The Conservatives are wasting no time.
The Sun has the 10 best UK attack ads in their political history.
This is from the current campaign and is very good.
The Liberals have done an attack ad on Kevin Rudd. This one is not quoting what his colleagues said about him, instead it is pointing out the policies he implemented last time have failed.
Mother Jones says:
In HBO’s hit show Game of Thrones, there are dragons, sword fights, and zombie armies. But the heart of the show is intense political intrigue. Alliances are forged and broken; backroom deals are cut; principles are sacrificed. It’s a dirty game. Yet imagine how much more unsavory it would be if super-PACs and dark-money outfits existed in the Seven Kingdoms. We did—and here are the results.
Here’s two of their ads:
Heh, both excellent. I love Game of Thrones.
This video nicely shows how attack ads are nothing new. They use quotes that Jefferson and Adams used against each other in the 1800 presidential election – they are far far worse than anything said today.
1800 was the first time a sitting President lost an election, and showed how power can be transferred peacefully. It was also the first and only Vice-President to win an election against the President they served with.
This ad is attacking Bill Brady, the Republican candidate for Governor of Illinois. Brady is leading in the polls and 538 give him a 77% chance of winning it – quite remarkable considering the state.
This ad was produced by Citizens Against Government Waste. The chinese language with english sub-titles makes it very effective, as you really tune into it.
Also they mention no politician by name, yet you know whom it is effectively blaming.
The CAGW also produce an annual “Congressional Pig Book” which details all the pork-barrel spending.
Dave Guerin at Education Directions blogs:
The PPTA released a video over the weekend apparently criticising Bill English, Anne Tolley and Steven Joyce but it really does have some dire dialogue. The 50 second video revolves around some PPTA protestors holding up signs like “Education for All” which are finally ignored by the Ministers turning out the lights. I challenge any reader, outside PPTA head office, to watch it and try to convince me that the video isn’t just a waste of money. It costs money to create video, but the dialogue is uninspiring and there is no real point to it. I expect better arguments from the PPTA, even if I’m unlikely to agree with them.
The CTU had some pretty funny attack videos before the last election. I certainly can appreciate a good attack video, if done with humour or impact. But I agree with Dave, this one from the PPTA is really rather sad.
Enjoy this ad from the Department of Government Waste. Very well done.
I love this ad, especially the demon sheep that appears at 2:20 through. A classic attack ad. This one is not aimed at a Democrat, but at a Republican from another Republican as they are both seeking the GOP nomination for a California seat in the Senate.
The best ads this election have been the ones not from the parties. The CTU have alerted me to their final anti-National ad. Not as funny as their first couple but still a lot better than most out there. They try a bit too hard on this one, but the Borat part was good.
Has Labour run even a single positive advertisement on TV?
I don’t think they have. Every single advertisement they have run on television is an attack on John Key. Not a single advertisement talking about what Labour will do if re-elected!
Most campaigns have attack ads as a component of their campaign. But can anyone recall a time when a political party has run nothing except attack ads the entire campaign?
I think it sums up the state of Labour – nothing left to offer.
Incidentally you know the latest advertisement showing a young mother feeding a child and saying she does not trust John Key. A source has informed me that the “young mother” is not a mother at all – just a professional actress named Rachel.
Isn’t that ironic, if true? Labour campaigns on trust by using a fake mother!
Labour’s “Two Johns” attack ad has just been ruled misleading by the Advertising Standards Authority. John Key laughed it off and National said they will not respond.
However You Tube allows anyone to respond, and Whale Oil has put together a nice little one minute 20 second response, called the story of two Helens. The total cost of production was $0.00.
Enjoy it. It is the first in a series. Helen has done so many flip-flops that there is enough material for at least three ads. The next one will focus on her calling a plan to take debt to 22% of GDP as reckless, and then upon finding debt will hit 30% of GDP, stealing the very policy she attacked to borrow more for infrastructure!
Feel free to send through other flipflops.
Now this is a serious case of egg on face. You run an ad on TV, radio and the Internet about how John Key can’t be trusted. And the Advertising Standards Authority finds that in fact it is the advertisement that can not be trusted as it is misleading.
What is interesting is that the TV and radio ads are governed by the Broadcasting Standards Authority (appointed by the Government) as “election programmes”. But because Labour placed it on You Tube, it meant the online version could be scrutinised by the Advertising Standards Authority (industry appointed).
The reason the advertisement got pinged was because Labour claimed John Key was cutting KiwiSaver in half, and the ASA found this is not factually correct. Only the employer contribution has been reduced from 2% to 4%, but the employee tax credit remains, as does the initial $1,000 and help for home loans etc.
Labour now has to decide whether to pull the advertisement from television. They do not legally have to do so, but it won’t be a good look to keep running an advertisement that has been officially found to be “misleading”.
NZ Herald Political Editor Audrey Young looks at the attack ad run by Labour against John Key. SHe blogs:
The pictures chosen did get me wondering though. Having chosen such an aggressive photograph of John Key for the first picture in the ad, I wondered whether the Labour leader’s attempt to portray Key in last week’s television debate as aggressive at home was quite the error it appeared to be at the time.
Perhaps it was part of a wider strategy to try to convince the public the John Key you see in public is not the real John Key.
I think Audrey may be onto something here. Clark may well have tailored her comments in the debate to support the theme her attack ads were going to take.
Adam Smith at The Inquiring Mind comments:
… was the Helen Clark attempt to portray Key as some sort of tyrannical figure at home part of a wider strategy as suggested by Ms Young above. Was Helen’s tantrum part of some misbegotten plan? Has Labour embarked on a dirty tricks campaign?
Adam then looks at how after losing the debate Clark accussed Key of losing control and having a tantrum. He concludes:
Perhaps there is something in what Audrey Young is suggesting after all. …
it is fascinating that Audrey Young thinks Clark and Labour fully capable of such a strategy.
Now remind Adam which party is supposed to be employing evil spin doctors. Who is going on about trust all the time?
Personally I have no problem with the TV advert Labour are running. May they keep running it. I do still have a problem with the PM’s suggestion that John Key shouts in anger at his wife and children, and the only thing worse than her saying such a thing in the heat of the moment would be her saying such a thing as part of a deliberate campaign to paint him that way.