Wednesday, August 29, 2018

Pondering political advertising …

***2 cups coffee, 2050 steps (blame the rain), one yummy plum***

I got the final color added to my newest tattoo last night! It’s an owl with purples and blues. I love it! I’ll post a pic as soon as it heals up.

Let’s jump right on in!

We are well into the political season, y’all. The House of Bitchitude has been trying to watch less political news, but it is damn near impossible to avoid the commercials. As a St. Louisan, I get to see both Illinois and Missouri political ads.


It’s not all bad, though. I’m a former broadcast advertising sales person, so I enjoy trying to figure out who the hell these ads are supposed to appeal to. The thing about television ads is that they are going out to a huge audience even if they are supposed to speak to a select universe.

For example, NRSC is running an ad in Missouri featuring footage of Trump speaking at some sort of rally or event about McCaskill and the GOP tax cuts that were so poorly crafted that your average Missourian either forgot they happened or is still pissed they happened but failed to trickle down.

The ad is a mess. Trump is slurring his words and not the most articulate fellow on a good day, but I could make out that he thinks every senator should have supported his tax cut for the elites … and he’s confused why McCaskill opposed burning money to increase debt with zero benefit for the majority of her constituents.

Clearly NRSC thinks featuring Trump is a positive, even a mumbling slurring Trump. I really don’t want to live in a state where featuring an un-indicted co-conspirator in ads is still a benefit, but here I am.

Time will tell if the Trump slurrified ad helps Hawley, but Lawd it shouldn’t.

The tax cuts haven’t benefited most Missourians. And they sure as hell won’t help Missourians facing the ramifications of Hawley’s anti-ACA lawsuit. Lots of us have pre-existing conditions, and not having coverage is expensive as hell. The kind of expensive that folk with backgrounds like Hawley (Stanford alum, Yale law school grad) don’t understand, and the comms team at NRSC probably call fake news.

Anyway, we’re all going to be seeing a lot of political ads claiming all manner of shit until election day. Some will feature that orange man, lots will be inaccurate as hell.

In a world of bullshit, spin, and faux news voters need to focus on the known knowns.

What policies have helped you?

Who is fighting to protect them?

And who has said they don’t support them, partnered with an orange-faced man who puts them at risk, or has taken action while in office to destroy those policies?

Meanwhile, I’m holding out hope that the team that gave us the demon sheep ad gives us another gem. 

That, my friends, was an amazing campaign ad!



dinthebeast said...

I had a special smile because of that sheep when I voted for Barbara Boxer, whose husband has a law firm here in Oakland where you can get help navigating the process of applying for SSDI. And Carly's act didn't seem to get that much better with practice.
Being no-one's idea of a swing state, we generally don't get the same volume of political ads that I hear folks in other states talk about, and the ones we do get have a sort of different flavor to them.
Of course I don't watch much TV, and the ads they run out in the more conservative parts of the state may be as generic as hell for all I know, but if so, I've never heard about it. Also, we're a famously expensive media market and a really big state and that probably isn't much of an incentive.
I think I'm gonna check out what kind of ads are running in the congressional contests here that are up for actual grabs this time: Nunes, Rohrabacher, McCarthy, and those other Republicans who are a bit nervous for their seats this time in a state that went for Clinton by thirty points. Those should be interesting.
What are Hunter's ads gonna say this time? "Vote for me, I'm a crook just like the president"?
The sad thing is according to the polls, he might still win. WTF, San Diego?

-Doug in Oakland

Pamela Merritt said...

Seriously, wtf San Diego?!? Ugh.

Peterr said...

Here on the other side of the state, in metro KC, we get both MO and KS ads . . . It's UGly with a capital UG. On the morning after the MO and KS primaries, my kid asked "Does this mean that we're done with these ads for a while?" and I just laughed. "Not 'til November," I told him, just as a bunch of ads appeared on the television.

The thing that drives me nuts in the political coverage of Missouri races like McCaskill's is when national media talk about Trump's big win in MO over Clinton in 2016 as this predictor of huge support for Hawley. What that approach misses is that every other statewide race further down the ticket in 2016 was really, really close, including some that should not have been close (I'm looking at you, Roy Blunt). Trump's 2016 campaign was very Clinton-focused, rather than "the GOP is the way to go" and it showed up in the lack of coattails downticket. All the other races were nailbiters that broke for the GOP.

There's also a ton of money being spent by dark money groups pushing folks toward the GOP that have messages like "Tell Claire to vote to confirm Kavanaugh . . ." By definition, they are "issue ads" but in practice these are clearly aimed at the McCaskill-Hawley race.

Unknown said...

The podcast was extremely biased. As a Planned Parenthood Legislative & Political Committee member, I know exactly the vote count; and as I recll there were about 7 absent in a chaotic vote. I wrote to every single representative regarding their vote. I am planning to reach out to the reporter; she should have spoken to M'Evie Mead or Stephen Webber for some balanced reporting. Very disappointing.