319Much like the “Daisy” ad, modern campaign ads are short, with arresting
images that often use photomontages and bold text to engage a distracted citizenry.
Content varies depending on who is running the ads. Table 9.2 gives data from
campaign ads in the 2016 presidential general-election campaign from candidates,
parties, and interest groups (the top three from each side are listed). These data
show that the Trump campaign spent significantly less than the Clinton campaign.
The table also shows a striking difference in ad content: while the candidates ran
a mix of positive and negative ads, ads run by political parties and interest groups
were uniformly negative.The “Daisy” ad from the 1964
presidential campaign interspersed
images of a child in a field of flowers
and footage of a nuclear detonation.
It was broadcast only once but caused
much controversy—and helped to
crystallize doubts about Republican
candidate Barry Goldwater.TABLE
9.2Organization Spending (Millions) Number of Ads Positive Ads (%)
Candidates Clinton campaign $219 231,241 36
Trump campaign 77 68,805 57
Parties Republican National Committee 8.3 30,636 Mostly negative
Democratic National Committee 1.8 475 Mostly negative
Republican
GroupsNational Rifle Association 9.4 9,23 6 Mostly negative
Reform America 1.4 2,051 Mostly negative
45 Committee 2.1 2,022 Mostly negative
Democratic
GroupsPriorities USA Action 75 76,96 5 Mostly negative
Next Gen 11 10,437 Mostly negative
Service Employees Union 1 590 Mostly negativeSource: Calculated by authors from data available at Wesleyan Media Project, mediaproject.wesleyan.edu (accessed 11/7/16).Electoral campaignsCampaign Advertising by Major Spenders in
the 2016 Presidential Election
The table shows total spending and the total number of ads, as well as the percentage of positive ads, as
paid for directly by the candidates, their parties, and Republican PACs and Democratic PACs.Full_10_APT_64431_ch09_296-339.indd 319 16/11/18 1:44 PM