Pages

Thursday, October 22, 2020

Best Political Ad, And Some Shabby Ones

 Since all my 'viewing' is online, I don't see the political ads on television, unless someone puts them online.  So my sample is small.  But the Jaimie Harrison ad below really impressed me.  It's not an attack ad and it goes beyond platitudes about helping the poor or lowering taxes (though it's still a feel good ad, not a policy ad.)  AND it's visually really cool.  His campaign against sitting Judiciary Committee chair Lindsay Graham has attracted a lot of money from outside of South Carolina, so he's got the cash to produce better than average commercials.  

Check it out.  Then we'll look at some local campaign mail I got that isn't so good.


Now for the local stuff.  I'd note, that in both cases, these are races outside of my own local district so I'm not sure why I'm getting them.  


A.   "Chris tuck is attacking your right to choose"



Chris has been in the State House at least ten years.  He's a Democrat and has had party leadership positions.  

This ad comes from Republican Katherine Henslee who is challenging him in the election.  I scratched my head when I read this.  A Republican is attacking a Democrat for being anti-abortion.  I called the candidate it was from.  

Steve:  Why are you sending out attack ads about Chris Tuck on abortion?
Katherine:  I'm surprised you think it's an attack ad.
Steve:  Well you attack his position on abortion. 
Katherine:  It's the truth. 
Steve:  So, are you pro-choice?
Katherine:  No, I'm pro-life.
Steve:  Then why are you attacking him on his pro-life stance?
Katherine:  Well, he doesn't support pro-life legislation as strongly as I would.  
Steve;  But I suspect he probably aligns a lot better on most of the other issues with pro-choice voters than you do, don't you think?

Basically, she's trying to sow seeds of doubt among pro-choice voters.  I couldn't get hold of Chris, but another person involved in Democratic politics told me that he is, personally, against abortion, but he's a Democrat and doesn't push against abortion in his political role.  

I'm not sure what sort of effect this has on voters.  Probably not much, but it may be like the attacks on Hillary Clinton and now Biden, to try to make some Democratic voters just leave their ballots blank rather than vote for Chris Tuck.  



My Opponent's left-wing Antifa Supporters


The most effective part of this letter is the photos of defaced signs.  But we don't know who did this. And there's nothing to suggest that Revak knows either.  There's even the possibility that he did this himself, though I wouldn't make that claim without more evidence.  

But the rhetoric looks like it's straight out of national Republican campaign book:

  • "Left wing Antifa supporters"
  • "Organizations that work hard to defund the police and bail out violent rioters"
  • "We will beat him and Antifa"
  • "will stop at nothing to steal this district from Republicans.  Their thugs have come out in force."

And from the back page:

  • "My opponent has support from outside money and influence. While our opponents want to suppress our resource development, limit our economic growth, and waste our savings, I'm fighting for what is best for the future of Alaska and for you"


1.  Antifa.   Wow!!  You'd think Antifa folks are running all over Alaska, rioting, and destroying property.  This is pure Republican  propaganda.  

Basically, the most 'real' thing about Antifa is how the Republicans the word to create a "Left" boogie man  that's  rioting and threatening to decent people.  It's part of Trump's strategy to throw whatever is said about him back onto his opponents.   But as this Washington Post article outlines

  • there is no monolithic organization called Antifa; 
  • it doesn't mastermind violence at BLM rallies;
  •  it's not affiliated with the Democratic party; 
  •  it's not funded by billionaires like George Soros; and 
  • they aren't 'the real fascists.'

At best it's an idea that people scattered around the US identify with in opposition to the fascist direction of the far right.  But again, Trump will even take a name that is "anti-fa(scist)" and say that it is fascist.  

And there have been NO riots or even rowdy BLM marches in Anchorage or other parts of Alaska.  Only benign peaceful events.  Clearly this is nationally directed rhetoric by people who know nothing about what's happening in Alaska.  If Alaskan's did write this, it's based on national talking points, not Alaskan reality.

2.  "Steal this district from Republicans" assumes that a district is owned by one party or another. But each district belongs to all the constituents of the district.  There are no "Republican" owned districts for Democrats or Independents to steal.  I find this particularly invidious.

3.  Outside money and influence.  

Actually, "outside" was written with a small 'o' suggesting he didn't mean Outside of Alaska. But it doesn't matter, since pretty much all candidates have money from 'outside.'  Nationally, it's clear that Senators from red states represent tens of millions fewer voters than Senators from blue states, but have more Senators, as this chart from 538 shows:


So people in the more populous blue states recognize that ideological Supreme Court nominees get approved in the Senate because small state Senators (each state gets two regardless of population) representing a minority of the US population, make up the majority of US Senators.  And so they know that if they want their majority views to prevail in the Senate, they have to contribute to Senate races outside of their own states.  

And both Republicans and Democrats only complain about Outside money when it's their opponents Outside money.  I haven't hear Revak complain about all the Outside money Governor Dunleavy, who appointed Revak to his Senate seat, raised.  

4.  Defund Police

Another national Republican talking point.  In Anchorage,  conservative Mayor Sullivan defunded the police during his terms and more liberal Mayor Berkowitz added back police.  And nationally, the argument isn't to simply defund police, but rather to steer money to people and programs better equipped to deal with the causes of crime and defusing conflicts.  The argument is that the police have to deal with too many issues they aren't trained or equipped to handle.  Like poverty, addiction, and mental health issues.  Fund experts and programs dealing with those issues and free the police to handle the real criminals.  


That's it, a review of the campaign media of three candidates that came my way.  


1 comment:

  1. I gotta say, wanting something and getting something have always been two very different things in life & politics. You have to work to get something in life and you have to do the same damn thing in politics; otherwise, the fella who wants HIS road paved gets his road paved. Yours remains dirt & twin-rut dust.

    Zero sum. Someone wins and someone looses. It takes money in the bank to pay for what we want. So some live where there's money to spend -- infrastructure laid long ago because of WHO lives in there. Works the same with private schools, nice-looking homes and all that promise of the 'good life'.

    Hey, you wanna get a paved road? Be someone politicians pay attention to: vote early, every election, go to fundraisers, speak up in public fora, organise with your neighbours, your community -- become what's called 'influencers'.

    Damn, I get tired of people's helplessness. I'm tired of my own in the face of what's going on, forever going on. But it's really not a choice IF we really believe there is something BETTER that would happen if only...

    If only. And that not-getting-younger black man is standing there in his 'if', like so many of us with our wish-list for democracy and things that matter.

    No, politicians are only attention-starved stand-ins for our hopes, desires, pettiness, selfishness, compassion, hatred, love and just plain stupidity. They are us, a cross-section of besotted inconsistencies that would fail to stand erect for one split-second if not for our incomprehensible failure to effect a better way to do the business of The People.

    So we try. Perhaps we turn our backs. But we all want OUR road paved.

    ReplyDelete

Comments will be reviewed, not for content (except ads), but for style. Comments with personal insults, rambling tirades, and significant repetition will be deleted. Ads disguised as comments, unless closely related to the post and of value to readers (my call) will be deleted. Click here to learn to put links in your comment.