Poll: Do you find this Romney ad or this Santorum ad more effective? (with videos)

It’s not Friday yet, but I wanted to do a poll about these two political ads. Which one do you find more effective or persuasive?

Option 1:

Or option 2:

Now, the poll:

After watching both ads, I have a better impression of:

  • Neither (41 Votes)
  • Rick Santorum (21 Votes)
  • Mitt Romney (18 Votes)
  • Both (0 Votes)

Total Voters: 80

Loading ... Loading ...

Elaborate in the comments thread. And, please — try to refrain from, I hate both of those guys and always will! Please be as objective as you can; I’m truly curious about this.

– By Kyle Wingfield

Find me on Facebook or follow me on Twitter

96 comments Add your comment

Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!

February 15th, 2012
11:32 am

Santorum’s was funnier (especially with the Romney lookalike), but from an ad perspective, the visual takes away from the message Santorum is trying to convey. The music is distracting to the point where it drowns out the voice-over, and you’re watching rather than listening anyway due to the visuals.

Romney’s ad was clear, concise and on message. You can’t go wrong in the Republican primary by tying your opponent to Hillary Clinton.

Do what??????

February 15th, 2012
11:33 am

Whoever beats Obama. That’s who I’m for.

Odis

February 15th, 2012
11:44 am

*EPIC FAIL* on both their parts.

Jefferson

February 15th, 2012
11:46 am

Selling soap.

Ayn Rant

February 15th, 2012
11:47 am

It’s a heck of a way to choose a candidate for President. Neither of the ads is reliably informative, but the attack on Santorum is more convincing than the attack on Romney. My guess is that Romney’s backers can afford a better ad agency.

The ads are purely negative. Neither touches on issues that are important to the American people. The backers of President Obama need not spend a cent to wreak devastation on these guys; they’re doing it to themselves.

Baker

February 15th, 2012
11:48 am

The Anti-Santorum should mention that he voted against Right to Work. Did he not? Santorum is a socially conservative, pro-Union guy. If the Dems hadn’t gone off the rails about social issues, he’d be a Dem.

The anti-Mitt ad does nothing except show how good this Tom Ridge look-alike is with that mud gun. Saying the other guy is slinging mud is totally useless. They all sling mud and everyone knows it, poor use of 30 seconds.

Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!

February 15th, 2012
11:49 am

Do what????, Odis and Jefferson, really? That’s all you take away from them? Did you not even bother to READ what Kyle requested?

A little objectivity would go a long way with some of you people.

Don't Tread

February 15th, 2012
11:50 am

I’ll have to agree with Tiberius – Santorum’s was funnier (gotta love the paintball gun loaded with “mud balls”), but neither ad is persuasive enough to make me vote one way or the other.

St Simons - we're on Island time

February 15th, 2012
11:50 am

more effective at making me throw up in my mouth a little,

well, the Rmoney one.

Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!

February 15th, 2012
11:53 am

Ayn, they are ads for a PRIMARY, not a general election. Since the majority of voters in the GOP primary rightly believe that any one of the candidates could do a better job of governing regarding the economy and job creation than the current Disaster-in-Chief, why focus on that in the primary?

You compare and contrast your DIFFERENCES, not your similarities in an ad, Ayn.

ImAlwaysRight

February 15th, 2012
11:55 am

I agree with Don’t Tread. While the Santorum ad was funnier (and thus more watchable), it didn’t really say anything useful. While the Romney add was substantive, it obviously slanted the facts in Romney’s favor, so it’s not really an honest portrayal of Santorum. If one of these guys would start focusing their ads on Obama instead of “the other guy”, they might actually stand a chance!

Mash

February 15th, 2012
11:57 am

I am a Santorum supporter, but between those two ads above I’d say that the Romney ad is better and more effective.

I hope Rick has better ads than that.

DannyX

February 15th, 2012
11:59 am

“And, please — try to refrain from, I hate both of those guys and always will!”

and this too…”Whoever beats Obama. That’s who I’m for.”

I think Romney’s ad was more effective, it points out the uncontrolled spending that occurred during the Bush years. Republicans talk about Obama’s uncontrolled spending but have given a pass to their incumbents and politicians who are just as responsible for our huge deficit. Santorum voted for the unfunded wars, Bush tax cuts and unfunded Medicare Part D, why should he get a pass?

This doesn’t however give me a better impression of Romney, just makes me think his ad is more effective.

Jefferson

February 15th, 2012
12:00 pm

The ads are much like the ads used to sell washing powder to women.

Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!

February 15th, 2012
12:03 pm

If you look up the definition of hopeless in the dictionary, Jefferson’s picture is right next to it.

Jefferson

February 15th, 2012
12:12 pm

Emotional response, much like the target of the ad.

Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!

February 15th, 2012
12:14 pm

“Emotional response, much like the target of the ad.”

Unthinking partisan response, much like the poster.

Kyle Wingfield

February 15th, 2012
12:16 pm

All: Santorum does have other, more issues-based ads. See here and here. Fwiw.

The reason I wanted to pair these two ads — and I didn’t want to influence votes by mentioning this, but I think we’re far enough down in the comments thread now not to worry about that — is that the Santorum ad represents a different tactic for answering the Romney attack ads. Newt got angry after Iowa and Florida, where Romney belted him with negative ad after negative ad. That didn’t work. According to a story to which I linked yesterday, the Romney campaign thinks Santorum will react to the negativity by “whining.” Mocking Romney definitely isn’t whining.

As I wrote in the OP, I’m genuinely interested to see whether this tactic of Santorum’s works — and whether we’ll see it play out here, too, as Super Tuesday approaches.

Gordon

February 15th, 2012
12:19 pm

I don’t have to look at the ads…the Romney one is more effective. He is the only person that can beat Obama, and that is critical.

Jefferson

February 15th, 2012
12:36 pm

Look Dick Tracy, if the President ran the same ad he too would be selling soap.

Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!

February 15th, 2012
12:38 pm

Agreed that mocking isn’t whining, Kyle, but mocking isn’t a great strategy, either (at least in my mind).

I still think that Santorum is the current “flavor of the month”, and hasn’t had the media scrutiny or the focus of Romney just yet.

But he will.

Pizza

February 15th, 2012
12:50 pm

Great test market for future Obama ads, and the material is already written.

Road Scholar

February 15th, 2012
12:56 pm

Santorums was more entertaining and I will remember it more and talk with others if they have seen it. Romney’s is just negative soundbites;it turned nme off.

How about discussing YOUR OWN POLICIES and tell the people why it is superior….ya’ know…the facts. How novel that would be!

Aquagirl

February 15th, 2012
12:59 pm

Mocking Romney definitely isn’t whining.

Sorry to disagree, Kyle. The Santorum ad kinda screamed “he’s a meanypannnnnts!” to me. Also I’m with Tiberius, the music is distracting. I think it’s Sousa, it’s jarring and doesn’t fit well with the ad. Maybe they were trying to use circus-type music but it seems a poor choice. That’s stuff you hear at a 4th of July celebration. And portraying yourself as a 2-D target? Why does Santorum want to be seen as a cardboard cutout?

I didn’t even notice the Obamacare reference until I re-watched the ad, they really need to pick one message per ad and stay with it.

The Romney ad seemed more effective, critiquing somebody’s voting record in a slanted way usually = win. Not terribly original but it’s used often because it works.

Road Scholar

February 15th, 2012
1:02 pm

I guess we know how Santorem stands on gun control. Is this why Santorum is asking for Secret Service protection? I wonder about his views on targeted assassination?

Kyle Wingfield

February 15th, 2012
1:14 pm

Rest assured, Pizza, there is plenty of anti-Obama ad copy in the can at this point.

@@

February 15th, 2012
1:15 pm

None of the ads are effective. Voters are worried about the future, not the past.

Ads offering the candidate’s solutions would be more effective…the BOLDER the solutions, the more notable the change. Anything short of BOLD would just be managing the chaos.

Now where have I heard THAT before?

schnirt

JF McNamara

February 15th, 2012
1:15 pm

Option 1 had at least had a coherent message. Option 2 was also negative but it was just trying (emphasize trying) to be funny in doing so…

Also, there is no way to actually answer your question in the poll. I like Option 1, but how I feel about either candidate was unchanged.

Kyle Wingfield

February 15th, 2012
1:24 pm

Aquagirl: As one who is intimately familiar with the sounds of crybabies — er, crying babies — these days, I disagree. :-)

JF: Then I think the option you’re looking for is “neither.” If it didn’t change your impression, it didn’t change your impression.

Do what??????

February 15th, 2012
1:24 pm

“Did you not even bother to READ what Kyle requested?

A little objectivity would go a long way with some of you people.”

If you don’t like what I typed, ignore. It’s as simple as that.

Make sense?

Do what??????

February 15th, 2012
1:25 pm

If all of you goobers need ads to tell you what to think, something is seriously wrong with you.

Whoever gets the nomination is who I’m voting for.

Do what??????

February 15th, 2012
1:26 pm

I think it’s funny that people, who won’t vote for any GOP candidate, have an opinion about those ads.

Kyle Wingfield

February 15th, 2012
1:28 pm

Btw, the early results — very early, but still — show a virtual tie between the two. Imo, that’s a win for Santorum: Romney, being more of a known quantity at this point, has to bring him down.

Dusty

February 15th, 2012
1:31 pm

They spent money on this stuff?

Romney’s was for well dressed “thinking man” who would support only the noble Romney.

Santorum’s was for “everyman” who loves his family, his faith, honesty and a gun to back it up.

Politics has turned into a semi-circus. I’m not buying a ticket YET for either performance.

@@

February 15th, 2012
1:34 pm

I prefer ads like this one.

Aquagirl

February 15th, 2012
1:35 pm

As one who is intimately familiar with the sounds of crybabies — er, crying babies — these days, I disagree.

Can’t argue with your expertise there. And lord knows, I would never insult your children by comparing them with politicians or political operatives. Talk about a banishment offense! :)

Old timer

February 15th, 2012
1:51 pm

I just voted and will not watch any ads!

Bryan G.

February 15th, 2012
1:52 pm

The Santorum ad made me laugh. The Romney ad seemed like spin, so I probably preferred the Santorum ad.

ragnar danneskjold

February 15th, 2012
1:53 pm

Thanks for publishing the ads, Kyle. I watch only O’Reilly, so I was unlikely to see any of the negative ads everyone is talking about.

I suppose both of these fit the definition of “negative” ads. I was predisposed to vote for Rick Santorum, and nothing here affects that bias. I appreciate humor, so Santorum’s “mudball” commercial was worthy.

Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!

February 15th, 2012
1:58 pm

“Btw, the early results — very early, but still — show a virtual tie between the two. Imo, that’s a win for Santorum:”

I think you’re reading a bit too much into those results for an early conclusion, Kyle. Limited (and extremely biased) audience on this blog.

@@

February 15th, 2012
2:02 pm

A blast from the past…Fred Thompson’s response to Michael Moore.

“A mental institution…something you might wanna think about, Michael.”

Priceless!

Do what??????

February 15th, 2012
2:02 pm

” Limited (and extremely biased) audience on this blog.”

So what’s wrong with that?

Do what??????

February 15th, 2012
2:03 pm

@@

Reminds me of when Zell Miller went off on Chris “Obozo gives me a tingle up my leg” Matthews after his 2004 GOP convention speech.

ragnar danneskjold

February 15th, 2012
2:05 pm

Just read the comments, appreciate the statement of purpose @ 12:18, good argument. Friend Aquagirl questioned the use of a cut-out in the Santorum ad – that strikes me as a clever effect, a subtle allegation that Romney is firing at a false image of Santorum and not at the real person.

Ultimately the Santorum ad is challenging Romney’s character through use of hyperbole – I doubt anyone will actually perceive Romney uses criminal tactics to take out his opposition. But the focus on “hit” tactics is memorable. At this writing, merely five minutes after viewing, the Santorum ad – the more recent one viewed – is far more memorable. From the Romney ad I remember only some mention of the Bridge to Nowhere, as if Santorum is the person who stuck that earmark in there, a patently false suggestion. Reinforces the clever Santorum ad, at least for me.

Herman Cain..

February 15th, 2012
2:06 pm

Republicans (Thugpulicans, TeaPublicans): Klanland – “We have a problem – with our selection of 2012 idiots, and there are no back-ups”.
lmao

ragnar danneskjold

February 15th, 2012
2:08 pm

You can always spot leftist comments – they have no substance, only epithets.

TRUTH

February 15th, 2012
2:10 pm

Guess the ads only appeal to their base. bitingatthebitforoneoftheseclownstobenamedthenomineesotheycangetblastedinthegeneralelection. Whew….

OBAMA 2012

Kyle Wingfield

February 15th, 2012
2:13 pm

Tiberius: No doubt, it’s too early to draw a conclusion. I only meant to suggest that such a result, after a larger number of votes, would be a win for Santorum.

Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!

February 15th, 2012
2:14 pm

“So what’s wrong with that?”

Deriving ANY conclusion, given the small sample size and the rather extreme biases on both sides of the political spectrum who frequent this blog, is a fool’s errand. Personally, I think Kyle (in this instance) is reading into this what he hoped to read into it; that is, a Santorum nomination (given his own rather conservative bias).

Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!

February 15th, 2012
2:16 pm

Never believe anyone who uses the word “Truth” in their blog name. It is indicative of them trying too hard to convince you of that which isn’t really true, but is merely their own fervent belief.