Ad Responses--"Can't Win" & "Risk"
This page offers responses to "Can't Win" from the Kerry/Edwards campaign and "Risk" from the Bush/Cheney campaign.. For PARC's analysis of "Can't Win," click here. For PARC's analysis of "Risk," click here. The responses come from undergraduate students at the University of Maryland enrolled in COMM 458. These students have been assured of their anonymity and have given their consent to the posting of their reactions on PARC, in accordance with the policies and procedures of the Department of Communication and the University of Maryland.
| Responses to "Can't Win" & "Risk" | |
|
|
 |
|
"'Can't Win'--This is a powerful message because it brings up three of the most targeted areas in the U.S. in regards to terrorism; bridges, tunnels, and power plants. Emphasizing 95% in bold green letters also is a useful technique. The rapid vocals stating facts and figures gave a feeling that things are getting out of control in our nation. "'Risk'--This message lacks any real persuasion. Many uninformed citizens in regards to politics, do not really know what makes a liberal and a conservative. This message lack of fact about Kerry and his stances on certain votes but hastily goes through them, when it only weakened the message."--21 year old Independent, CT resident |
|
"'Can't Win'--good point, yes, Bush is saying we have no money for inspection but it's given to Haliburton. The ad itself is terrible, it's choppy and very confusing. "'Risk'--Using a timeline to build the liberal argument is good, but not very effective nonetheless. The 'risk' issue with Kerry should be at the beginning of the ad. Then the supporting information should follow."--21 year old Independent, NJ resident |
|
"Both ads bring up relevant points, but Kerry's personally turns me off because its a lot of miscontrused information with random taken out of context clips. I like how Bush's ad brings in actual happenings--voting patterns and such that are looked at as fact. I don't understand why both parties throw out inaccurate numbers, only to be exposed by the media. It was only more of an issue this time in the Kerry ad, but why use exaggerated figures and such? I really wish there was an honest way to win-ha! Just writing that made me laugh. The Bush timeline also seemed effective to me, because it laid out the events and made it seem like a pattern Kerry would inevitably follow."-- 21 year old Republican, PA resident |
|
"'Can't Win'--The female voice over was appropriate for this ad, since it's a 'motherly, protective tone.' However, the ads pace was too fast which made it difficult to follow. "'Risk'--was successful at distilling fear. The use of the child's face gives a sense that the children must be protected and Bush's aggressive war policies are needed to protect our children. The ending visual of Bush with a waving flag gives the sense that he's the American way."--20 year old Democrat, MD resident |
|
"Bush's ad was powerful. America wants to be able to defend itself, but on the other hand we know America is important to Kerry. He fought for us in war and Bush did not. Kerry's ad was powerful also because it made Bush seem as though his own interests are more important to him than the interest of the American people."--23 year old Democrat, MD resident |
|
"'Can't Win'--powerful use of color, Bush in lime green. Good sound bite of 'win it.' Makes Bush look like a 'give-up leader'; not willing to make an effort. "'Risk'--not believable, people that are voting for Kerry are against the war in Iraq (and probably previous wars as well)."--21 year old Democrat, MD resident |
|
"Kerry's ad is a bit choppy, it bounces back and forth. There is also an abundance of information, this all serves to weaken the solidarity of his message. Bush's ad is formatted better, clearer and a bit more poignant. The girl in the beginning can evoke emotion. However, the liberal labeling is in poor taste and may turn off voters familiar with manipulation through labeling."--22 year old Independent, MD resident |
|
"I thought Kerry's ad was GREAT. It was filled with facts that were unargueable--they were all things Bush has said. It was strong and valid. Bush's ad was powerful too. The visual graphics were the highlight-it was pieced together with great action and graphics that caught my attention. The main message which was Kerry's bad decision making was clear and concise."--19 year old Democrat, NJ resident |
|
"Bush's quote says 'you can't win it' just comes out of nowhere. I don't think this ad was very credible, it seems they took a bunch of ideas and just threw them together. Bush's ad is very to the point. He uses the word liberal as negative to attack Kerry."--22 year old Democrat, MD resident |
|
"Kerry: too much technical information-hard to follow. Message is confusing and 'too busy.' Not a fan of female voice. Bush soundbite, out of place, shouldn't have used it, choppy--doesn't flow. Bush: much more simple-clear message-not confusing. Visuals support arguments-more effective-'liberal allies'-eh, not so sure. Male voice more effective."--21 year old Republican, VA resident |
|
"'Can't Win'--a lot of numbers in a short amount of time, good points, but didn't seem to flow. "'Risk'--'John Kerry and his liberal allies' seems like a very good way to separate the country. I don't think this ad would swing undecided voters."--21 year old Democrat, MD resident |
|
"Kerry's ad is rushed, and I think they need to gety off of Haliburton (it may have played in the primaries but not in a 30 second ad in the general election). Bush ad continues to play to the base with the 'liberal' claims. Weapons/war votes don't look good and show why foreign policy debate helps Bush in ads."--21 year old Democrat, MD resident |
|
"'Can't Win'--The ad is effective until Bush's voice comes in. It slows the flow and doesn't work with the ad. However, it is more effective than the Bush ad. "'Risk'--All about talking points and phrasing: 'After 9/11' and 'liberal.' Using liberal as a label is childish and lame. It makes the ad seem like there is no substance."--20 year old Democrat, MD resident |
|
"Kerry's ad was good but when they had Bush verbally say 'I don't think we can win it' it seems as though Kerry campaign just took a random quote and fixed it in the ad to reinstate that Bush is not as strong of a leader as some may think. They should have had more of the quote so people would know for sure that when said that quote, he was talking about the war. Bush used Kerry's previous voting records against him well. The only problem I had with it was the ending. 'We can't afford to believe Kerry and his liberal allies.' Bush is offending several people/citizens who may just only consider themselves as being slightly liberal."--20 year old Independent, MD resident |
|
"'Risk'--I thought this ad was very well put together and the first statement 'After September 11th our world changed' always brings a strong emotional response from me. "'Can't Win'--It annoyed me because it just showed Bush walking smuggly through the halls during the entire message and we couldn't understand him."--26 year old Indpendent, MD resident |
|
"The statements of Bush saying we can't afford to inspect cargo or secure bridges etc. are powerful. However, it is clear that Bush's statement 'We can't win [the war on terror]' was taken out of context and Kerry lost credibility with me there. I don't think it's effective labeling 'liberal' as a negative thing, as there are many liberal Americans. The only pertinent piece of information was Kerry wanting to cut intelligence after the attack on the World Trade Center. Every other comment (I didn't think) seemed to not be applicable to the current situation."--20 year old Democrat, MD resident |
|
"Kerry: Out of context, quick, big attacks. Not very good colors, and could be seen as a direct attack. Bush: More 'pathos' oriented, strike fear due to arousal of need for safety. Nice music, and lighting. Deeper effect, well done."--22 year old Democrat, MD resident |
|
| © Copyright 2004, The Center for Political Communication and Civic Leadership. |
