better ad?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Discuss.

[The Duke]

Tie

[Gabu]

Which were these?  I don't remember ads by name very well.  I vaguely recall at least one of them being with the Johnson campaign, but that's about it.

[The Duke]

The daisy ad can be viewed here.  It is the second ad down in the Johnson column on the left of the screen.

Morning in America can be seen here.  It is the first ad under the Reagan column on the left.

[Dr. Cynic]

Both ads did what they were supposed to do... Both were very effective, although the Daisy ad was particularly in bad taste.

[Gabu]

Oh yes, now I remember these clearly.

I certainly would have liked to watch Morning in America more than Daisy, but they both were extremely effective in their own way.

[Raoul Takemoto]

Both ads were good, but I voted for Morning in America since it aired more than once and was a positive ad - perhaps the last great positive ad (as if Reagan really had anything to do with the sunrise. )

[bgwah]

Daisy made me laugh so it got my vote...

"four, five, seven..." KABOOM!

Hahahaha!

[Nym90]

Both were classics and very effective. It's worth mentioning that the Daisy ad actually only aired once; it was pulled off the air immediately after being shown, but it did a good job of emphasizing the fact that Goldwater had said he would support the use of nuclear weapons in Vietnam.

[dazzleman]

They both worked well.  Morning in America was more tasteful.

[Michael Z]

Depends what you mean by "better". Daisy was probably more effective, so it was "better" in that regard, but it was also the most glaring example of negative advertising. You could say it started the trend of mudslinging that has become so sickeningly prevalent in modern politics.

An interesting difference between the two is that "Daisy" is very negative whereas "Morning In America" was very positive.

Btw, like Jesus, I actually think "Daisy" is rather hilarious. And "Morning In America" is just a bit too cheesy.