- This article explores the various choices the Affordable Care Act gives Americans and which choice influenced their decision the most. For example, it shows that 41% of Americans said that the monetary amount of the premium affected their choice of a plan. The study also showed that 4% of those surveyed had no idea what they were doing.
- The Commonwealth Fund Affordable Care Act Tracking Survey, March–May 2015, was conducted by SSRS from March 9, 2015, to May 3, 2015. The survey consisted of 16-minute telephone interviews in English or Spanish and was conducted among a random, nationally representative sample of 4,881 adults, ages 19 to 64, living in the United States. Overall, 2,203 interviews were conducted on landline telephones and 2,678 interviews on cellular phones, including 1,729 with respondents who lived in households with no landline telephone access.
- a.) How do these numbers compare to those of private health care providers? b.) How do these numbers compare to other country’s plans?
Over the course of the semester one thing has really stuck with me. I need to pay more attention to what is going on in the political world. Before we started talking about the Blunt/Carnahan campaigns I had no clue about it. Now it’s partially due to me not being from Missouri; therefore not really caring about who gets elected from this state but I still should have known what was going on. I only signed up for this class because my advisor told me to take it from the 4000 level credit but I am glad that I did because it has been really interesting listening to what everyone has had to say.
As a side note for anyone who actually reads what I write. I did notice that I spelled a couple of words wrong in my last post. I just forgot to hit spell check before I published it.
This ad seems almost like a response to Robin Carnahan’s ad that I did my last blog post on. He is also featured on a farm and talks about hard hitting issues. The strange thing about this ad is that the St. Louis Post-Dispatch’s ( stltoday.com) website added pop ups via YouTube. They are very strange bits of information that pop up in accordance to what Blunt is saying. For example at one point in the ad he says that his grandmothers were one room school teachers and a box pops up that say “one room school houses were common in the Ozarks until the late 1950s when they merged with larger school districts”. THroughout the ad you are constantly distracted by these pop ups and by the end of it you forgot what he said. I cannot tell if what the Post-Dispatch added is supposed to help Blunt’s image, or hurt it. The only indication of a bias is at the end one of the pop ups reminds us that Blunt forgot to say in the ad what position he was running for. This bit of information makes me think that the pop ups with random facts are meant to parallel the random facts that Blunt says about his life. The things that he says in this ad campaign lead to the same thoughts that you had while these pointless popu ups came on the screen. Overall you think, why do I need to know what your grandmother’s did, what does that have to do with the issues.
Other than the pop ups that make you analyze the ad more than you may have originally I found the video to be boring and aimed at a very particular audience. Wives and children seem to be the obvious audience of choice as Blunt references schools about three or for times. He also is trying to illustrate the fact that he has experience, and by not staying what position he is running for I begin to assume that he trying to say:
you already know what I’m running for, I have no need to tell you, that’s how long I’ve been around!
Overall this ad is not much different from the ad I analyzed last week except for the fact that the candidates are different. Both ads seemed to pay attention to less meaningful issues and pointless facts. One of the main differences would be the influence of the media on this ad, and how the St. Louis Post Dispatch made you analyze your view on the ad and its content by giving you more pointless information about Roy Blunt’s life.
For this blog I chose an advertisement that talked about Robin Carnahan. It was approved by Roy Blunt and did not talk well about Carnahan. The ad calls her actions phony and misleading. It talks about how she will say anything. The advertisement says she rubber stamps the Obama Agenda. I was not familiar with the term rubber stamping but according to Websters New World Dictionary, it means to approve or endorse in a routine manner, without thought – *rubber stamp – 2. [Colloq.] a) a person, bureau, legislature, etc., that approves or endorses something in a routine manner, without thought, b) any routine approval.” In this context it is saying that Robin Carnahan rubber stamps Obama’s policies and bills. She might not have much power but she wants to make the current president happy so she endorses what he endorses. The ad mentions the “disastrous stimulus plan,” government-run health care, and new energy tax. It shows all three of these things in a negative light. It shows Obama in a negative light because these are things being done while he is in office. The ad makes a correlation with Obama’s bad decisions as a democrat and the fact that Carnahan is too a democrat. The ad is getting viewers to compare Obama’s negative choices with Carnahan’s future choices.
The main message given by this advertisement is that Carnahan has not made good decisions in the past and will not in the future. The current administration is not acting appropriately and instead they are making negative decisions. If Carnahan gets elected into office these negative decisions and outcomes will continue. Since the advertisement is approved by Blunt there is an underlying message that he will do better if he were in office and that people should consider him instead.
The intended audience is voters and people who pay attention to politics. It also might appeal to republicans because it is bashing Carnahan, a democrat.
I believe that this commercial is effective. People are worried about the current administration and that shows because Obama’s approval rate has dropped since he’s been in office. This happens for a number of different reasons as we talked about in class but it still shows that many people are not happy with the way things are going. Even if people do not pay attention to the current administration it is still effective. It puts the notion in their mind that things are not going well and there needs to be a change. A change meaning there needs to be a republican elected as the Missouri Senator. The ad does a good job at making negative correlations between Obama and Carnahan without looking like a low, mud-slinging commercial.
The commercial I used for blog #2 was an advertisement for Carnahan talking poorly about Roy Blunt. The ads both talked about negative previous decisions. In blog #2 the commercial does not make correlations between the current political administration because there is not a republican in office. It also talks about different issues than the ad I used in this blog. The ad bashing Carnahan talks about issues such as the health care plan, the stimulus plan and energy tax. The ad bashing Blunt talks about big oil companies, clean energy and new jobs. The ads differ because it talks about Blunt saying no to things and Carnahan saying yes to things. The Blunt ad that Carnahan approved starts out happy and it looks like it is going to praise a certain candidate. Instead it takes a turn and starts attacking Blunt. In the Carnahan ad that Blunt approved, the ad starts attacking Carnahan right away.
Overall this ad differs from the ad I used in blog #2. They are alike in the fact that they both attack an opposing candidate but they attack in different ways. I believe the ad is effective in many ways.
I found this ad on Roy Blunt’s YouTube page. It was rather buried, they are not on the main page you have to look through the entire library to find them, but they are by far the most entertaining in my opinion. I honestly thought that Missouri political ads were better than this, but I guess not.
What isn’t going on in this ad. Robin Carnahan as Robin from Batman and Harry Reid is playing Batman. I guess they couldn’t come up with a super villain evil enough for Nancy Pelosi. In this episode Rubber Stamp Robin is helping Batman push health care reform through the House with the help of Nancy Pelosi, almost like guilt by association. My favorite line:
Holy Medicare cuts Batman and Nancy! You crammed that bill right down their throats!
I don’t think that these ads have aired on television as entertaining as these are. I think if these were to air on television I think that they might gain national attention. I could see SNL bring back the Ambiguously Gay Duo for this one!
I’m not sure if Blunt is trying to target children with this ad, but maybe a younger generation who surfs the web more than they watch television.
The main message of this ad is that Robin Carnahan will rubber stamp the Obama and Pelosi agenda if elected. Another message in this ad is the health care issue. Showing that Carnahan was pro health care and everything that Pelosi and Obama.
Is the ad effective? To an extent yes I think so. It definitely grabs your attention, whether it is for the right reasons or not is up for debate.
This ad is very different from Blog 2. Not only was the first a Robin Carnahan ad, but that was a serious ad about health care.
If you want to watch the next episode of the adventures of Rubber Stamp Robin here it is.
Framing is loosely defined as a way a story is told that makes the reader sway towards one arguement more so than the other.
This article about Blunt/Carnahan seems very unbiased, but when you look at some specific information given it seems the author is trying to make us readers unknowlingly think a certain way. Although article’s title Roy Blunt outraises Robin Carnahan in the Second Quarter” makes it sound like Blunt is succeeding in the race. But as the story goes on to tell how Blunt’s fundraising money is from PAC, while Carnahan’s is more from individuals we see the writer leaning towards Carnahan. As quotes from different specialist say that it will be a close race, they seem to hint to the fact that Carnahan is the underdog.
I think it’s close, and Carnahan could win if she runs a really good campaign and Obama gets a few breaks on the economy.
Overall it seems like this article is trying to stay unbiased, but because of the information given it seems that Carnahan is portrayed as the ‘people’s’ choice for governor, while Blunt is supported by ‘big business’.
An article posted today by Steve Kraske at the Kansas City Star, discussed how GOP candidate Roy Blunt is leading Robin Carnahan by 13 percentage points in the Missouri Senate Race. These numbers were computed by an Opinion Research Corporation, which called Missouri residents by telephone. The article also focused on the fact that Carnahan has not campaigned enough in the Kansas City Region, which is usually a Democrat hot spot. As far as episodic framing goes the article focuses on Carnahans short-comings in the U.S. Senate race. It framed Blunt as the would-be winner in the upcoming election, due to Carnahans association with the Obama administration. For thematic frames, the article is focused on the upcoming mid-term elections which will effect our country as a whole. Also, the article discussed the dropping approval of the democrats in suburban Missouri, which will effect the election. These mid-term elections have received more air-time than any other mid-term election I have seen, and therefore each Senate race is highly important.