Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
American Behavioral Scientist
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by DEVLIN, L. P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Contrasts in Presidential Campaign Commercials of 2000

L. PATRICK DEVLIN

University of Rhode Island

This article examines television advertising used during the 2000 presidential campaign. Based on interviews with the advertising creators and on repeated viewings by the author and his graduate and undergraduate students, it describes, analyzes, and evaluates the ads. The study reveals massive spending, totaling $240 million, with party spending superceding candidate spending, Bush outspending Gore, and differences in when and where ads were placed. Bush using fewer ads had primarily positive ads showing he was a different kind of Republican. Ads on his behalf by the Republican National Committee were mostly negative. In contrast, Gore and the Democratic National Committee aired many more ads and many state-specific ads. His ads were mostly comparative and negative. Third-party-candidate ads, although innovatively humorous, were not a factor in 2000, whereas political action committee ads were more dominant.

American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 44, No. 12, 2338-2369 (2001)
DOI: 10.1177/00027640121958366
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 American Behavioral ScientistHome page
L. P. Devlin
Contrasts in Presidential Campaign Commercials of 2004
American Behavioral Scientist, October 1, 2005; 49(2): 279 - 313.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 American Behavioral ScientistHome page
L. L. Kaid
Effects of Political Information in the 2000 Presidential Campaign: Comparing Traditional Television and Internet Exposure
American Behavioral Scientist, January 1, 2003; 46(5): 677 - 691.
[Abstract] [PDF]