So far, I would have to say that Jack Carter's ad is the worst, but Whitehouse's ad is really very bad as well.  It's clear that his heart is in the right place on Bush, Iraq, etc. but the language and delivery is milquetoast.

Bush needs to be mentioned specifically in the "wrong direction" part, he needs to point out that he's a Democrat, and that he wants to extinguish the REPUBLICAN culture of corruption.

Why is this so hard for the candidates to figure out?

Why must you be such a child, Matt?

Child child child.

Go run and play with bloggers and Al Sharpton.

--Al From

actually, whitehouse has been out of office since 2002, when he ran for governor

The next story should be about how the DC consultants are running a coordinated "Stealth Democrat" (and stealth Bush for that matter) ad campaign nationwide.

It's not a hard-hitting attack ad, but it says that the administration ("leadership") is incompetent and corrupt, and we need to get out of iraq.

The guy must like Dean a lot because it follows the six-point plan exactly.

If every Democrat would use the language Whitehouse would be strengthened by the consistency in messaging.

But no, noone's willing to repeat "A New Direction" or "Together We Can Do Better".

Slogans don't work because they're great -- they work because they're mindlessly repeated a million times.

I mean, "Contract With America" sounds like some kind of creepy mob hit or corporatespeak for a pink-slip plan.

I don't think there's anything real in this ad.   It's all boilerplate.  

Might be more effective to just buy a 60 second spot and put up a still shot of his name, party and picture.

I really feeling my head knocking against the conventions of the ad industry with these spots.   They all seem to lack any genuine feeling or purpose.  I mean...beyond the absence of the specific target points mentioned in the MyDD memo, these ads just seem heartless.  Like the candidate doesn't really have a passion for them or a believe in their power.  

I think my sensibilities have been changed by the rawness of  YouTube videos.  I find myself wanting these ads to have that same snappy freshness as we find in a roughly sewn together YouTube ad.  Something that screams 'We really want this!'  

These ads all come off like leftovers reheated in a political microwave.

I'm not sure how to communicate thta to a campaign PR director, but beyond the points about party ID, Iraq, Bush--these ads need more pepper!

The ad has to be the worst yet I have seen- jump cuts all over the place, the candidate is positively milquetoast saying nice platitudes-I undertsand not going negative early- but what about being aggresive positively-not a scream but a stump speech with crowds, some self depracating humor. Free tips: pick an important issue and stick with it through the ad- e.g., healthcare and why it matters and show the consequences of the cuurent system (doughnut hole or emergency care treatment as the first treatment for poor people)- basically- show that you will work for and with people by working for and with people in the ad- grade F- even worse than the one from the Washington lady (at least that ad showed someone who I instantly liked by her comportment).    

That's abundantly clear after watching this Sominex ad. I know the state is blue and Whitehouse has the poll lead over Chafee right now, but trust me that changes dramatically if Chafee survives the primary. It will be another 50/50 race against an incumbent, and one who is considered likable and not a wingnut. If anyone watched the debate last night Chafee did anything but run from his record.

Anyway, back to the ad. One thing I've noticed for years; the 60 second commercials don't cut it. They inevitably drag on and provide nothing memorable in the late going. Sharp 15 or 30 second spots are much more effective.

Whitehouse does not know his opponent. So that's an excuse for lack of attack mode. A campaign against Laffey will be dramatically different than one opposing Chafee.

Is Whitehouse well known in Rhode Island? I have no idea. Looks like another introductory ad to me, which is fine if it were more decisive and competent. But this one reminded me of a Clinton State of the Union speech, a laundry list. Far superior to focus on one or two themes that stand out.

Plus, did anyone notice the wimpy terms? It was like the "Together, we can do better" slogan. He leads off with "America is going in a bad direction." That's the brainstorm, the best you can come up with? Then he's "lost confidence" and we have to "improve" and "measure up." He couldn't even say disgraceful. It was "pretty close to disgraceful." I was yelling at him to take a decisive stand. This commercial gave me much less confidence Whitehouse can defeat Chafee.

I can understand why you might want to down play your party affiliation in Alabama or Mississippi but why in RI.  This is a deep blue state.  It is happening all over and I keep wanting to think there must be a logical explanation but I am coming to the conclusion that these candidates are a bunch of chickenshits.  I know this isn't very PC but I find this very frustrating.

If the Dems win a majority this fall it will be because of the sheer revulsion of Repubs not because  of any kind of design by Dems. This portends how they will behave if elected.

These ads are such a good point, that they don't even say they are Dems because the are ashamed.

Although I have seen ads being run in CA (not Angelides) that have Arnold rallying for Bush with Bush just behind him - with captions on Iraq, gas prices and the debt. A negative ad knocking Arnie and not for anyone.

Fits Matt's theme very well. Don't know who is running the ad?

I have a suggestion.

Since we have many low info ticket--why not generic DNC ads to educate people to vote a straight Dem ticket---will force Dem rebranding and pride in their party.

If people see we are proud of our party and what it stands for many people will join us.

And there is a lot of things to be proud of.  For me Dem party is the party of the people and pragmatism, the real moderate party while Rep party is the party of corporations, wealthy and warmongers and special interest and neocons.

"And by the way, I know what swing voters are, and I know that not everyone is a Democrat or a blogger.  Some people seem to forget that the MyDD readership is not composed of children."

I know you're not children.  

I also know that applying the results of polling in one district in California to other districts is silly.

What's worse is judging candidates' ads as good or "failures" based on polling from another district.  

Some of the messaging suggested in the CA-50 memo might very well work very well in other districts.  Some of it might not.  

Yes, you "did polling, yes, real honest to goodness polling, with voters."  That's terrific.  It looks like great stuff.  

It's pretty likely, however, that the candidates who are running ads in other districts have done real honest to goodness polling.  With voters and everything.  

The difference is that their polling is actually from the districts or states in which they're running, not of the electorate of a special election in California.

It defies logic to suggest that candidates in Washington, New Jersey and now Rhode Island are succeeding or failing with their communications because of polling you did in California.  

In the absence of knowing what their polling (and in the case of Rhode Island, probably focus group research) showed, I just think it's irresponsible to trash campaigns that we'd all would pretty much like to see win.  

i personally thought this ad was good. when democrat name brand isnt polling well, it may not be genius to put it in the ad. and by your logic if everyone knows him, they know hes a democrat. either way - i thought the issues and delievery of this ad were good, as opposed to the burner ad which i thought was poorly done and just dragged on for a minute. this ad kept me into it for the whole minute

I'm at the Newport News Airport, the TV has the local Fox News dialed in, and there is Miss Mega-Bitch, Ann Coulter, lying  as usual. The "reporter" lobs Coulter this leading question which goes something like: So, it would seem that the Democrats want to do nothing about fighting terrorism. Of course, Coulter has all her ruptured ducks lined up and starts this rant about how Dems don't want to pursue terrorists, are against wire taps, etc. etc. ad nauseum.

So, here's my idea for an ad. An ad that is run on Fox TV. An ad run in the very military oriented south-east Virginia. Take about 10 seconds of Ann Coulter doing her lying best, then a door slams in her face. And the next image a viewer has in his or her face is the face of a pissed-off Jim Webb. His first words are, "I'm the Democratic candidate for Senate, and that's a lie!" Then he goes on to point out how Dems want to secure our porous ports and borders. How Dems want to vigorously pursue court sanctioned wiretaps. How our fatally flawed Iraqi policy prevents us from defending against far more serious threats. And finally, how Dems want to double our special forces in order to terminate, with prejudice, Osama bin Laden (picture of OSB prominently shown).

Webb closes the deal by saying, "You can listen to  people who know how to talk (small picture of Bitch Coulter in the corner) or you can elect someone who knows what it takes to defend this country (picture of Webb in 'Nam).

Run this ad in the heart of JFCOM (Joint Forces Command). Like Matt has been saying, this is no time to be shy. No time to be afraid to say who and what you are: I'm a Democrat, and not only am I going to keep you safe from the abuses of our government, I'm going to keep you safe from those outside forces that wish us harm.

For the rest of this campaign, I'm adopting the motto of Admiral Bull Halsey:
Hit Hard, Hit Fast, Hit Often

check out maffei's ad not listening : http://www.maffeiforcongress.com/media.c fm

it fits all the criteria you say, he mentions hes a democrat, wants to change direction, says republican congress and president bush over and over again. i think you guys might like it.

Having started this project, I've been literally stunned at how reluctant Democrats are to mention Bush, accountability, or party labels.

Funny. Hotline has ad scripts all the time, and quite a few Dem ads have linked GOPers to Bush. I think many of the House ads have been more aggressive than the Senate ads.

Here's one of the most recent ones:
Klein (D) ad links Shaw (R) and Bush The script for the Klein ad (airing on cable and broadcast in the Palm Beach media market) via HRH 8/23:

ANNCR: "When it comes to what's best for South Florida, Clay Shaw turns to George Bush. Shaw said, 'I start out with a basic assumption, that the president knows more than I do, and I trust his judgment.' No wonder then in Washington Shaw votes for the Bush-Cheney agenda 90 percent of the time." COMMUNITY MEMBER: "When Clay Shaw votes 90 percent of the time with George Bush, he's not representing our interests. We deserve better." KLEIN: "I'm Ron Klein. I approve this message because we need a congressman who will lead, not follow"

I don't have a problem with Dems not putting the "D" label in every ad, if they've got pretty aggressive messaging otherwise (as in Klein's ad). When you've got someone running against the Bush-Cheney agenda, most voters assume that it's a Dem ad anyway. When viewing ads, voters bring in a lot of their own assumptions, and many ad makers will make an ad that plays on those assumptions. Why bother putting "Democrat for Congress" in every ad, when you can use those couple of frames to further promote other parts of your agenda and when voters will assume it's a Dem ad, anyway? Don't get me wrong... I do expect "Democrat for Congress" (or something to that effect) in at least some ads and campaign lit, but I don't expect it to be everywhere even in a deep blue area.

I'm sure Sheldon Whitehouse's approach has nothing to do with the fact that a) it's kinda hard to tie Linc Chafee, of all people to Bush; b) that Chafee is about as independent a Republican as you're ever going to find, so simply stressing party affiliation isn't going to get you nearly as far as it would in other places and other races; and c) it's hard to criticize Chafee for not holding Bush accountable on Iraq when he voted for Reed-Levin and against the war in the first place!

Matt, when people criticize your approach in the adwatch project for paying insufficient attention to local circumstances, this is the sort of stuff they're talking about. I don't have a problem with stressing party affiliation and the basic accountability message; I thought Patricia Madrid's latest ad was awesome.  But you can't simply apply an undifferentiated version of that message in every race without paying attention to the local context, never mind evaluating each ad in isolation without considering how it fits into a broader message/campaign.