Two polls indicate that Bush's latest campaign ads aren't having the intended effect.
The first, from the University of Pennsylvania's National Annenberg Election Survey. 3/5-11. MoE 3%:
Have you seen, heard or read about George W. Bush's new television ads for his re-election campaign?
Yes, seen ads 39%
Yes, heard or read 21
No 39
(Asked of half sample A) As you may know, one of those television ads shows pictures of the damage in New York when terrorists attacked on September 11th, 2001. How appropriate do you think it is to show these pictures in the ads?
All GOP Dem Ind Con Mod Lib
Very appropriate 18% 41% 8% 12% 30% 10% 12%
Somewhat appropriate 23 28 15 29 28 24 16
Somewhat inappropriate 18 15 19 19 20 18 18
Very inappropriate 36 13 54 35 16 46 50
(Asked of half sample B) As you may know, one of those television ads shows a picture of firefighters carrying a body covered with the American flag at the site of the September 11th terrorist attacks in New York. How appropriate do you think it is to show this picture in the ads?
All GOP Dem Ind Con Mod Lib
Very appropriate 14% 30% 4% 13% 19% 13% 8%
Somewhat appropriate 24 35 16 21 31 23 11
Somewhat inappropriate 20 19 20 21 16 24 19
Very inappropriate 34 8 53 36 22 34 53
So, if the purpose of the ad was to rally the base, then they did okay (even though nearly 1/3 of Republicans thought the ads were inappropriate to some degree). But if they were designed to bolster the president amongst independents, the ad fare poorly.
Meanwhile, American Research Group did a dial poll of the "First 100 Days" ad, better known as the Muhammad Horton Ad. And the results weren't so hot either:
Panel members did not find this spot to be engaging, memorable, or persuasive. Repeat viewing did not improve any evaluations.
This spot demands too much of the viewer's attention. The middle panel above is a excellent example of an ad asking too much of the viewer. There are 8 separate elements in the frame that require attention. The demands of the spot negate the impact of the final frames as panel members were unable to play back any reasons that John Kerry is wrong on taxes or wrong on defense after viewing the ad.
The positive Bush-Cheney spot that is running with this spot had similar test results among panel members. This positive spot has 21 distinct scenes within 30 seconds and panel members had a difficult time playing back the ad. This positive spot also demands too much of the viewer's attention.
I particularly liked the part about: "panel members were unable to play back any reasons that John Kerry is wrong on taxes or wrong on defense after viewing the ad". In other words, that's $16 million the Bush campaign could've spent in better ways.
The Bush campaign claims otherwise, though given the results of these two independent survey's, the campaign's spin is probably nothing more than that -- spin:
It was a risky move for the Bush team to come out so early against their opponent, but his re-election campaign believes that candidates like Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton won their second terms by engaging early. Those who didn't-like Bush's father-lost. Also, the Bush team felt that the risks it took in using images of 9/11 in the first round of ads, paid off. Bush campaign advisers say surveys of focus groups done after the ads aired registered approval among swing voters, and internal polls showed Bush's favorable rating increased 4 to 5 percentage points in states where the spots ran. The ads also spurred $120,000 in online donations-a modest amount but it included the biggest one-day haul yet for the Republicans over the Internet-quickened the pace of volunteer sign-ups, and may have looked more timely in the wake of the terrorist attack in Madrid last week.
I have no doubt about their measly $120,000 haul. The ads were fodder for the base (much the same role played by Kerry's "off the mic" comments). But I sincerely doubt their internals would show such a markedly different result than UPenn's or ARG's results.
