Obama's "GST Steel" Ad.
With a great level of detail, this ad talks about how Bain Capital bought a Kansas City steel company, immediately loaded it with debt, decimated the pension and benefits of its workers, and took a healthy profit as the company went kaput.
Romney's "Obama Failed Iowa" Ad.
Romney's ad is a bit less focused. With first person accounts of average Iowans[1], Romney attempts to show how Obama's comparative lack of economic growth has left many Real Americans behind. One woman bellyaches about how her unemployment benefits have run out. A man talks about not depending on the government to come up. Still another talks about his family and the effects of joblessness. Oddly not mentioned is that Iowa has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the nation at just 5.2%.
Not surprisingly, I'm going to roll with Obama's ad. It's much more impactful because it deals with specific actions of Romney (while head of Bain Capital) and their aftermath. Romney's ad is all emotion and no logic. There's no clear delineation between their people's lot in life and anything Obama's done (or not done) as President. Nobody lost their job as a direct result of an Obama policy. The woman talks specifically about how things are gotten worse since her unemployment benefits ran out, and we know who wants to cut unemployment. The second guy's misfortune seems to be just as much about a divorce (blame Obama!) as a job loss. The last guy is so completely anti-Government (I'm assuming he's a Tea Partier) he can't be taken seriously, and he actually seems to be finding work as a gravedigger and mover. He also appears to be a moron, in a Kevin Malone-sorta way.
Romney would be much better served attempting to show how Barack Obama's politics have directly lead to a loss of jobs in some meaningful way. Obama's ads attacking Romney's alleged job creation record are far more effective.
Question: Which ad is more effective in your opinion?!?
[1] Not much diversity here.
