Brown in the Final Stretch

Jerry Brown didn't start running ads seriously until pretty late in the election - or maybe it just felt that way because Whitman spent so early and so heavily. Regardless, Brown's strategy seems to have worked. This one minute ad, "Echo," has been in heavy rotation on TV since mid-October. It's received a fair amount of national press as well. The concept is pretty simple, but the end result is devastating to Whitman. I think it's quite fair, exemplifies the Brown critique of Whitman, and is the most effective political ad in California this election cycle:



Brown has been pretty sharp in most of the debates, and his campaign cleverly seized on Whitman's own words to hurry out this ad – "Why I came to California":



This ad, "Positive Finish," is also quite savvy. This exchange definitely made the local news:



TPM has more on this ad. There's also a one minute version that's even more effective, with Brown coming off as upbeat and gracious while Whitman is left squirming. Brown even posted a five minute version to show the exchange in full context. Whitman appears more reasonable in it, I'd say, but Brown also comes off well by coming to her defense at the end, and seeming loose and confident.

Personally, I hate "pledges" sought by reporters, which are almost always inane and seem designed to make headlines and little else. This one is no exception. Who gives a damn about whether an ad is "negative" or not? What matters is whether it's accurate (and honest in terms of context). So while I think Whitman would be a terrible governor – Schwarzenegger without the schmoozing skills, probably – I'm a bit sympathetic to her here on the general issue. That's not to say all the ads from her and her allies have been accurate and honest, because they certainly haven't, and like Fiorina, Whitman has offered mostly sound bites versus good policies. Consequently, my sympathy only goes so far.

On the politics, realistically, being down in the polls as much as she has been, Whitman's only chance of closing the gap was probably to go negative, even though it was a long shot. So a "no negative ad" pledge worked to Brown's advantage. Plus, Brown sharply picked up on Whitman's hedging, and so his offer was smart, allowing him to come off looking as the more honorable person. Hey, maybe he meant it without much calculation, since Brown favors the disarmingly candid response at times. I'm guessing part of it was his natural personality, and some of it was political savvy. In any case, Brown has played things well in the final stretch.

No matter who's governor, the job is going to be very tough because of California's ridiculous structural problems (a 2/3rds majority needed to raise taxes and an obstructionist GOP). However, Schwarzenegger was rarely willing to push his own party much, and consistently worked to protect rich plutocrats. Whitman would have been exactly the same on that front. Although she campaigned as an outsider, like really all "responsible" Republican candidates, she's an eager class warrior for the establishment. I'm not sure how much Brown can actually get done, but at least he can try.

Rise (and Fall?) of the eMeg

At last report, Meg Whitman has spent an unprecedented 163 million on her campaign. Much of the first blast went to airing this one minute ad, "Confidence," starting in early April, as part of a juggernaut-momentum strategy. It seemed like it ran at least once per hour on TV:



It's a well made spot, it's positive, and a good "introduction to the candidate." For those seeking a change and not too picky about the standard plutocrat pabulum, I imagine it was pretty effective – and Whitman was doing well back then. Reuters reported back on 4/5/10:

Billionaire Republican Meg Whitman has built a slight lead in the California governor's race after contributing a record-breaking $39 million to her own campaign, a Los Angeles Times/USC poll showed on Monday.

The former CEO of online auction house eBay Inc., making her first bid for elected office, has 44 percent of the vote to Democratic candidate and former governor Jerry Brown's 41 percent, according to the poll for the November election.

The winner will succeed Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is barred by term limits from seeking re-election.

In what is expected to be the most expensive nonpresidential election in U.S. history, Whitman has spent millions on television ads ahead of the June primary and holds a 40-percentage point lead over Republican Steve Poizner.

"The story is the money. The amount of money and the level of advertising Whitman has run to date is not only unprecedented ... it has had a very clear marked effect on campaign," said Dan Schnur, director of the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at the University of Southern California.

"Among people who have seen her ads, Whitman is beating (Brown) handily, but she's losing to those who have not seen them," Schnur said.

Whitman's $39 million contribution is a record in California for candidates donating to their own campaigns.

More than seven months ahead of the general election, she has spent $46 million, a record for a candidate in a California statewide election and more than Schwarzenegger spent in his entire 2006 campaign.

Anecdotally, some people got really sick of the constant Whitman ads, though, it seemed she was trying to "buy" the governorship, and growing familiarity did not seem to make her any more likable. In March, she called a press conference to make a speech and then refused to take questions. (This seemed to be the "command-and-control management style" a recent Mercury News described.) Her primary battle with Steve Poizner also hurt her. As Dave Dayen wrote back in May, after her sizable lead over Poizner shrunk dramatically:

What can account for this epic crash? First off, the Poizner ad tying eMeg to Goldman Sachs is, outside of the Joe Sestak’s closing ad against Arlen Specter, the best of the cycle.

Beyond that, Whitman just punched herself out. The massive pre-primary spending became the story more than her worth as a candidate, and when Poizner and his millions got competitive on air it became a race. Whitman’s been pretty terrible in the two debates thus far as well. Also, the CA Republican primary electorate is, shall we say, crazy, and Poizner has one of the staunchest conservatives, Tom McClintock, on his side. His personal testimonial ad for Poizner is pretty successful, as he’s the most high-profile conservative in the state.

Two other issues made her look very bad as well – her not voting for decades, and that her former housekeeper had been in the country illegally. Whitman began campaigning on being "tough" on illegal immigrants back during his primary race with Poizner, and when the housekeeper story broke, it made her look dishonest and hypocritical. (My favorite quip on the matter is: "In fairness to Whitman, she shouldn’t be criticized for this episode, because for the first nine years she employed the illegal alien she didn’t know that she would someday need to demagogue the illegal immigration issue.")

Some of Whitman's later ads seemed successful. I suspect this one, featuring Bill Clinton and airing starting in early September, was one of her most effective. I'm guessing they were targeting swing voters and disenchanted Democrats. (Perhaps it also served as red meat for the conservative base – even Bill Clinton doesn't like Jerry Brown!)



Finally, I'm not sure I ever saw this one air on TV – it's called "Strong Leadership," but I had to post it because I think "Douchebags" fits it better:



It seems this would only appeal to rich Republicans who would already be inclined to vote for Whitman anyway – and maybe that's why this one didn't air much, at least in Los Angeles. As Harold Meyerson's put it, Romney "approaches the Platonic Ideal of Inauthenticity." And while Condoleezza Rice's star probably shines brighter than that of the other disgraced Bushies, there's little good reason for that. She's a pretty despicable, craven human being, and should probably be on trial for war crimes (as should most of her former colleagues). Her approval ratings in the black community might exceed those of most conservatives, but aren't great. Overall, I don't think Romney, Rice and the Jarvis guy would help Whitman with swing or crossover voters. I don't think the Whitman ads attacking unions did much on that front, either.

In any case, the election starts shortly, and if Whitman loses, it's an important victory because of the money factor if nothing else. Money can definitely turn an election, but it can't buy it outright, especially if the candidate makes herself look bad all on her own.

The Case Against Fiorina by Boxer – and Fiorina

Continuing our look at California political ads, here's two attack ads against Carly Fiorina aired by Barbara Boxer's campaign.

I've probably seen this Boxer ad, "Outsourcing," the most. Apparently it started running about mid-September, and it's run a lot since then.



I think it's pretty effective. (Update: Here's more on the ad.) So is this similar one, "Workers," which started running 'round the clock a couple of weeks ago:



Both these ads underscore a recurring theme - the best case against Fiorina has often been made by Fiorina herself. Here she is on what's normally conservative cheerleading territory, Fox News, struggling to evade a reality-based question by Chris Wallace:



Wallace can be pretty hackish, but he does have his moments, and this was one of them. Like many Republicans, Fiorina mainly trots out slogans, but there's no responsible policy behind them. TBogg expertly summarized this Fiorina performance in "Carly Fiorina’s Underpants Gnome Budget":

Short version:

1. Post every agency budget on the internet
2. ?
3. Balanced budget!

It appears that Carly Fiorina is Christine O’Donnell with less Jesus and more work history.

Fiorina's Demon Sheep Ad

I would be remiss if I didn't include this web-only Fiorina ad from the GOP primaries, the infamous "Demon Sheep" ad from early in the year. Political junkies will have already seen it, and perhaps a parody or two of it. But ya gotta see this one if you haven't. I dare you not to laugh – or think of Monty Python.

Ignore the Culprits, and Vote Non-Partisan – Republican!

Here's five more ads from Carly Fiorina and her allies. The first one is called "Day" and it started running heavily early in October:



The ad depends on voters not following the news and not knowing (or caring) which party is primarily responsible for their economic woes and running up wasteful spending (roughly five trillion added to the debt under Bush, for instance). My favorite part is probably the mournful strings.

Outside groups such as the Chamber of Commerce have been running ads against Boxer as well. This LA Times article details some of them, and some are targeted at specific regions in the vast state of California. This one, "Bad With Money," has aired in Los Angeles:



I've seen this other Chamber ad, "28 Years," much more, though - it's been running constantly:



You'll notice these ads are simpatico with Fiorina's. This one doesn't even make much of an argument - it just repeats "28 Years" as a mantra, and simplistically, deceptively pretends that economic and fiscal woes are all Boxer's fault. (It's sad that the Chamber pursues short-term gain over long-term gain, since GOP policies over the past 30 years have been disastrous.)

Next up is "Crushed," an official Fiorina ad that's playing a lot:



It's also simplistic, deceptive bullshit of course, but it's great voiceover work (by the same guy who did "Day"). The "Barbara Boxer is Satan" delivery makes me laugh, but of course I'm not the intended audience.

This one's called "Label," and has been running non-stop the past few weeks:



Party doesn't matter anymore – so vote for the Republican! Funny how that works. Never mind that overwhelmingly, Republicans are responsible for creating the mess.

I think "Andres from Long Beach" sounds a bit like Ed Norton. Meanwhile, I find Carly Fiorina's chirpy platitudes at the end shallow, hypocritical and off-putting, especially given the "petty bickering" shown in her campaign ads and public appearances. But I wonder how others react.

Fiorina has also bought time for ads on YouTube itself, that play before someone watches a video. User BloodRedChorizo commented on this ad: "I'm voting against you solely because I'm extremely annoyed with having to watch your fucking ad before every other video. Annoying as hell." Meg Whitman certainly seems to have suffered somewhat from over-exposure, and maybe that's hitting Fiorina, too. But we'll see what happens on Tuesday.

(As an aside, I also find it annoying that YouTube requires a log-in for the embed code for any video on an user's page. There are a workarounds, or one can log-in, but... you damn kids stop messing with those embed codes!)

Courting the Right-Wing

Continuing our look at Fiorina ads, this one is called "Sir," and started playing in late September. At this point, she'd ditched the tobacco/jaundice filter:



I think this was aimed mainly at right-wingers to prove her bona fides with them – and the community at conservative site Red State responded favorably. I wonder how effective this was with other people, though. This exchange (from June 2009) is well-known in right-wing circles, where it was the scandal du jour, and Boxer was denounced as arrogant, anti-military and all the usual BS. However, if you weren't familiar with the incident already, I'm not sure you'd know what the hell was going on from this clip. Boxer could have been edited to look worse, actually, and I think she sounds slightly weary but fairly polite. I would imagine many women would sympathize with her on the asking-for-a-little-respect front. Even for those who feel differently (apart from right-wingers, naturally), Boxer might come off as touchy, but was this ever really that big a deal? Meanwhile, yet again, Fiorina's delivery is "eager playground taunt." In fact, Fiorina brought this incident up during their debate, and Boxer said she actually called the general afterwards and said, "Do I owe you an apology?" and he said no. This always seemed like a "red meat for the base" or desperation attack to me, one to fire up the faithful but not likely to swing the undecided.

I'm always interested to hear how other California voters across the political spectrum react to individual ads, or the overall deluge. To my eyes, Fiorina has been pitching herself as the responsible adult, but many of her attack ads (and almost all of her ads have been negative) have been extremely shallow. The two images contradict, and often do so in the very same ad. And earlier in the election cycle she was pitching herself as a "conservative" Republican, while later she adopted a "transcend party" pitch. That's hardly unprecedented, but in both cases there's a contradiction. Her campaign has depended on voters not remembering and not paying attention – both to Fiorina's campaign ads, and to which party and policies caused the vast majority of damage to America over the past decade.

Discontent, Fear and Jaundice

Here's three ads from Carly Fiorina, the Republican challenging Senator Barbara Boxer's seat.

This one is titled "Work." It was posted in May, and it was running all the time on TV back then:



I refer to it as the "jaundice ad." I think some of the people look pretty ghoulish with that yellow/rose filter. I suspect it, and the soft-focus effect, is to make Fiorina look more vibrant and young. But what sticks with me is (sorry) bad teeth and creepy eyes. I'm supposed to take advice from them, these "regular zombie Americans," to vote for a Republican?

"Jobs" was also playing all the time in May:



Yes, we all remember all those great jobs – as in zero net job creation – with tax cuts to the rich (like Fiorina) under Bush. The Dems have worked to pass legislation to help small businesses, and have been blocked by the GOP. Fiorina favors standard GOP sound bites with little reality behind them.

This one's called "Safe," and played 'round the clock in June:



It's obvious that this is a very short, out-of-context excerpt of Boxer, and she has more to say about national security than this. However, what she does say is exactly in line with what the Pentagon has stated:

Climate change and energy are two key issues that will play a significant role in shaping the future security environment... While climate change alone does not cause conflict, it may act as an accelerant of instability or conflict, placing a burden to respond on civilian institutions and militaries around the world."

"Terrorism kills – and Barbara Boxer's worried about the weather" is childish and really insults viewers' intelligence. It's inept McCarthyism. This ad targeted low-information conservatives and conservative-leaning voters, or maybe her team actually thought this crap (that worked pretty well in 2002 and 2004) would still play with other voters. If there were any doubt before that Fiorina wasn't wooing the reality-based community, these three ads clinched it.

California Midterm Money 2010

If you don't live in California, you're lucky you miss the election year onslaught of political ads. Normally, it's ballot measure ads around the clock, but this time, the candidate ads have been non-stop all year. I thought I'd try to look at some of the ads in a few posts before the election is over, in, um, two days. First though, I thought it'd be useful to look at the money.

The spending has been insane, and in the race for governor, it's been extremely lopsided. On 10/22/10, the Fresno Bee reported:

Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman spent nearly $23 mil- lion the first 16 days of October, bringing her record-breaking spending total to $163 million for the campaign, according to finance reports filed Thursday.

Democrat Jerry Brown, meanwhile, had spent $14.6 million between Oct. 1 and 16, more than half of the total $25.3 million his campaign has spent this year.

Brown had $11.6 million in the bank for the final push as of Oct. 16, while Whitman reported $12.4 million on hand with about $1.9 million in debts.

Whitman, a billionaire former CEO of eBay, has put $141.6 million of her own money in the campaign. In all, she has raised $173 million.

Brown has raised nearly $38 million for the campaign.

The Senate race between Barbara Boxer and Carly Fiorina is a little harder to tally. From a 10/22/10 article:

Republican challenger Carly Fiorina added $1 million from her personal fortune to her campaign to unseat Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer, pouring in money for the final days of a tightening race...

The loan, made Thursday, brings Fiorina's total contributions this year to $6.5 million...

Boxer campaign manager Rose Kapolczynski said Fiorina is using the golden parachute she received when she was ousted from HP "to try to buy a seat in the Senate." Overall, Boxer has raised $26.4 million compared to $17.9 million for Fiorina...

National Republicans have not been so reticent in talking about their plans for the Senate race. They've promised to spend nearly $4.8 million in California in coordination with the Fiorina campaign. Fiorina's efforts are also being helped by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has spent more than $4.5 million on television ads critical of Boxer...

According to quarterly campaign reports filed Oct. 15, Boxer had about $6.5 million cash on hand compared to $1.8 million for Fiorina, who is receiving significant help from independent groups.

Since then, there has been a flurry of spending. Campaign finance reports based on the first two weeks of October show Boxer spent $5.3 million, leaving her with $2.3 million cash on hand.

Fiorina spent $2 million during the same period, leaving her with $1.3 million. Adding Fiorina's latest loan, she should now have roughly the same amount as Boxer.

However, the key difference is outside money. From Southern California Public Radio back on 10/12/10:

The prospect of unseating three-term Sen. Barbara Boxer has led business groups and social conservatives to invest heavily in California's U.S. Senate race over the past six weeks.

About $4 million has been spent on ads and election activities that help Republican challenger Carly Fiorina, the former chief executive officer of Hewlett-Packard Co.

By comparison, outside groups have spent about $121,000 helping Boxer, who started the race with a huge cash advantage in her campaign account.

What about the polls? On 10/27/10, TPM reported:

The new CNN poll of California provides further corroboration that Democrats Jerry Brown and Barbara Boxer are on track in their respective gubernatorial and Senate races.

The gubernatorial numbers: Brown 51%, Republican Meg Whitman 44%. In the previous poll from a month ago, Brown led by 52%-43%. The TPM Poll Average has Brown ahead by 49.0%-41.3%.

The Senate numbers: Boxer 50%, Republican Carly Fiorina 45%. In the previous poll from a month ago, Boxer led by 52%-43%. The TPM Poll Average has Boxer ahead by 47.4%-43.4%.

The survey of likely voters has a ±3.5% margin of error.

538 currently has Brown up by 8 points and Boxer up by 6 points. But we'll see come Tuesday. The outside money factor is troubling, and that's a national issue. Transparency on who's funding all those ads would be a big help. Meanwhile, the Mercury News has more on Whitman, her eBay past and her diminishing prospects despite the staggering amount of money she's spent. When the dust has settled, I'll be interested to see if Meg Whitman winds up with an even worse dollar-to-vote ratio than Rudy Giuliani in the 2008 presidential primaries.

CA Ballot Propositions 2010

Yes, it's that time again if you live in California (unless you already voted early). Which ballot propositions are good, and which are horrible? And what about all the other races?

If you didn't receive the state's official Voter's Guide, which has arguments for and against the propositions, you can view or download PDF versions in several languages here.

Liberal site Calitics has a list of statewide endorsements and the Courage Campaign has a progressive voter guide.

The Los Angeles Times and San Francisco Chronicle also have voter guides and endorsements. (Not everyone's in agreement on every candidate or measure, obviously.)

Hot for Teachers

Hot for Teachers w/ Megan Fox and Brian Austin Green from Megan Fox

This one was passed on by a friend of mine - it was shot, directed and produced by the parents and kids at her son's school here in the Los Angeles area. (That's the real principal at the start.) You can see the full credits if you click the tab here.

As Robert Cruickshank notes at Calitics:

What the video shows, once again, is that Californians do not support Arnold Schwarzenegger or his budget cuts. They just don't. The polls that have been done so far indicate that the public prefers higher taxes to cutting K-12 budgets, and while nobody seems to have asked "do you support the $17 billion in education cuts made since 2008?" such a poll would likely find widespread public opposition and outrage. There's a reason Arnold's disapproval rating is at a record level of over 70%.

David Dayen has a few more California stories.

In California, two-thirds of the legislature is needed to raise taxes, and a zealous minority won't, regardless of the circumstances. Meanwhile, many in the same crowd are always eager to cut education, the arts and social services. I heard from another friend about cuts at UCLA, and people who'd worked there for 30 years being let go. It's horrible. Ask any police chief about the value of after-school programs, and how they're much cheaper than prisons. Ask the experts on the value of a good education on brain development, life skills, earning potential, citizenship and creativity. The K-12 years are the most important, but Californians used to take a great deal of justifiable pride in the state university system. These cuts will cost California a great deal in the future.

The Republican candidates for governor are running non-stop TV ads decrying "liberal failure" in Sacramento. While California Democrats certainly have their faults, California is basically Reaganomics in action – deficit spending and decreased taxes on the wealthy. Everyone tightening their belts would be one thing, but for the most part, it's those who can least afford it that are getting hit the hardest.

Here's the Say No to Cuts petition.