It'll Rot Your Brain: Campaign Ads Thread

[cinyc]

Where on earth did the GOP get the impression that anyone cares/knows who Nancy Pelosi is?

Probably from the same place President Obama got the impression that anyone cares/knows who John Boehner is.

[cinyc]

Here is a Linda McMahon ad. I think she has a very good presence on TV - she comes across as strong, calm, and reassuring, somehow, who won't be pushed around by the boys in Washington.

Say what you will about McMahon's abilities as a candidate, but her ad team has been top notch.  As you or someone else said, McMahon has a lot of experience in marketing a crap product - and it shows.  

Blumenthal's most recent ad, on the other hand, falls pretty flat to me - boring visuals and out of touch with what voters really care about.  Protecting Long Island Sound would be a great issue if so many Connecticut voters weren't out of work right now.

McMahon's ads are playing in pretty heavy rotation in the New York City TV market.  I've yet to see one of Blumenthal's, though I assume they're getting play in Hartford/New Haven and on cable

[cinyc]

Gillibrand has an ad, which is running on TV in NYC and presumably in the rest of the state.  She hasn't been in Washington very long, she claims:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVUbojJD4x8

[cinyc]

Brutal: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3Q1I9PrxtE4

That looks like the exact type of ad I'd expect out of a campaign that's down by 8 with no real idea how to close the gap.

The ad was put out today in advance of tonight's debate.  It got some free press on the 6PM news in New York - so to that extent, it worked.  I prefered the ad with the two so-Connecticut women mocking Blumenthal's supposed lies in the car, though - it had a softer edge and seemed more effective.

I wonder if McMahon is going to try to get answer the question at the end (what else is Blumenthal lying about) at the debate.  We'll see in a few minutes.  (Debate is at 7PM on Fox CT - ctnow.com says they will stream it).

[cinyc]

McMahon is doing just fine so far. I really like her style. She is one tough sister, yet stays composed. Blumenthal comes across as a weak and rather hesitant nebbish, relying on cliches and generalizations. He pushed hard on the evils of buying products from foreign nations (aka sending jobs overseas), as if interfering with that process is actually possible, putting aside its highly dubious wisdom (e.g retaliation and trade wars).

I thought they both debated reasonably well.  Blumenthal is who he is, and Connecticut is used to his sometime-hesitant style by now.  Both sounded like they know what they're talking about (well, except Blumenthal on the evils of the WWE buying products from overseas - but that type of crap sells well with some voters).

[cinyc]

Linda McMahon has another ad asking what else Blumenthal is lying about:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xwczIqmKMs

There's a theme building here.  The question is - what's the payoff?

[cinyc]

http://capitaltonight.com/2010/10/schumers-call/

Schumer's ads have been very good - and varied.  Gillibrand seems to be running the same boring ad over and over again.  Still nothing from the Republican Senate or Gubernatorial candidates on NYC TV - though DioGuardi at least has an ad on YouTube that he might be playing Upstate and/or on cable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6l6BQwUx-0E

[cinyc]

Nothing annoys me more than ads that claim things like "he's not on OUR side".  They needlessly talk down to a sizable portion of the electorate that agrees with the other candidate.  By necessary implication, if you agree with that other candidate, you're not one of "us".  It's just as likely to motivate people to go out and vote for the other guy.

[cinyc]

FYI: The Connecticut Senate debate is on now:

http://connecticut.onpolitix.com/pages/47/2010-senate-debate-mcmahon-vs.-blumenthal

[cinyc]

McMahon ad on Blumenthal's "I served in Vietnam" gaffes, part 3:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OllvFs12Zg&feature=player_embedded

[cinyc]

That ad gives new meaning to vote for me... or he'll kill your dog.  It's way too over-the-top to be effective.

[cinyc]

This campaign can't be serious. I actually thought after he defeated Specter he'd be able to beat Toomey, but I was certainly wrong.

Desperate candidates put out desperate ads.  Think of it as throwing a Hail Mary pass on fourth down when down by 10 with 1:30 left in the fourth quarter.

[cinyc]

There was a mail piece against Gregoire in 2008 that said she was a dirty diaper that needs changing (complete with picture of said dirty diaper!). Glad to know you all think Rossi's campaign tactics are bad as well.

And who lost that race?

Campaign tactics from 2008 don't tell us anything about the state of the race in 2010, though.

[cinyc]

I wasn't commenting on its effectiveness. I meant "bad" in the sense of "sleazy".

Well, I only mean "bad" in the sense of effectiveness.  I don't judge ads by sleaziness.  If they work, they work.  Ads that use crap as a metaphor usually don't work - not so surprisingly.

[cinyc]

GOP hits back hard !

Conway: I would support a repeal of DADT.

Polling in America: Do you want Gays & Lesbians to serve openly in the Military ? 70% YES, 20% NO.

Conway's not running for a national office.  He's running in Kentucky.  What percentage of Kentuckian likely voters want to repeal DADT?  That's all that matters.

[cinyc]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xa3fRarzoIQ&feature=player_embedded

This ad is great

1:30 is at least 30 seconds too long for a TV ad - and probably 1 minute too long.