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.

Obama Ad on McCain and the Economy

As we've discussed before, an ad being "negative" often isn't a problem - the real issue is whether it's accurate and pertinent or not. An accurate, fair, and relevant "negative" ad gives voters key information, while a deceptive smear does not. I think this one's pretty fair and very much on target.

(Cross-posted at The Blue Herald)

McCain Ad Parodies

(By the way, there's some profanity in a couple of these, if you're at work or that matters to ya, although I'm guessing - No!)

First up, let's see this effort by Thers, Watertiger and Dan:



What's scary is that there are folks out there who think, "that ad told the truth!"

Then there's McCain and Britney, together again:



And I mean, come on, Britney?!?



The subtext of McCain's actual ad is bad enough, but there are also problems with McCain smearing Paris Hilton when her parents are donors.

This might be my favorite, though (h/t Blue Gal):



That's pretty much all they got. Obama's arrogant, he's popular… plus, he exercises and he's thin. Speaking of thin… (Not that this crap still can't work.)

Bonus: Via BG at C&L, here's the Jesus' General Ghostbusters version of the McCain ads:



(Cross-posted at The Blue Herald)

The Voice of Attack Ads

(crossposted at The Blue Herald)


Posts earlier this month examined ”Political Attack Ads” and ”Imaginary Candidates, Ideal and Dastardly.” However, even though the election season is over (for now), if you missed it this NPR story deserves a listen, as “Melissa Block talks with voice-over artists Dennis Steele and Scott Sanders about how to make a threatening voice for a political ad.” It’s NPR at its best —both informative and funny. The webpage also links several attack ads, but it’s the brilliant way this segment ends that makes it essential listening.

Political Attack Ads

(crossposted at The Blue Herald)

This post could be called “GOP Attack Ads,” but that would be redundant. A handful of good articles on political ads have been making the rounds. The Washington Post’s Michael Grunwald reported on 10/27/06 in “The Year Of Playing Dirtier” (emphasis mine):

The result has been a carnival of ugly, especially on the GOP side, where operatives are trying to counter what polls show is a hostile political environment by casting opponents as fatally flawed characters. The National Republican Campaign Committee is spending more than 90 percent of its advertising budget on negative ads, according to GOP operatives, and the rest of the party seems to be following suit.

Post columnist E.J. Dionne observes how the GOP has shifted completely from hope to fear as a selling point in ”Republicans' Double Negatives” (10/31/06). He also decries false equivalency:

It's common to gather all political attacks under one large rubric called "negative campaigning" and to condemn the lot. But this is misleading.

A conservative who attacks his opponent for wanting to raise taxes and a liberal who accuses an adversary of favoring cuts in Medicare or environmental programs are both being "negative," but legitimately so, presuming that the criticisms are rooted in fact. If candidates can't air their disagreements, what's the point of free elections?

But this year Republican campaigners and their advocates in the conservative media have crossed line after line in sheer meanness, triviality and tastelessness. Conservative optimism and its promise of morning in America have curdled into the gloom of a Halloween midnight horror show.

But Post media columnist Howard Kurtz still manages to manufacture a false equivalency in his 10/26/06 column, ”Down in the Mud”:

Let's review the rather low state of this campaign season:

A GOP ad against Senate candidate Harold Ford -- featuring a white seductress who says she met the black lawmaker at a Playboy party and that he should call her -- is so odious and racially tinged that Ford's Republican opponent, Bob Corker, denounces it.

Republican Wyoming congresswoman Barbara Cubin tells a wheelchair-bound Libertarian candidate after a debate: "If you weren't sitting in that chair, I'd slap you in the face."

Hillary Clinton's opponent says she used to be ugly -- and why did Bill marry her, anyway? -- but now looks okay thanks to millions in plastic surgery.

Rush Limbaugh says Michael J. Fox is exaggerating his Parkinson's in political ads.

A John Kerry spokesman calls carping liberal bloggers "cowards."

Anybody out there feel like taking a shower?

When I read this column, I was astounded and appalled. It’s blatantly obvious that Kurtz added the Kerry spokesman item to placate his conservative audience and that it has absolutely no relation to the other items. Glenn Greenwald had the same reaction and dissected the column at more length, quipping “As we all learned to inquire from Sesame Street -- which of those examples does not belong on that list?”

Howard Kurtz seemed to come to his senses a week later with his 11/3/06 column ”Nattering Negativity,” if only because he read and quoted Slate’s Jacob Weisberg and his piece, ”Poisoned Politics.” Weisberg’s article possesses the refreshing subtitle, “The ads this year are worse than ever. Both sides aren't to blame.” After surveying several abhorrent Republican ads, Weisberg writes:

The other familiar excuse for negative advertising is that "everybody does it." Newspaper stories about attack commercials usually include a sampling of harsh Democratic spots in an effort to appear evenhanded. But there's really no comparison between what the two parties and their respective surrogates are doing. According to factcheck.org, a respected site that reviews the accuracy of various ads, "the National Republican Campaign Committee's work stands out this year for the sheer volume of assaults on the personal character of Democratic House challengers." Negative Democratic ads tie Republican candidates to President Bush, and to the Iraq war, or accuse them of being in the tank for the oil or pharmaceutical industries. But Democratic ads do not charge that their opponents "prey on our children"—even though one recently resigned following accusations that he did precisely that. One can only imagine the ads Republicans would have made this year if Mark Foley had happened to be a Democrat.

In fact, the form, style, and content of the contemporary attack ad are a specifically conservative contribution to American politics.

It’s a relief to see that many journalists can indeed accurately report the facts rather than succumbing to one side berating them as referee to slant things for them. As for Kurtz, I think he believes he is unbiased, and he occasionally makes good points, but after reading him closely for about three years now, I have to conclude he is more conservative than he thinks he is. (While he does quote liberal and neutral bloggers at times, his column almost always starts and predominates with a conservative blog round-up, and he quotes some really stupid and disingenuous conservatives. It would be more valuable if he challenged their obvious factual inaccuracies and failings of logic more often.)

But enough of such matters! Let’s see some ads and you can judge for yourself!

Exactly how bad are those dastardly Democrats?

They work for the mob!



(More information on this ad here.)

They're gay!



(More information on this ad here.)

The dark-skinned ones have sex with white women!



(Most people have seen the Harold Ford ad above already, but Crooks and Liars has a pretty exhaustive archive of the coverage on this ad, including Ken Mehlman’s craven spin, here.)

Gay illegal immigrants are crossing the border to steal your jobs, prevent prayer in school, and to piss on an upside-down American flag they've set on fire!

(Well, that's exaggerating a bit. But not by much!)



Slate also has a feature called “Damned Spot,” covering and annotating political ads. They now have selected ”The Slimiest Campaign Ads of 2006: Slate crowns this year's worst of the worst.” It’s not surprising that the contenders include at least one of the above candidates! But who will win the title?

See you next time, when a Democrat and his meth-dealing gay lover strangle a puppy!