Ad Accountability: Get informed

by Glenn Smith, Wed Aug 23, 2006 at 11:37:23 AM EDT

Bumped b/c Glenn knows Texas very well. One note to those who want to comment on adwatch. If your diary has anything to do with adwatch, tag it adwatch. If you don't tag it adwatch we cannot track it and it will get lost. - Matt

Some are criticizing the John Courage spot reviewed by Matt because it leaves out the word "democrat." That is criticism of the uninformed.  This accountability project, with all its potential for transforming progressive messaging, will falter if it devolves into ignorant (I mean that in a good way) ranting. Less will be accomplished. We don't have to be right about everything, 'cause just the public scrutiny will be a positive. But we should try to be informed, because we'll make an even greater positive difference.

Here's a fact:  Two of three voters in the Courage district are hard Republicans. If your message was "free apple pie for everyone," they'd love it. If you said, "Democrats are for free apple pie for everyone," they'd suddenly hate apple pie. I'm not kidding.

There is considerable organizing and message work being done in Texas, most of it by dedicated and underpaid people who want change. They are working hard, many volunteering their time, to change this dreadful circumstance from the ground up. The next time, John Courage may be able to win some voters over by bragging about his Democratic credentials. But not this time.

I wrote an entire book about how our political practices disadvantaged progressives. So I am no apologist for timidity. But we have to be smart. Many of the comments about the Courage ad are not smart. They may have been made by smart people, but they are uninformed.

Yes, as some of you know, I live with one of the spot's producers (Margie).  We quit the elite consultant corps so we could make a difference, knowing that doing things the old way was the loser's way. However, I'm not writing so much to defend the spot. I am asking that we first get informed before we speak. Whether you know it our not, you are very influential,  and you are making a huge difference. But you don't want to make the wrong kind of difference.

Tags: ad, Adwatch, courage, TV (all tags)

  • 69 Comments
  • 0 recs
  • Share
  • Permalink

Comments

69 Comments

Shadow_head_small
This is a good point

I spent some time in Texas last year and local activists explained this exact problem to me.  

To raise money for a Democrat in some Texas districts means hosting house parties for Republican donors.  

It's a very tough problem.  

But I think the ad critique series is designed mostly to allow these ideas to come out.  I believe we can raise them in the comment threads as a valuable part of the discussion.  We can't expect Stoller or anyone else to hit every good point at all times.

So I would say keep on this point, but try not to get too down on the ad accountability series just because of where the conversation starts in any given discussion.  What's important is all that comes out in the process--ideas like this in particular.

by Jeffrey Feldman 2006-08-23 08:53AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: This is a good point

Jeffrey, you are very right. I also responded to your question on Matt's thread. I did a poor job of explaining how important this accountability project is. And it is important precisely because it can provoke in-depth discussion.

Thanks for clarifying this. I apologize for creating some confusion. I also hope, of course, that as we proceed the knowledge base will increase that the conversation itself is elevated. But that will take time. And, lest anyone think I mean elevated to my level, I don't mean that. I've got a lot to learn myself.

One other point, it's come to me that some among us disagree profoundly with my messenging point. On this they are wrong and I am right. Once you say the word "democrat" in a district like Courage's, many of the hard Rs will tune you out. The won't hear what you say. Period. The entailments of the word, as they say, are negative.

This has to be changed from the bottom up or the inside out. Rs will become discouraged and divided once they are shown the consequences of Bush and others. But that has to be delivered to them from credible sources. That's one reason the right wing used churches as organizing shops.

We can't ask a candidate in such a circumstance to do it all. That's the reason we're working so hard to build a real grassroots infrastructure, so we can begin to alter these frames so candidates can take advantage of it later.

by Glenn Smith 2006-08-23 10:19AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: This is a good point

Yep.  My experience was in Tarrant Count.  Ohmygod.  Those Dems are HEROES down there--and they can barely use the word Democrat if they hope to get any money raised or votes out.

The deepest parts of the red states are the hardest for most of us to even imagine, let alone understand.    Those three trips I took to Texas in 2005 changed my whole perspective.

by Jeffrey Feldman 2006-08-23 10:32AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: This is a good point

It's really an experience down here. Living in the center of Austin, we got to see firsthand that even what could be called a swing part of this state, Donna Howard won a special election in the western part of Travis County (58%) this spring but did it without making a heavy emphasis on the partisan nature of the race. You have to know what works in different parts of Texas (and Courage's district overlaps a lot of Howard's House seat).

I wish we were some midwestern state. Believe me, we don't try to run away from the Democratic label in Texas, but we also would like to not have our party fall even farther apart. We have state house seats that are held by Democrats that are 70% Republican. I guess for some people, national standards of purity come before winning.

That's Texas.

by KTinTX 2006-08-23 10:47AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Helpful input, Glenn

Glenn...I think your comments are very helpful to the Adwatch process, not only regarding the Courage ad, but also in general.  The process will work best if it includes input from people "on the ground" in specific states and districts.  They can learn something from MyDDers around the country that review their local ads, but clearly we can learn some important things from them.  This is an opportunity to contribute our opinions, but also to listen and learn, so those opinions become more knowledgeable and, collectively, lead to improvements in campaign strategy and execution.  That mutually respectful collaboration is a key part of what makes us strong and will make us stronger.

by mitchipd 2006-08-23 10:06PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Ad Accountability: Get informed

Agreed 100%.

Adwatch is only effective if the people critiquing the ads know what they're talking about.

by HellofaSandwich 2006-08-23 09:05AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Ad Accountability: Get informed

Most of the people who will be watching the ads don't know anything political or technical either. Paying heed to the opinions of those who are the great unwashed and ignorant masses is probably better than politicos providing caveats and excuses for everything the ads lack.

by Sitkah 2006-08-23 03:10PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Ad Accountability: Get informed

Yeah, but the problem is, neither of us are the "unwashed masses" of TX-21.  Neither of us are Joe Texas Republican, we're liberal elections nerds.

But trying to imagine the district--raging hardcore conservative Republican territory--I fail to see why saying "I'm a Democrat" helps sell Courage.  If anything, it's a distraction.

by HellofaSandwich 2006-08-23 03:15PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Ad Accountability: Get informed

I've tried to make this point in the comments before, but for some reason Matt seems fixated on all Democrats, everywhere, stating their party affiliation loud and proud. Frankly, it's stupid in most of the swing districts out there.

by dantheman 2006-08-23 09:14AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Ad Accountability: Get informed

I'm not impressed by the average voter in my district or my country.  I may not be the smartest person on the block but i feel like i'm slightly above the average voter.  perhaps I'm not but i read more.  here is my question - are we to assume that the average voter is so dumb (and at the same time so partisan) that they will somehow be convinced by a 30 second TV spot to vote for a Name and Idea and then when they get in the voting booth/voting video game terminal they will ignore the R's and the D's?  

How low to we have to go?  In my humble opinion its important to stand up for the fact that you are democrat especially when you can't find a Republican ANYWHERE willing to say they are a Republican.  

But as you say, I may not be well informed.  I'm more than willing to be informed.  inform away.

by democracyinalbany 2006-08-23 09:40AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Ad Accountability: Get informed

Um, I'm pretty sure if you go to Utah or deep red Texas, you'll find lots of politicians who will freely admit that they are proud Republicans.

Another question you could ask is: Does 30 seconds give me enough time to make the case that I'm worth voting for, even if I am a Democrat?

Pretty tall order.  Courage is taking the right path--TX-21 voters, if anything, probably don't see what's wrong with Congress as a Republican problem, unfortunately.  Courage is addressing the problem without making people challenge their life-long beliefs in 60 seconds, which is all that he can do.

by HellofaSandwich 2006-08-23 09:48AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Ad Accountability: Get informed

four questions/points:

1) obviously i'm not from texas.  However, due to texas-like gerrymandering we have similiar situations here in the blue north.   Do you really think people will be convinced to vote for someone when? a) they don't know what party they are and b) they dont' know who they are running against?    

2) 30 Second commercials have worked for Republicans (or at least something has).   If we can't make our case in 30 seconds we are in trouble.

3) If people won't challenge long held beliefs they'll just get in the booth and vote the party line.

4)  Any district where they are freely admitting they are republicans probably isn't in the top 50 list.   While i'm all for challenging people everywhere I think we may have to have two discussions - one where the races are competitive and one where they are a longshot.

And, finally, the point of this project wasn't to spend time infighting it is to spend time talking about what works and what doesn't.   YOu think you know what wins in Texas, great.   I'm ready and willing to be informed.   That said I've never heard, read or believed that there are people anywhere in America who say, "i'm not sure what party that guy is in, but i sure like him and he's got my vote.".   While I wish this happened, i don't think its realistic.

by democracyinalbany 2006-08-23 10:09AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Short vs. long term strategy

Short term, it can be a loser to tie yourself to the Democratic Party brand in a swing or GOP district.

Long term, failing to build the Democratic Party brand in swing or GOP districts ensures further and deeper losses.

So what to do?

Ideally, you do both -- figure out how to say "I'm a Democrat" in a way that lets people know that you define what being a Democrat means.

If being a Democrat means being for balanced budgets, I'm a Democrat.

If being a Democrat means being for accountability, I'm a Democrat.

If being a Democrat means upholding our promise to our veterans, children, and parents, then I'm a Democrat.

But I never have put being a Democrat above being true to my honor, my friends, and my family. I will never put party above principle.

We will take back the Democratic Party and take back this country from the corrupt, the selfish, the irresponsible, the fearmongerers.

&etc.

by The Cunctator 2006-08-23 12:26PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Short vs. long term strategy

One suggestion....don't preface the statements with "If".

Being a Democrat means being for balanced budgets.  I'm a Democrat.

Being a Democrat means being for accountability. Yes, I'm a Democrat.

Being a Democrat means upholding our promise to our veterans, children, and parents. Damned right! I'm a Democrat.

by Sitkah 2006-08-23 12:50PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Short vs. long term strategy

I don't think people campaigning in red districts or reddish-purple should be counted on to build the brand too much. They'll be losing, if so, which isn't a good brand-builder. The people who need to do the brand building are the incumbents, the national Democratic politicians and committees, and the state-to-state infrastructure that Dean is trying to facilitate. Incumbents in swing districts especially should be building the brand throughout their time in Congress, not just during campaigns. It's a long-haul project to build a brand, and trying to pressure every candidate to proudly yell "I'm a Democrat!" in every ad isn't the best strategy ...

Now, avoiding Iraq and "Accountability" ... on that I agree with Matt completely.

by BriVT 2006-08-23 02:46PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Ad Accountability: Get informed

If it's stupid to state one is a Democrat before the voters, then it would be stupid to govern as one if elected. Net gain = 0.

by Sitkah 2006-08-23 03:12PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Not true

If a Democrat runs without mentioning his party much and wins, he can begin to push Democratic values from his little bully-pulpit (turkey-pulpit?) He may not even begin to push his party ID much (at first) but he will still be able to push Democratic ideas, values, and legislation.

P.S. I don't think you went "off the deep end" below.

by msnook 2006-08-23 03:41PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Not true

If one can't mention being a Democrat and get elected, how can one govern like one and expect to get re-elected?

That's the trouble with running from your own identity -- once you start, you can never stop.

by Sitkah 2006-08-23 03:55PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Not true

You can expect to get reelected because once you're an incumbent, you are 99 percent likely to get reelected, even if you're "out of touch" with your district, like Chet Edwards (Bush's congressman) or Jim Matheson.

by lorax 2006-08-23 06:58PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Not true

In that case, why are we even bothing to challenge GOP control?

by Sitkah 2006-08-23 07:02PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Evolution, not revolution

When you live in a region with < 30% DPI, you seek to displace the worst of the thugs with someone slightly less offensive. I have Kerry voters in my precinct lined up in the R line during the primary election because we only had contested races on the R side of the ballot. Unlike in many previous elections, we do have candidates, very qualified candidates in every race. But all were unopposed for the nomination. All are running on fumes. They're outspent ten-to-one. They have to move and change to unlisted phone numbers because of the death threats.

This is the kind of precinct you will find in TX-21, where Lamar Smith went from a toss-up against one opponent... to a 10-point favorite with two opponents after a court redrew five congressional districts in July. John Courage had this race in the bag. When thousands of rural voters in Kerr and Bandera counties returned to TX-21, Courage could have dropped out of the race.

John Courage is an extraordinary person. The MyDD reaction to his ad has really disappointed me, but I suspect it is because of a lack of understanding what we're up against down here.

I'll tell you why we're bothering to challenge GOP control. It's because we love this country and we're horrified by what we've watched it turn into. Lamar Smith has supported the interests of the ACLU zero percent of the time in the past two years. According to the National Journal, in 2005, Representative Smith voted more conservative on economic, defense and foreign policy issues than 90 percent of the Representatives. [Project Vote-Smart]

I'd support any candidate more liberal than that for this seat, even an R if that was my only other choice. Based on his thoughtful positions on the Military, Economy, Civil Rights and the Environment, John Courage is going to be a massive improvement over Smith.

(Unfortunately, I don't get the opportunity to vote for Courage because I live in TX-31. The situation here is very similar. Mary Beth Harrell, a courageous moderate Democrat is waging a vigorous campaign against John Carter, the moron who led the cabal of Texas racists who tried to stop the renewal of the Voting Rights Act.

I trust John Courage and Mary Beth Harrell to lay out their strategy as they battle up-hill in suburban/rural districts 21 and 31.

Ideally, I think all Democrats should proudly declare their party affiliation and take progressive stands; however, in reality, replacing Lamar Smith and John Carter in Congress with anyone... a sock puppet... would do the nation a great service. These treacherous defenders of corporate welfare, law-and-order as a code word for racism, immigration grandstanding that won't address corporate demand for illegal sub-minimum-wage employment, political organizing at places of worship, privatizing governmental services to companies run by campaign contributors are nothing but soldiers in Bush's war on democracy in America.

We have to get rid of the worst of these cretins so we can raise the average IQ of the House of Representatives. The strategy of ramming "I'm a Democrat" down the voters' throats in Texas is doomed to failure. We cannot change the perceptions in a single campaign, and frankly many of the responses on this thread give me concerns that we won't replace one corrupt single-party machine with another.

Remember, Democrats care about all the people. Republicans only care about certain people. Please recognize that in order to live up to the Democratic ideal, you have to respect the diversity of this nation. Recognize that a single monolithic strategy that proved effective in a D primary in CT will not win every race in every district.

by dembones 2006-08-23 09:22PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Evolution, not revolution

I used to think like you -- a bad  D is better than a worse R etc. etc. etc. -- and have all kinds of reasons to justify holding Democrats less accountable than Republicans.

I don't play that losing game any more. I hold politicians up to principles and if they don't live up to them I call them on it. I'll still vote for whomever is on my ballot, but I won't praise who or what I think doesn't deserve it. The two party system can rob me of meaningful choice too much of the time, but it can't rob me of my conscience and voice.

As for this ad, I'm amazed at the overreaction to my humble  opinions about it and wonder why others who expressed the same opinions haven't had to spend the past 24 hours answering people who have blown it ridiculously out of proportion -- even to the point of trying to put words I didn't say into my mouth and being personally insulting. Very strange.

by Sitkah 2006-08-23 10:02PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Not so strange

As for this ad, I'm amazed at the overreaction to my humble  opinions about it and wonder why others who expressed the same opinions haven't had to spend the past 24 hours answering people who have blown it ridiculously out of proportion -- even to the point of trying to put words I didn't say into my mouth and being personally insulting. Very strange.

Though it did get too personal there, I think the reaction to you is completely understandable.

You do not know this district. Period. And insisting that your litmus test of using "Democrat" in this ad, for example, before you'll deign to approve, is no different than expecting every single Democrat to line up with the same stance on gun control, or yes, choice.

It is the very SAME attitude that makes Texas Democrats running in predominately Red districts have to spend precious resources dissociating from the North east liberal to establish that they are running to represent the people in that district-not Massachusetts or Maine.

I grew up in AZ, and I live in Texas now. Just as you couldn't run the same campaign in rural Graham and Greenlee counties you could in Pima, you have to understand the people and the place you are running.

First things first. And replacing Lamar Smith so he cannot take over the Judiciary committee having carried water for the Bush Party and Tom Delay is the first thing in TX-21.

by boadicea 2006-08-24 09:59AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Not so strange

Ever think if Democrats followed a strategy different that the  boilerplate one you embrace they already control Congress and would be defending it this year.

I think it was Einstein who said stupidity is doing the same over and over and expecting a different result. That descibes the DLC NeoDem approach to winning for the past 12 years (losing, actually).

by Sitkah 2006-08-24 11:13AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
You misunderstand

I'm suggesting the exact opposite of boilerplate campaigning.

Where did you get that from in my comments?

by boadicea 2006-08-24 01:48PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: You misunderstand

For the past decade Democratic boilerplate campaigning has come to mean Democrats hiding what they are from voters. I catagorically reject the notion that Democrats have to do that to win and believe that more would win by doing the opposite.

The added bonus is that when a Democrat campaigns as one, he or she can then govern as one too when elected.

by Sitkah 2006-08-24 02:08PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Two points

1.  You objected to someone putting words in your mouth, yet you've done exactly that to me.  

2.  Your categorical rejection basically takes the form of refusing to listen to people who are actually on the ground. Fair enough, everybody's entitled to their corner of ignorance.  However, then it shouldn't be a surprise at all that the responses you get back are just as pointed.

by boadicea 2006-08-24 04:49PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Two points

I put no words in your mouth. I didn't even use the word "you" in my response. I was speaking in a generality and there's no reason to think it was meant for you unless it perhaps hit uncomfortably close to home by accident.

I hope you have nothing more of a personal nature to discuss because, frankly, personal recrimination is a bore.

by Sitkah 2006-08-24 05:27PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
No, I'm through with you

Carry on.

by boadicea 2006-08-24 06:30PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: No, I'm through with you

I thought you'd never ask.

by Sitkah 2006-08-24 07:03PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Ad Accountability: Get informed

If a Democrat can't claim to being one in a campaign, then that Democrat won't be able to govern like one if elected either.  We've already got enough of those in Congress

And why should Democrats bother to go out and vote in that case since they're going to get a de facto R anyway?

Honesty is always the best policy. But then, maybe the honest truth is that Democrats who won't mention their party ID or criticize Bush and Iraq really are de facto R's.

by Sitkah 2006-08-23 11:51AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Darcy Burner looks like a real wingnut to me

Seriously, Sitkah, you've been going off the deep end lately.

by OfficeOfLife 2006-08-23 12:13PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Darcy Burner looks like a real wingnut to me

Well, if calling for openness and honesty before the voters is considered "going off the deep end", then please call me deep.

by Sitkah 2006-08-23 12:36PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
They're just fluffy bio ads

The first ad or two a candidate releases rarely talks about the issues. We will hear plenty more from these candidates about Iraq, Bush, etc.

The blogosphere has very unrealistic and out-of-touch expectations, thanks to the instant gratification of the internet. You want Courage to brag about being a Democrat? In that district? That's your partisan idealism trumping all common sense.

by OfficeOfLife 2006-08-23 01:38PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: They're just fluffy bio ads

See above.

We already have too many Democrats pretending to be Republicans.

by Sitkah 2006-08-23 03:14PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: They're just fluffy bio ads

Ah, so you're a "Kucinich or bust" type. Well, you're not going to be happy in this country for, well, our lifetimes.

by OfficeOfLife 2006-08-23 04:15PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: They're just fluffy bio ads

I didn't support Kucinich for a second.

Next groundless assumption?

by Sitkah 2006-08-23 04:48PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Ad Accountability: Get informed

There are wide open spaces between a moderate Democrat like Courage and an extremist rightwingnut like his opponent. A Dem representative of a conservative district in Texas will not be as progressive as you might like, but I think we are lucky to have a candidate as strong as Courage running in such a conservative district.

I would like to ad that not only have the Republicans shortchanged our vets, they have broken their promises to the active military and the reserves. The theme of broken promises needs to get worked into the accountability theme. To a real conservative a man's word is good. We don't have conservatives in Washington, we have neocon men.

by FishOutofWater 2006-08-23 01:02PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Ad Accountability: Get informed

There are wide open spaces between a moderate Democrat like Courage and an extremist rightwingnut like his opponent.

I'm not sure what a moderate Democrat is unless it's the same thing as a moderate Republican.

And how are the great many barely informed voters who rely on soundbites in order to make their choices supposed to know someone is a moderate Democrat if they aren't even told at all that person is a Democrat, or that the opponent is an extremist rightwingnut?

How are they to know that a candidate wants a timed withdrawl from Iraq unless informed of it? If I didn't hear it from him I would assume that they're with Bush on the matter.

At the recent DNC meeting Howard Dean said [para.] "Demcrats aren't running from THEIR party!" Well, in just about all of the ads we've seen here in the past few days that's exactly what Democrats are doing.

(And speaking of Dean, I really do pity him at times. I just saw him on CNN fighting like hell for Democrats, but continuously being cut off at the knees by cowardly quotes from Bush following NeoDemocrats. Oy Vey, indeed!)

by Sitkah 2006-08-23 01:31PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Ad Accountability: Get informed

I see that Courage add as an introduction to the candidate.  

It lays out the value logic of the guy: The Military protects, we promised to take of them. I was a military guy, I keep my promises. Great.

Though I think that "18,000 Promises" title stays up for far too long (it could fade into at least one more button from the voiceover such as "promise to protect" when he says those words)

But the next ad. In my experience canvassing deep red Republicans I found that many were honestly uneasy with single party rule.

What if he points out that the VA is cut partly because without checks and balances, nobody asks hard questions. Debate and negotiation is missing when one agenda rules over every branch.

by dereau 2006-08-23 12:03PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
I'm skeptical about the strategy of

...a candidate not mentioning he's a Democrat, no matter how many Republicans live in the district.

It's a glaring ommission.  It may make a candidate seem like he's ashmamed of his party to leave it out.

Can you tell us the names of Democratic candidates who got elected without ever mentioning their party in their commercials?

by EricJaffa 2006-08-23 12:39PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Mark Warner

I think he ran for Governor in VA without the party name in at least some of his commercials.

VA banned party name on the ballot, which means the name of the candidate is far, far more important than the name of the party.  

In New York, I can be half drunk and still find the 'Democratic Party' lever, so establishing party identity is crucial.

My point: I think the real thing we should watch out for is overstatement in our critiques.  There's no such thing as 'never ever.'

by Jeffrey Feldman 2006-08-23 12:46PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
OK, but local races are different than federal.

New York has a Republican governor.

People care more about party regarding federal candidates.

by EricJaffa 2006-08-23 01:08PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Mark Warner

As a lifelong NY voter, there is something I didn't know.  How many states have ballots that don't ID the party affiliation so you just have a list of candidate names in front of you?  

by democracyinalbany 2006-08-23 01:33PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
VA banning party ID, not entirely true...

I'm not sure if you meant something less sweeping than what I read, but party ID does appear on the ballot at least for statewide elections and for the city council elections in my city.

by msnook 2006-08-23 03:32PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
whoops

Apologies, everyone.  I seem to have had a wire crossed on the rules for listing party affiliation on VA ballots.  My original comment was wrong.

Here is a description of how VA lists candidates--federal, statewide, and general assembly candidates DO have party affiliation listed.

All the rest do not.  And voters do not register by party affiliation.

I had this wrong in my original comment. Sorry if I led anyone astray.

I still seem to recall, however, that Warner ran some great commercials that did not declare he was a Democrat.

by Jeffrey Feldman 2006-08-24 04:40AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Probably many

I doubt the Stephanie Herseths or Brian Schweitzers of the world mentioned the party much in their ads.

by OfficeOfLife 2006-08-23 01:46PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Probably many

Maybe it's time to just do away with both parties since so few politicians want to be openly associated with either.

by Sitkah 2006-08-23 03:25PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Ahem

http://www.darcyburner.com/

What does it say up top?

by OfficeOfLife 2006-08-23 04:08PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Ahem

We aren't talking about her website.

by Sitkah 2006-08-23 04:50PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Ahem

She is clearly not afraid of identifying herself as a Democrat, that is the point.

She is not your DLC bogeyman or closet wingnut, so keep looking.

by OfficeOfLife 2006-08-23 06:04PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Ahem

All people are pointing out is that she didn't identify herself as a Democrat in her ad.

So I am not the bogeyman you seem to trying to make of me.

by Sitkah 2006-08-23 06:43PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Ahem

Actually, you accused her and several other Democratic candidates of being Republicans, because they did not write their ads exactly as you wanted.

by OfficeOfLife 2006-08-23 06:56PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Ahem

Actually, you accused her and several other Democratic candidates of being Republicans, because they did not write their ads exactly as you wanted.

Actually, I'd like to see the quote of what you're referring to.

People love to say "you said" or "you're saying" when what they're claiming has no basis in fact..

I'll check back later for that quote.

by Sitkah 2006-08-23 07:08PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Ahem

"If a Democrat can't claim to being one in a campaign, then that Democrat won't be able to govern like one if elected either.  We've already got enough of those in Congress

And why should Democrats bother to go out and vote in that case since they're going to get a de facto R anyway?

Honesty is always the best policy. But then, maybe the honest truth is that Democrats who won't mention their party ID or criticize Bush and Iraq really are de facto R's."

What the hell do you call that?

You call Democrats who do not mention the party "de facto R's" quite clearly. But your attempt to spin out of this one will be quite interesting, so do go ahead.

by OfficeOfLife 2006-08-23 11:41PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Ahem

As I expected, you didn't provide a quote that said what you claimed I said -- accusing Darcy Burner of being a Republican. It's time for you to find another windmill to tilt at.

by Sitkah 2006-08-23 11:50PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Very bad spin

You are directly accusing the candidates whose ads we were discussing (which included Burner) of being "de facto R's". Your words are there in black and white. I suppose you were talking about some OTHER mysterious Democrats here? The invisible ones floating around in the ether, nameless?

by OfficeOfLife 2006-08-24 11:58AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Very bad spin

Yes, my words are there and in them I did not accuse Dary Burner of being a Republican as you so disingenuously claimed.

I think you need to get a life....or a new thread, at least.

You can keep carrying on a deadthread conversation with yourself if you want, but I'm leaving you in the past.

Ciao.

by Sitkah 2006-08-24 12:34PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Ahem

Well, isn't an American politician who doesn't criticise Bush and  Republican rule either a Republican or a Bush enabler?  Isn't a Bush enabler, like Lieberman, a de facto Republican on the most important issues facing America? With friends like Lieberman do the Democrats need enemies? If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a Republican.

by FishOutofWater 2006-08-24 05:19AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Ahem

Just to get this straight...you are saying that Darcy   Burner is a Republican (or a traitorous enabler) because she did not lash into Bush in her first ever political ad, correct? Because Sitkah said exactly that as well and is now ducking and spinning out of control.

by OfficeOfLife 2006-08-24 11:56AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Stephanie Herseth was running statewide

for the one Congressional seat for South Dakota.

Everyone knew who she was and that she was a Democrat.

It's different with a candidate trying to introduce himself in one of the multiple Congressional districts in a state.  Then if he doesn't say what party he's with, people may feel like they don't know enough about him to care about his campaign.

by EricJaffa 2006-08-23 03:34PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Stephanie Herseth was running statewide

That's ridiculous. Like it's some big secret? The candidates' party affiliation is all over the newspaper, the local news, the internet, and... OH YEAH, on the freakin ballot as you're standing there figuring out who to vote for.

The media has NOTHING on the blogosphere in terms of negativism. It's "the sky is falling!" 24/7 here.

Everybody here is an advertising expert, a top political consultant, and a master of public policy.

These are political novices running their very first ad, people. There will be more ads touching on more issues. Geez...

by OfficeOfLife 2006-08-23 04:05PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Stephanie Herseth was running statewide

Herseth not advertising her Democratic affiliation had nothing to do with her family name. If it wasn't a liability, it would have been in there.

How do you explain away Jon Tester, by the way?

http://www.testerforsenate.com/

by OfficeOfLife 2006-08-23 04:11PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Stephanie Herseth was running statewide

Here in AZ I've been seeing Pederson for Senate signs for months and a while back saw a TV ad of his. Based on the fact that he didn't identify himself as a Dem, and as a result of the "close the border" theme of his ad, I assumed for a long time that he was a Republican challenging Kyl in the primary.

I expect a lot of other people still havent figured it out yet. Not all Democrats who don't identify themselves as such will lose, but those who do will deserve it.

by Sitkah 2006-08-23 06:49PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Stephanie Herseth was running statewide

l Democrats who don't identify themselves as such will lose, but those who do lose will deserve it.

by Sitkah 2006-08-23 06:53PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
party ID ensures that people remember the ad

So we already know that people don't remember the facts of political ads or even news articles and campaigns speeches, just whether they liked what they heard.

If you make a good ad, people will like what they hear, and then associate it with the candidate. If people don't know who the candidate is, then saying "Democrat for Congress" at the end gives them something to anchor their good impression to. The ad falls on deaf ears (or really, short attention spans) if it makes people like "that guy from that ad" with no other identifying anchors.

In a really red district, you need an identifying anchor other than party ID, so say the name of your opponent.

In purple districts, use the word Democrat -- this is the year to do it, and it's easier for people to remember later which person they liked when they saw that ad. In the hard red districts, you don't need to say Democrat, but you have got to give people anchors -- like saying the name of the opponent.

by msnook 2006-08-23 03:22PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
The purpose of leaving out &quot;Democrat&quot;

is to send a message that you don't toe the party line. In purple and red districts, you want to be seen as "independent minded". The party orthodoxy is secondary to "doing what's best for the district".

No surprise that the hard-core partisans here don't like it, but it makes sense. If I were these candidates I certainly wouldn't be coming here for advice.

by OfficeOfLife 2006-08-23 04:19PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
OK...not really

I agree with your point that leaving out party affiliation can sometimes be a good strategy.  But not for the reason you just offered.  

Imagine that in the district you just described, two candidates run for office--each who ran ads that just said,"John Smith-Democrat" or "Jane Smith-Republican" and nothing else--no positions, no issues, just the name of the candidate and the name of the party.  

In this 'purple' distcit, what would people do?  They would still choose D or R.    Or they would not vote at all.  But if they are so independent minded, it would make no sense for them to not vote, since they would be engaged voters to begin with. So, the argument that party name scares off or hurts our chances with independent voters--that does not make much sense to me.  

I see leaving off 'Democratic Party' only as a strategy that makes sense in a very 'red' district where a candidate is left with a grim  choice--identify with the Democratic Party and lose or do not identify and run a campaign that draws Republicans away from the incumbent candidate.  If we take the 50-State strategy seriously, then in some places--we may have to win by appealing to the majority Republicans.  In districts that are 90% Republican, there will be disagreements wide enough amongst Republicans to potentially unseat an incumbent.  If a Democratic candidate can straddle that divide to his/her advantage--I'd send money.

But if we know that a district is purple--then we should probably be putting that D on everything that comes out of the campaign.  Being independent-minded still means that people make choices.

(Again, though...I am not critiquing this ad, just participating in this discussion)

by Jeffrey Feldman 2006-08-24 05:00AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Ad Accountability: Get informed

The Republicans took over Congress by running on a Republican platform. One reason Dems are out of power is Dems have run as individuals. If you don't believe in your product , how do you expect to sell it?

by FishOutofWater 2006-08-23 08:41PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads