Man people are really getting ridiculous, acting like the losing candidate doing a couple points better with one demographic (mostly just within a couple specific regional subsets of that demographic) was the biggest success story of the election, even though he was still blown out among that demographic to the point it alone decisively cost him the election.
whatEVER. Who says the winning candidate has the best ad? In 2016 Hillary’s ad “role models” was the best, and she lost. I never said the general public was smart.
https://youtu.be/mrX3Ql31URA
I think your definition of "good ads" might be causing the disconnect in this thread. Both of the "best ads" you've pointed to sucked and were not even targeted to the demographic needed to secure the election in either case.
Its a subjective thing.
The quality of the ads is a subjective thing, yes. But in terms of who they targeted they definitely weren't key to the election. The Trump hispanic ad, even if it was amazing wasn't going to shift the outcome in the key states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. The Clinton ad targeted to suburban women was a bit closer to hitting the key demographic but was too focused on a metro mom demographic, again missing a lot of the key MI/PA/WI voters. Which, I guess at the time Hillary didn't even view as important.
