Almost All Of Hillary’s TV Ads Had One Thing In Common That No One Noticed Until Now

Almost All Of Hillarys TV Ads Had One Thing In Common That No One Noticed Until Now

A new study, conducted by the Wesleyan Media Project, evidenced how Hillary Clinton devoted an enormous amount of television advertising during the 2016 presidential campaign on personal characteristics and a much smaller amount on actual policy — despite the left regularly dubbing her a “policy wonk.”

In fact, the study published on Monday found that Clinton’s TV advertising had the least amount of policy since at least the 2000 election, the Washington Free Beacon reported.

The study found that just 25 percent of Clinton’s ads focused on policy with more than 60 percent “solely about candidate characteristics.”

While Clinton suffered an epic loss in 2016, she also has the dubious distinction of being the only candidate, from any party, to spend less than 40 percent of their TV advertising focusing on policy since 2000.

“In a typical campaign, ads that focus on candidate character have comprised less than 20 percent of total ad airings, and in some years like 2000, there were hardly any ads that focused on the candidates’ character,” the study read.

In another example of the fake news from the liberal mainstream media, they framed Clinton as a policy wonk, but often criticized Trump for supposedly lacking substance — despite him regularly discussing policy. Wesleyan’s study provided concrete evidence of this, as their study found that over 70 percent of Trump’s television advertisements “contained at least some discussion of policy.”

“The majority of the Clinton campaign’s negative advertising attacked Trump’s characteristics and personality,” the study found, and added that “fewer than 10 percent of ads attacking Trump focused on his policies whereas about 90 percent was focused on Trump as an individual.”

As the Wesleyan study found, Clinton’s strategy was a loser:

Evidence suggests that negativity in advertising can have a backlash effect on the sponsor (Pinkleton 1997) and that personally-focused, trait-based negative messages (especially those that are uncivil) tend to be seen as less fair, less informative, and less important than more substantive, policy-based messaging (Fridkin and Geer 1994; Brooks and Geer 2007).

In stark contrast to any prior presidential cycle for which we have Kantar Media/CMAG data, the Clinton campaign overwhelmingly chose to focus on Trump’s personality and fitness for office (in a sense, doubling down on the news media’s focus), leaving very little room for discussion in advertising of the reasons why Clinton herself was the better choice.

Trump, on the other hand, provided explicit policy-based contrasts, highlighting his strengths and Clinton’s weaknesses, a strategy that research suggests voters find helpful in decision-making. These strategic differences may have meant that Clinton was more prone to voter backlash and did nothing to overcome the media’s lack of focus on Clinton’s policy knowledge, especially for residents of Michigan and Wisconsin, in particular, who were receiving policy-based (and specifically economically-focused) messaging from Trump.

But, you guys, the Russians! Sexism! Trump!!!

Nope, Clinton lost because she was a miserable candidate who ran a garbage campaign.

Like us on Facebook – USA Liberty News