As we’ve seen in the last two presidential elections, political advertising campaigns have become downright merciless. Attack ads, Twitter wars and fact-checking social media posts have all become the norm in the lead-up to November. It got our office wondering, has it always been this way?

Looking back through the years, we’ve discovered many of the most-used strategies today started decades ago, while other successful tactics have now fallen by the wayside. However, one thing that’s remained consistent is political advertising’s ability to deliver an impactful message. Keep scrolling to follow our journey through key political advertising moments of the past.

1964 Election: “Daisy”

The most effective political ads paint a vivid picture of the future. While some focus on the future the candidate will build, others choose to look at the scary future ahead if their opponent is elected. In 1964, the Republican presidential nominee, Senator Barry Goldwater, built his platform around anti-Soviet messaging, including the idea of “extremism in the defense of liberty.” To fire back, incumbent President Johnson released the infamous “Daisy” ad depicting a little girl unknowingly counting down to the release of a nuclear bomb. To close out the commercial, Johnson states that “we must either love each other, or we must die.” The ad threw the American public into a panic over the thought of nuclear way, and Johnson went on to win the election in a landslide. Although we see plenty of attack ads today, the “Daisy” ad was one of the first truly effective negative political advertisements.

1976: Post-Watergate

When President Ford pardoned former President Nixon in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal, he opened himself up to a great deal of criticism from the American public. Many associated him too closely with Nixon, and Ford’s popularity faltered because of it. When it came time for the 1976 election, Ford’s opponent, Jimmy Carter, painted himself as a political outsider untainted by Washington corruption – remind you of a certain 2016 strategy? Carter eventually won the presidency by a narrow margin of voters. Similarly, in the last two election years, we’ve seen candidates adopt Carter’s outsider mentality, and political scandals still play a role in tainting nominees’ reputation.

1984: Morning in America

In contrast to the frequent negative advertisements used in political campaigns, President Ronald Reagan won re-election in 1984 by focusing on advertising messages that reinforced positive changes he’d made during his first term. One of his most notable ads was called “Morning in America,” which painted a particularly rosy picture of a hard-working, successful America that flourished under Reagan’s first term. Reagan ultimately won re-election almost unanimously – he won 49 states, the largest margin of victory since FDR’s win in 1936. However, following Reagan’s successful campaign, political advertising has trended back to negative messaging. Even if candidates aren’t running attack ads themselves, their PACs are certainly running ones on their behalf.

1996: An Easy Re-Election for Clinton

In 1996, President Clinton was able to achieve re-election relatively easily, thanks in part to a tame opposition. His opponent, Senator Bob Dole, chose to focus his advertising campaign on his past work in the military and the national drug problem rather than Clinton himself, despite the president’s various scandals while in office. In today’s world, every scandal from a presidential candidate is detailed on social media and becomes the centerpiece of an attack ad. Perhaps Dole’s ultimately poor performance reinforced the notion that negative ads are indeed more effective.

2014 Midterms: Attack Ads Backfire

As we’ve seen, negative ads can be effective for candidates, but they’re risky and have also been known to backfire. In the 2014 midterm elections, many of the Republican candidates for the House of Representatives and the Senate ran ads attacking President Obama’s Affordable Care Act. The ads mentioned few details of the act, assuming most of the candidate’s audience already agreed with their stance. However, a recent study found that voters who saw the attack ads were more likely to do their own research on the ACA. As a result, ACA sign-ups in the areas these attack ads targeted actually increased. These ads serve as an example to not underestimate the American public – ads with empty attacks and little substance may not have the effect politicians expect.