Are The Attacks On Pelosi/Hillary Effective? Should Dems try something similar?

[Barack Oganja]

A lot stuck out to me during the Beto-Cruz debate last night. I think the main thing that stuck out to me was how often Cruz mentioned other Democrats. He mentioned Bernie multiple times, even when asked to say something nice about Beto. He also compared Beto to Hillary, AOC, and Pelosi. This isn't new of course. Plenty of top Democrats are used as fodder in Republican ads, especially Hillary and Pelosi. I've seen way too many ads calling Andy Kim a "Pelosi liberal" for example. Republican leadership isn't anymore popular than Dem leadership. Yet you rarely see Democratic candidates go after guys like Paul Ryan or Mitch McConnell. A lot won't even mention Trump. Why is that? Is the Republican strategy ineffective, or are the Democrats missing an opportunity? I'm of the opinion that it doesn't move the needle at all.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Why would Cruz say something nice about Trump?  Why would he invite Beto to refer to how Trump made statements linking Cruz's father to the JFK Assassination?

[Yank2133]

No, they shouldn't.

Attacking Pelosi and Hillary haven't been effective for Republicans according to the data. So why would it work in vice versa with McConnell and Ryan?

[Fuzzy Bear]

Sanders has already described himself as a "democratic socialist" so he's opened the door to criticism on that front.  He's have served his cause better if he'd have kept his mouth shut on that one.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

The attacks are effective to the extent that they work at convincing people willing to vote Republican.

However, the Republicans have the contemptible moron vote locked down pretty solidly. Any D attempts to chase the same demographic are going to do more harm than good.

[Roblox]

Sanders has already described himself as a "democratic socialist" so he's opened the door to criticism on that front.  He's have served his cause better if he'd have kept his mouth shut on that one.

Eh, republicans call anyone to the left of the blue dogs socialist anyhow.

[junior chįmp]

Nobody has ever won an election due to ads run featuring Pelosi or Hillary. Political ads are nothing but money pits and a testament to mans inability to accept that elections are won by factors outside of his locus of control. Just because someone wins an election after ads featuring Pelosi/Clinton are run doesnt make it the reason they won. This is a causal fallacy.

Anyone derranged enough to vote GOP due to an ad featuring Pelosi was never going to vote Dem anyway

[JA]

Sanders has already described himself as a "democratic socialist" so he's opened the door to criticism on that front.  He's have served his cause better if he'd have kept his mouth shut on that one.

I agree, but only because Bernie isn't a Democratic Socialist; he's just a Social Democrat/New Deal Liberal. He should've focused more on echoing FDR, JFK, and LBJ, along with the party's other pre-Reagan progressive figures.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

Sanders has already described himself as a "democratic socialist" so he's opened the door to criticism on that front.  He's have served his cause better if he'd have kept his mouth shut on that one.

Eh, republicans call anyone to the left of the blue dogs socialist anyhow.

Nope, Republicans do it with ANY Democrat, even Blue Dogs.

Here are ads against moderate Tom O'Halleran tying him to Pelosi and calling him a "radical liberal leftist":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlxZ3KJBpJ0

https://twitter.com/WendyRogersAZ/status/1038944188337999872

[cvparty]

I've seen way too many ads calling Andy Kim a "Pelosi liberal" for example.

Meet Washington insider Andy Kim. Kim spent his adult life in DC. In fact, Kim still keeps his home there. Now, Kim wants our congressional seat, and his campaign is bankrolled by Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi supports Kim because Kim supports her liberal agenda. Middle-class tax hikes. Wasteful spending. More debt. Andy Kim is a Pelosi liberal. He’s not one of us.

[Lincoln Republican]

Dems have to make November a referendum on the Trump Presidency.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Pelosi and Hillary are women. McConnell and Ryan are not. Even if they were, Democrats have the moral high ground on the gender issue so couldn't really target the GOP leadership in the same way or with the same effectiveness.

[Virginiá]

Dems have to make November a referendum on the Trump Presidency.

It already is. All midterms are generally referendums on the president and their party.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

They have McConnell is unlikable, helping Dems in House and Senate

[Progressive Pessimist]

For Clinton, the attacks definitely were effective, but those have been cultivated and tested over the span of 25+ years with the knowledge that she would one day be a national candidate. Pelosi, however, was a more recent boogeyman. The attacks on her don't seem to stick quite as much, though some certainly are sticking when a Democrat running for the House finds it necessary to state that they will not vote for her.

[Mike Thick]

They're effective because there's a clear contrast between San Francisco/New York machine liberals and Real Americans From The Heartland. What are Democrats supposed to do to counter that?

[ON Progressive]

Nobody has ever won an election due to ads run featuring Pelosi or Hillary. Political ads are nothing but money pits and a testament to mans inability to accept that elections are won by factors outside of his locus of control. Just because someone wins an election after ads featuring Pelosi/Clinton are run doesnt make it the reason they won. This is a causal fallacy.

Anyone derranged enough to vote GOP due to an ad featuring Pelosi was never going to vote Dem anyway

I agree with pretty much all of this. I will never get why Atlas goes nuts over "GREAT ADS" and "DEVASTATING ATTACK ADS" when there's slews of research showing that TV ads have almost nil effect on the electorate.

The only reason people think the Pelosi attacks work is because Republicans started using it in 2010, which was a wave year for the GOP. However, the GOP could've aired literally zero anti-Pelosi ads the entire cycle and still have practically the exact same result as 2010.

[Hammy]

I think the attacks are effective to the extent of keeping GOP voters from staying home, but I highly doubt they're going to change Dem/undecided voters into GOP voters at this point.

[Joe Biden 2024]

I think the attacks are effective to the extent of keeping GOP voters from staying home, but I highly doubt they're going to change Dem/undecided voters into GOP voters at this point.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

It worked in PA-18!

[Inmate Trump]

There is not ONE real Hillary scandal that comes anywhere close to being as bad as any of Trump’s have been.

[Progressive Pessimist]

There is not ONE real Hillary scandal that comes anywhere close to being as bad as any of Trump’s have been.

That's how it should be. But alas, it is not the reality we are living in where people realize this.

[Bojack Horseman]

I've been saying that we should do exactly this for years. Pretty much every GOP TV ad from 2009 forward went like this:

"Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama! OOOOOBBBBBBAAAAAAAMMMMMMAAAAAAA!!!!!!! I'm Republican Candidate and I approve this message."

[Adam Griffin]

Political TV ads exist because of the grifting consultant class, who often demand a percentage of total ad spending as part of their services and/or have arrangements with ad firms to get a percentage of the profit after referring their candidates to use their services (or in some cases even outright own the firms). To put it into perspective, Tad Devine got a half-million $27 donations in his pocket from Bernie's campaign between negotiating the ad spending being funneled into his firm and the money actually made from the ads by his firm.

As long as there are even a few grifters in the machine, TV ads will remain a reality because it becomes an arms race of sorts. TV ads don't produce any meaningful benefit for a candidate - unless you're able to achieve a 2:1 advantage or more on the airwaves. This means as long as one candidate - guided by consultants with much to gain - is willing to spend on television ads, other candidates must either pony up to some degree or take the hit to their chances. Most choose the former, with the end result merely neutralizing any advantage the opposition would gain, rather than producing an advantage on their own behalf. It's a racket.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

There is not ONE real Hillary scandal that comes anywhere close to being as bad as any of Trump’s have been.

That's how it should be. But alas, it is not the reality we are living in where people realize this.