By the time you read this Editor’s View, the Nov. 8 General Election will be in the rear-view mirror.

The counting of ballots, however, is not over, and the declaration of winners may extend in some cases well into the future, if lawsuits are filed in the courts.

The campaigning by candidates is over and, thankfully, so are the televised paid political ads.

The purpose of an ad, any ad, is to convince the viewer or reader that a particular product, in this case a candidate, is the best to buy.

When I was in high school, a class on advertising stressed how to analyze ads, how to tear them apart and how to ask the appropriate questions.

If an ad for a specific clothes detergent emphasized 50% more, we had to ask 50% more than what. The company’s previous product? A competitor’s product? How was the 50% more determined?

Most product ads stress the positive attributes of that particular product - whiter clothes, more laundry loads, saving money.

The ads are colorful, happy, and even funny.

Remember “Where’s the beef?”

Unfortunately, in this General Election, many of the PAC ads and ads sponsored by political opponents stressed fear and the apocalyptic consequences of electing their opponent.

Many of the televised ads were in stark, depressing black and white.

The end of democracy - oh, my - was often a theme of ads favoring the candidates against their opponents.

Former President Barack Obama, supporting Josh Shapiro, said “Democracy, itself, is on the ballot... We can’t turn a blind eye to Nationalism.”

“Stop the destruction of our country,” former President Donald Trump stated, while stumping for the candidate he supported.

Even Oprah entered the political fray, with an ad supporting John Fetterman, not her longtime acquaintance Mehmet Oz.

One ad even called Oz a snake. Really, have we sunk that low?

Is this what American politics has been reduced to, fourth grade name calling?

Another ad said if you voted for Congresswoman Susan Wild, D-7th, it would make you “less safe,” and noted she gave “stimulus checks to prisoners.”

Guess what, voters, there are 435 members of the U.S. House and 100 members of the U.S. Senate; if prisoners received stimulus checks, Wild did not do it alone.

I found one ray of hope - the televised ads with the candidates speaking about themselves and the issues they support.

Oz discussed strengthening Social Security, dealing with the economy, solving problems, compassion and crime issues.

Fetterman spoke about the community and funding the police and mental health issues.

Wild discussed the Chips Act, and stressed her bipartisan participation.

Does anyone reading this opinion piece notice the difference between the two types of ads?

No?

Well, the candidates speaking as themselves discussed the issues and their positive aspects.

The ads by PACs and “leadership funds” were on the attack and tended to be rather nasty.

My suggestion for future elections - campaign managers and candidates need to emphasize the positive.

Lay off the name calling and talk of an apocalypse.

Stop fear mongering and spreading hate.

Ideally, political ads should just be the candidate and, perhaps his family, discussing a list of issues important to the electorate.

Nothing more, nothing less.

If a candidate did something illegal or morally inappropriate, that is for the pages of the local newspaper and the 6 o’clock news, not political ads.

Deb Palmieri

editor

Parkland Press

Northwestern Press