*Puts partisan hat on* What do you think these ads imply to the subconscious

[Lunar]

Latest mass mailing hitting:



And there's a latest robocalling campaign that hits EVERY swing state [think $$$ times a lot] that says:

"You need to know that Barack Obama has worked closely with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, whose organization bombed the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon, a judge's home, and killed Americans. And Democrats will enact an extreme leftist agenda if they take control of Washington. Barack Obama and his democratic allies lack the judgment to lead our country."

[Keystone Phil]

I liked the one 527 ad I saw the other day with Obama's face and the words "More Welfare."

[angus]

I like the letters-cut-out-of-the-newspaper-so-you-can't-trace-the-kidnapper-by-his-handwriting effect.

That's my first impression.  Doesn't change my vote, but if I ever need to hire a marketing firm, I'd definitely consider the one responsible for that pamphlet.

[Lunar]

Phil: Well these are official robocalls and mailers, not 527's.

There are many other robocalls, which Lunar's guess will cost over a million dollars, connecting Obama to partial-birth abortions and many more things....

I'm just curious about what they're trying to imply by this.

[Lunar]

I like the letters-cut-out-of-the-newspaper-so-you-can't-trace-the-kidnapper-by-his-handwriting effect.

That's my first impression.  Doesn't change my vote, but if I ever need to hire a marketing firm, I'd definitely consider the one responsible for that pamphlet.

I think it's important to note that *NO* ad is designed to change your vote

They are designed to stir feelings.

[angus]

exactly.

gotta take that partisan hat off and put the old art critic hat on.

The subliminally registered "Obama = terrorist" requires probably at least as much creativity as a big sheath of cellophane encircling the Reichstag, imho.  Then again, much art goes over my head.

[Lunar]

The cellophane - Reichstag reference is a bit over my  head.

And I'm not entirely sure if you could afford this advertising firm, haha.  My guess is that this mailing, plus the other ones going out in the last two or three days, probably cost over three million dollars for the RNC or whoever is paying.

These ads disturb my partisan feelings however.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I liked the one 527 ad I saw the other day with Obama's face and the words "More Welfare."

GOod... we need more welfare.

[Lunar]

Also: Observe what happens if you just read the yellow or really big text, something that most people will do.

[J. J.]

Obama is soft on terrorism; that's how I'd read it (though I'm not impressed with the linkage).

[Lunar]

Obama is soft on terrorism; that's how I'd read it (though I'm not impressed with the linkage).

That's the technical reading, not what the title question asks about the "subconscious."

Mailers on both sides have subtle implications.  The fact that you can't see any beyond the obvious text speaks volumes.

Obama's ads are almost as bad, but less dangerous-sounding?

[angus]

Obama is soft on terrorism; that's how I'd read it (though I'm not impressed with the linkage).

More importantly, what's the solution?

Although Mama bear may only want to coddle them and hold them to her breasts and give them a thorough tongue-lashing, Papa bear wanted to string them up and run bamboo shoots under their fingernails till they sung like pigeons.  Maybe you'll run Baby Bear for President in 2012.  Let's see how he does.  Maybe he's just what we need. 

Then again, we live in a society in which the selfish little blonde bitch who breaks into private houses (and steals their food and breaks their chairs) somehow manages to come off as sympathetic.  Admit it, you know you don't want to see her get mauled or eaten by the bears.

I blame the schools.

[J. J.]

Obama is soft on terrorism; that's how I'd read it (though I'm not impressed with the linkage).

That's the technical reading, not what the title question asks about the "subconscious."

Mailers on both sides have subtle implications.  The fact that you can't see any beyond the obvious text speaks volumes.

Obama's ads are almost as bad, but less dangerous-sounding?

Sorry, that's what I get out of it.  McCain will protect up, and Obama won't.  I'm not sure what else I'm suppose to get.

Obama is soft on terrorism; that's how I'd read it (though I'm not impressed with the linkage).

More importantly, what's the solution?

Although Mama bear may only want to coddle them and hold them to her breasts and give them a thorough tongue-lashing, Papa bear wanted to string them up and run bamboo shoots under their fingernails till they sung like pigeons.  Maybe you'll run Baby Bear for President in 2012.  Let's see how he does.  Maybe he's just what we need. 

Then again, we live in a society in which the selfish little blonde bitch who breaks into private houses (and steals their food and breaks their chairs) somehow manages to come off as sympathetic.  Admit it, you know you don't want to see her get mauled or eaten by the bears.

I blame the schools.

  Great post.

[Lunar]

Yeah, if you ignore the point of the thread, which was to look at the subconscious rather than the literal.


Hey, look at this recent event:
RIVERSIDE, Calif. (AP) - A San Bernardino County Republican group has distributed a newsletter picturing Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on a $10 bill adorned with a watermelon, ribs and a bucket of fried chicken.

But I'm sure that's just an event talking about financial discipline and eating habits!  It's easy to see what you want to, what I'm curious about is the underlying message... what someone would get out of it after spending four second glancing at it.  I think if they just red the non-white, non-small text, they would get something scary.

[J. J.]

Yeah, if you ignore the point of the thread, which was to look at the subconscious rather than the literal.


Hey, look at this recent event:
RIVERSIDE, Calif. (AP) - A San Bernardino County Republican group has distributed a newsletter picturing Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on a $10 bill adorned with a watermelon, ribs and a bucket of fried chicken.

But I'm sure that's just an event talking about financial discipline and eating habits!  It's easy to see what you want to, what I'm curious about is the underlying message... what someone would get out of it after spending four second glancing at it.  I think if they just red the non-white, non-small text, they would get something scary.

Sorry, but I don't know anyone, other than you, that thinks "Black = terrorism." 

As to your tangent, I'd have to see the material. 

[Lunar]

Yeah, if you ignore the point of the thread, which was to look at the subconscious rather than the literal.


Hey, look at this recent event:
RIVERSIDE, Calif. (AP) - A San Bernardino County Republican group has distributed a newsletter picturing Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on a $10 bill adorned with a watermelon, ribs and a bucket of fried chicken.

But I'm sure that's just an event talking about financial discipline and eating habits!  It's easy to see what you want to, what I'm curious about is the underlying message... what someone would get out of it after spending four second glancing at it.  I think if they just red the non-white, non-small text, they would get something scary.

Sorry, but I don't know anyone, other than you, that thinks "Black = terrorism." 

As to your tangent, I'd have to see the material. 

it's linked in the post.

And the subconscious connection is Arabic name = terrorist. duh.  Well, it's more complicated than that, but it has only a little to do with Obama being black.

[tik 🪀✨]

"The threat that we face is nowhere near as dire as it was in the Cold War. We shouldn't allow our politics to be driven by the fear of terrorism." -Barack Obama

If I was given this pamphlet and actually read it (I know that's not what this thread is about), this single quote what do the exact opposite of the distributor's intentions. But that's just me. I'm no Joe Plumber.

[Lunar]

...and here's another from the GOP:

[J. J.]

Last time I checked, Ayers was not a Muslim name.

I could not find the link to the San Bernardino flyer.

[angus]

All very clever Lunar.

Not unlike the actual photo in your signature, really.  It's all just actual information supplied in a very clever way.  I still say it's hard to beat the kidnapper's cut-out letters effect.  I love that.

"Four out of five dentists surveyed recommend Trident to their patients who chew gum."

Hard to verify that, so you could probably say anything, right?  But let's assume it's true.  But do they tell us how many, out of five, probably started off with, "Well, they shouldn't chew gum at all."  Of course they don't.  Nor do they tell us how hard the dentists had to be pressed to even get them to say anything good about gum.  Nor did they tell us where they found these dentists.  Was it truly a representative sample?  Maybe a thousand polls were done, and each poll polled five dentists, and mostly the best they could do was one or two out of five admitting that Trident was not as bad as, say, Juicy Fruit.  But in one poll they just got lucky.  An inhomogeneous sample, and that set of five dentists really truly did have four who'd admit that Trident was better than Juicy Fruit.  And did the dentists really offer the brand name Trident, unprompted?  Or was it more like, "Well, if you did have patients who really say that they must chew gum, would you recommend to them Juicy Fruit, a nasty sugar-filled gum which rots teeth, or would you recommend to them a sugar-free, fluoride-containing gum called Trident?"  

Figures don't lie.  Liars figure.  N'est-ce pas?

Nothing wrong with saying Bill Ayers is a weirdo.  Nothing wrong with a profile of Obama, dejected, head down.  Nothing wrong with the spelling of Terrorist or of Radical, either.  But together they have an erie effect, taken out of context like that.  Just like there's nothing wrong with your actual photo.  But isn't it great to take things out of context?  Admit it.  You are quite adept at this sort of imagery as well.  And your signature shows that you really don't have any questions about this sort of thing.  You understand very well the concept of evoking feelings and giving false impressions without actually making a false statement, I think.

I think we all do.  And all's fair in this game, don't you think?

[Lunar]

J.J. : Dude, I don't care anymore.  If you can't understand insinuations then whatevsky.  The beauty of Ayers IS that he's white, which removes the obvious racial element from the charge and only leave the subtlety underneath.

When people, a good number of people in the country (%), think Obama is a Muslim terrorist, you don't think Obama's name, history, and race have anything to do with it?  It's all about Obama being soft on terrorism?

[Lunar]

I think we all do.  And all's fair in this game, don't you think?

I'm torn on this.  I think it's fair to lie and pretend your opponent is a troop-hating liberal, is a Marxist, or wants destroy all social security.   When you're trying to imply that your opponent could be a terrorist who hates America, in the American context that's a pretty bold insinuation.  Like, borderline-dangerous.

[angus]

Fair enough.  But there's nothing new here.  In the 1800 campaign, Jefferson's campaign people advertised that Adams was a “hideous hermaphroditical character which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman.”  And if that wasn't enough, Adams carried things even further, asking voters, “Are you prepared to see your dwellings in flames… female chastity violated… children writhing on the pike?”  As if Jefferson was so inept at staving off foreign "terrorists" (Amerindians, French, and English) that the country was doomed if Adams wasn't elected. 

In the 1860 election materials, cartoons actually showed Democrat candidate John Breckenridge dressed as a foreign soldier trying to break into the White House. 

During the time of the 1928 election, the Holland Tunnel was being dug.  Herbert Hoover told everyone that Al Smith had commissioned a secret tunnel 3,500 miles long, from the Holland Tunnel to the Vatican in Rome, and that the Pope would have say in all presidential matters should Smith be elected.  How blatant an accusation of foreign subservience is that?

In the 1980 election, Democrats for Reagan commercials showed clips of Ted Kennedy famously saying, "No more American Hostages!  And no more Jimmy Carter!"  As if the two were inextricably linked, and as if Kennedy was secretly rooting for Reagan.

And there are thousands of other examples.  I agree that it's all very misleading and unseemly, and I hope that a well-educated voting populace can see through the attempts to mislead.  When I said "it's fair" I only meant that the precedent of accusing your opponent of being unpatriotic (or soft on terrorism or even subservient to foreign masters) had been set long before these two were born.  I hardly think this will go down as one of the nastiest campaigns in the history of US Presidential elections.

[J. J.]

J.J. : Dude, I don't care anymore.  If you can't understand insinuations then whatevsky.  The beauty of Ayers IS that he's white, which removes the obvious racial element from the charge and only leave the subtlety underneath.

When people, a good number of people in the country (%), think Obama is a Muslim terrorist, you don't think Obama's name, history, and race have anything to do with it?  It's all about Obama being soft on terrorism?

His name, especially his middle name, yes.  Indonesia, yes, if they know and realize it is the largest Muslim country on the planet (most folks don't).  That Ayers is somehow Muslim or Indonesian, no, I don't see that from the ad.

[Lunar]

Fair enough.  But there's nothing new here.  In the 1800 campaign, Jefferson's campaign people advertised that Adams was a “hideous hermaphroditical character which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman.”  And if that wasn't enough, Adams carried things even further, asking voters, “Are you prepared to see your dwellings in flames… female chastity violated… children writhing on the pike?”  As if Jefferson was so inept at staving off foreign "terrorists" (Amerindians, French, and English) that the country was doomed if Adams wasn't elected. 

In the 1860 election materials, cartoons actually showed Democrat candidate John Breckenridge dressed as a foreign soldier trying to break into the White House. 

During the time of the 1928 election, the Holland Tunnel was being dug.  Herbert Hoover told everyone that Al Smith had commissioned a secret tunnel 3,500 miles long, from the Holland Tunnel to the Vatican in Rome, and that the Pope would have say in all presidential matters should Smith be elected.  How blatant an accusation of foreign subservience is that?

In the 1980 election, Democrats for Reagan commercials showed clips of Ted Kennedy famously saying, "No more American Hostages!  And no more Jimmy Carter!"  As if the two were inextricably linked, and as if Kennedy was secretly rooting for Reagan.

And there are thousands of other examples.  I agree that it's all very misleading and unseemly, and I hope that a well-educated voting populace can see through the attempts to mislead.  When I said "it's fair" I only meant that the precedent of accusing your opponent of being unpatriotic (or soft on terrorism or even subservient to foreign masters) had been set long before these two were born.  I hardly think this will go down as one of the nastiest campaigns in the history of US Presidential elections.

Haha, thanks for the history lesson.  The Kennedy ad was of course unfair, but it didn't really border on dangerous.  The 19th century examples are almost equivalents of this, but because mass media didn't exist then, the advertising reached a very low saturation level.

Sure, some minority is always convinced that the Democrat is a communist or the Republican is a war-monger.  But terrorist possibly a Muslim terrorist carries connotations that make Obama a lot less safe at rallies...