Current ad for Democrat Steve Novick, running against Gordon Smith in Oregon (h/t to Allie Foote):
A 2006 ad for Democrat Jon Tester, who defeated GOP incumbent senator Conrad Burns:
And Michael Steele had good ads:
This blog serves my Congress course (Claremont McKenna College Government 101) for the spring of 2024.
ABOUT THIS BLOG
I shall post videos, graphs, news stories, and other material there. We shall use some of this material in class, and you may review the rest at your convenience. You will all receive invitations to post to the blog. (Please let me know if you do not get such an invitation.) I encourage you to use the blog in these ways:
There are only two major limitations: no coarse language, and no derogatory comments about people at the Claremont Colleges.
To post questions or comments about the readings before we discuss them in class;
To follow up on class discussions with additional comments or questions.
To post relevant news items or videos.
There are only two major limitations: no coarse language, and no derogatory comments about people at the Claremont Colleges.
Search This Blog
Links
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Links
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(76)
-
▼
February
(23)
- Legislation and Legislative Research
- Simulation Roster
- I'm Just a Bill
- Doppelgangers and Rahm
- Party Leadership
- Party Influence Over Elections
- "Pledged" Delegates
- The Superdelegate Dilemma
- Parties in Congress
- Simulation Roles
- Obama, Clinton Shower Cash on Delegates
- Walkout
- Ads, Ads, Ads
- Strategy and Tactics
- Use of Campaign Funds
- Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH) pitches to college students o...
- Rep. Tom Lantos Dead at 80
- Money, Money, Money
- Senate's Stimulus Measure Blocked
- Congressional Elections
- Links for the Writing Assignment
- John McCain's hill style
- Congressional Election Fundamentals
-
▼
February
(23)
1 comment:
Some thoughts in response...
I have some trouble with Novick's ad, because it sends mixed messages. On the one hand, the "punchline" plays up Novick's unique history pretty effectively. But on the other hand, the other guy--that is, "you"--looks quite bored throughout. The message seems to be "it doesn't matter who you want to have a beer with, or who you find more personable--go with the guy with substance." That's a risky statement, and it doesn't help that Novick is talking very broad campaignspeak terms. A safer bet: Make your candidate look like a guy you would want to have a beer with, chatting comfortably and knowledgably about foreign policy...and oh yeah, he's an amputee too! Or, alternatively, don't put him in a bar.
Tester's ad was fun but style definately beat substance. As in the first, the visuals overpowered the political content of the audio. (Then again, maybe that's the point.)
I did like the line "making Washington look more like Montana." So many candidates come off as incongruously combative when they talk about cleaning up DC corruption. This way is more gentle, and it praises the electorate at the same time.
Steele's was my favorite. It got out in front of incoming attack ads in a lighthearted way, and so wasn't an attack itself. The flying text was a bit infomercially, but it hit you with political content, instead of swallowing it.
Post a Comment