Composite of photos by Getty Images
June 15, 2012 --
No matter who comes out ahead in this year's race to the White House, there's no doubt that there will be one big winner coming out of this election: advertisers. With the amount of money flowing into the coffers of the campaigns of both the incumbent, President Barack Obama, and challenger, Governor Mitt Romney, this election should break records for the amount of cumulative ad spending by both campaigns as well as outside groups. According to National Journal's Reid Wilson, even with the election still a little more than four and a half months away, ad spending has already topped $100 million. Despite all the resources pumped into getting a particular campaign's message to voters, how well a particular ad buy will resonate with audiences is anyone's guess. As the old saying goes in the industry, "half of all advertising is a waste of money; we just don't know which half." Presidential campaigns and outside groups could take a lesson from the past, however, by examining some of the most successful ad spots in U.S. presidential election history. In this slideshow, take a look at some of the ads that made an impression that counted one way or another.
PHOTOS: Campaign Posters Through History
'I Like Ike' Television advertising is expensive, so campaigns certainly aspire to put together a spot that voters will remember. If there's one thing that President Dwight D. "Ike" Eisenhower's ad men taught political generations for years to come, it's that rhyming helps. Prior to Eisenhower's presidential bid, he remained nonpartisan and was considered a candidate by both the Republican and Democratic parties. The "I Like Ike" idea was first crafted by Republicans hoping to draft Eisenhower for their presidential bid in 1952. Eisenhower eventually came around to the idea of waging a bid for the presidency on the Republican ticket, and adopted the phrase "I Like Ike" for his campaign.
Watch: 'I Like Ike' Video
Kennedy, Kennedy, Kennedy Not all candidates are lucky enough to have a rhyming nickname. If that fails, however, as the Kennedy campaign demonstrated in 1960, simply repeating the candidate's name over and over again to the tune of a catchy jingle might be enough for voters to take notice. The commercial implies a popular movement behind Kennedy's drive to the White House with supporters of all walks of life -- young and old, white and black -- holding signs and wearing campaign hats bearing the Kennedy name.
Watch: ‘Kennedy, Kennedy, Kennedy’ Video
PHOTOS: JFK As You've Never Seen Him Before
Peace, Little Girl When Lyndon Johnson ran to retain the presidency in 1964, his campaign produced an ad called "Peace, Little Girl," though eventually popularly known as "The Daisy Girl," which might very well hold the distinction of being the most infamous presidential commercial in U.S. history. In the spot, a little girl plucks petals off a flower -- a daisy, of course -- and as she gets closer to one counting down from 10, the ominous voice of a loudspeaker matches her countdown. The camera zooms in on her face before an image of a nuclear blast flashes across the screen. The message of the ad was single: In the Cold War era, with two super powers at a nuclear stand-off, the Republican candidate, Barry Goldwater, would not keep Americans safe. Despite the notoriety of the ad, it actually aired only once, but undoubtedly contributed to Johnson winning the presidency.
Watch: 'Peace, Little Girl'
Morning in America Officially titled "Prouder, Stronger, Better," the campaign ad that would become known as "Morning in America" offered voters with an optimistic take on President Ronald Reagan's first term in office and the promise of four more years of prosperity if reelected. This 1984 campaign ad makes frequent comparisons between economic conditions in 1980 and 1984 and implores voters to consider the impact of returning to those days. Unlike most other campaign ads that are generally remembered for being especially negative, Reagan's uplifting message of optimism for the future of the country -- a message derided at by his opponents of the time -- helped propel him to a second term in office.
Watch: 'It's Morning in America' Video
Willie Horton A convicted felon might seem out of place in a presidential campaign. But in 1988, the campaign of George H.W. Bush used Horton's likeness to great effect in his bid for the presidency against then-Governor of Massachusetts Michael Dukakis. The ad states that Dukakis had allowed a prison furlough program in his state, which permitted prisoners, including convicted murderers like Horton, to spend time away from the cells. During a weekend furlough for which Horton did not return, he committed armed robbery, assault, rape and murder before being captured once again in Maryland. The Dukakis campaign responded with allegations of racism by linking Dukakis to the frightening image of a mug shot of a black criminal. Lee Atwater, a campaign adviser to Bush, even claimed it was his ambition that "people will think Willie Horton is [Dukakis'] running mate." The ad, however, proved successful in framing Dukakis as weak on crime and helped Bush win the White House.
Watch: 'Willie Horton' Video
'Read My Lips' In 1988, then-Vice President George H.W. Bush stood at the podium of the Republican National Convention and proclaimed that if Congress tried to induce him to raise taxes, he could reply: "Read my lips: no new taxes." That pledge helped Bush win the support he needed to become president. However, while in office, the former president had to break his pledge. When 1992 rolled around and Bush faced re-election, the campaign of then-Governor Bill Clinton did not let the country, nor the Bush campaign, forget the pledge he made four years earlier. The repeated use of Bush's pledge in campaign commercials helped convince the public that, even with all the scandals Clinton was facing in the midst of a presidential bid, he and Bush were of similar character, according to polls.
Watch: 'Read My Lips' Attack Ad Video
Swift Boat Facing dwindling support in the polls as a result of an unpopular war, President George W. Bush seemed unlikely to retain office heading into the 2004 presidential election. Although not authorized or produced by the Bush presidential campaign, a series of ads created by the organization "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" helped Bush's candidacy by attacking his opponent's, Senator John Kerry, major strengths as a candidate: his war record. In the ads, veterans claiming to have served alongside Kerry stated that his military record had been exaggerated and that he lied to earn his medals, including his Purple Hearts and Bronze Star. None of the men who appeared in the ads had actually served with Kerry when he committed the actions earning him those honors. The media blitz became so infamous that "swiftboating" has become a pejorative in American political circles for mudslinging during a campaign.
Watch: 'Swiftboat'’ Video
NEWS: Why Do Negative Presidential Ads Work?
3 A.M. The spiritual successor to Johnson's ad, this spot, known as "3 A.M.," produced by Hillary Clinton's campaign during the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries invokes the same ideas as "Peace, Little Girl," but without the nuclear blast to bring home the point. In the ad, Clinton's campaign presents the idea of a ringing phone in the White House, signalling there's a crisis somewhere in the world even as Americans are sound asleep. Whoever voters want picking up that phone is the one who they should cast their ballots for, according to the ad.
Watch: 'It's 3AM' Video
Rock This entry is more of a personal favorite than a true example of the power of presidential advertising. But even though Mike Gravel, a contender for the 2008 Democratic presidential ticket, never really had a shot at the White House, it was hard to ignore his bizarre ad spots that went viral. In this ad, titled "Rock," Gravel stares straight at the camera for over a minute before walking over to pick up a rock and throw it in the pond in the background. He then ambles away as the address for his website pulls up on the screen. This cryptic ad might not have accomplished anything in terms of boosting Gravel's candidacy, but it one of the many moments that made Gravel an unforgettable part of the last U.S. presidential election.
Watch: 'Rock Throws a Rock' Video
PHOTOS: Un-Presidential Moments in History
Whether you pulled the lever for Barack Obama or Mitt Romney may reflect how your brain copes with risk, new research finds.
The study, which examined the brain activity of 35 men and 47 women registered as either Democrat or Republican, found no difference in the amount of risk people of each political persuasion were willing to take on during a gambling game. But the way the brain processed risk worked differently between the groups, with Republicans showing more activity in an area linked with reward, fear and risky decisions and Democrats showing more activity in a spot related to processing emotion and internal body cues.
The findings hint at basic differences between people with different values, said study researcher Darren Schreiber of the University of Exeter.
"The ability to accurately predict party politics using only brain activity while gambling suggests that investigating basic neural differences between voters may provide us with more powerful insights than the traditional tools of political science," Schreiber said in a statement. [The 10 Greatest Mysteries of the Mind]
The politics of risk
Recent investigations into the psychology of liberals and conservatives have found a number of subtle differences, from conservatives exhibiting more squeamishness to liberals paying less attention to negative stimuli or threats.
A 2011 study published in the journal Current Biology found differences in some brain structures between politically liberal and political conservative young adults. Many of these areas were linked to risk-assessment and decision-making, prompting Schreiber and his colleagues to wonder if they could find differences in how these areas function during risky tasks.
The researchers had previously conducted a study in which people underwent brain scans while playing a gambling game. In each round, the participants saw three numbers, 20, 40 and 80, flash on a screen. If they hit a button while 20 was up, they were guaranteed 20 cents. If they waited for the 40 or 80, they might get a payout of either 40 or 80 cents — but they might also lose that amount of money. Thus, they were choosing between a safe bet and two higher-paying but riskier options.
Owen Franken/Getty Images
Using voting records, the researchers found out political party affiliation for 35 of the men and 47 of the women in that study. Political parties aren't a perfect match with ideology, but they come very close, the researchers wrote Feb. 13 in the journal PLOS ONE. Most Democrats hold liberal values, while most Republicans hold conservative values.
Comparing the Democrat and Republican participants turned up differences in two brain regions: the right amygdala and the left posterior insula. Republicans showed more activity than Democrats in the right amygdala when making a risky decision. This brain region is important for processing fear, risk and reward.
Meanwhile, Democrats showed more activity in the left posterior insula, a portion of the brain responsible for processing emotions, particularly visceral emotional cues from the body. The particular region of the insula that showed the heightened activity has also been linked with "theory of mind," or the ability to understand what others might be thinking.
While their brain activity differed, the two groups' behaviors were identical, the study found.
Schreiber and his colleagues can't say whether the functional brain differences nudge people toward a particular ideology or not. The brain changes based on how it is used, so it is possible that acting in a partisan way prompts the differences.
The functional differences did mesh well with political beliefs, however. The researchers were able to predict a person's political party by looking at their brain function 82.9 percent of the time. In comparison, knowing the structure of these regions predicts party correctly 71 percent of the time, and knowing someone's parents' political affiliation can tell you theirs 69.5 percent of the time, the researchers wrote.
This article originally appeared on LiveScience.com.
More From LiveScience.com:
10 Historically Significant Political Protests
The 5 Strangest Presidential Elections in US History
5 Reasons Your Vote Will Be Irrational