A fair amount has been said already about the comparative effectiveness of BIAW/ChangePAC versus Evergreen Progress.
It's on display right now. Neither side makes their ads emedable, but they are viewable at their respective websites:
The two ads featured at the top of the Don't Know Dino site try to convince the viewer of two things. 1) Dino Rossi is a clone of George W. Bush 2) Dino Rossi is an utter slimeball.
Contrast that with the lead ad currently running from BIAW/ChangePAC, available at the top of this page. Their message: property taxes are too high, people on fixed incomes suffer, and something needs to change in Olympia.
The difference between the two?
The former is trying to convince people of something they don't inherently believe. Dino Rossi wouldn't have done what he did in 2004 and now be in another nail-biter if the public was inclined to believe such attacks (it's not as if Democrats have been saying good things about the guy at any point). It simply doesn't match the established public perception of Rossi among many voters.
The latter is speaking to people on an issue that already concerns them. If there's one thing we know from the last decade of Washington's state electoral history, it's that trepidation about high property taxes resonates across party lines.
Which approach do you think is more effective?
Posted by Eric Earling at October 12, 2008 08:06 PM | Email ThisThe McCain vs Obama ads have the same exact template, except the shoe is on the other foot for us Republicans. Our party really needs to find something to offer to people instead of the old "He's a communist, don't vote for him!". He won't work for John McCain and it won't work for Christine Gregoire.
Unfortunately, I am forced to agree with you. I don't think Obama = Wright, Ayers, etc. But I do think it shows bad judgment and a warped world view to have been associated with such types for so long. Either that or he's just a totally crass political opportunist. On the other hand, I believe no such thing about Dino Rossi, and, frankly, neither does anybody else who isn't a hardcore Gregoire partisan.
That said, I agree with you that both tacks are likely to be ineffective. If they were to have been effective, they would have been effective 4 months ago, not in the last 3 weeks of the election.
People have made up their minds about what they think about the candidates as people barring some major revelation that they hadn't yet accounted for (i.e. the stupid DWI thing in 2000 which, while a small deal, changed people's perceptions about Bush enough to almost lose him the election). They are now much more interested in what the candidates actual positions are and what their record is.
Which is why it is totally beyond me that McCain isn't pounding Obama relentlessly on his heavy and extensive ties (as well as the ties of the entire D congress) to Freddy and Fanny, as well as exposing his non-existent fix plan.
I'm also a bit curious about why Gregoire doesn't come up with a few new moderate, sensible policy issues. It would go a lot further then Rossi=Bush=Hitler.
Posted by: Cliff on October 12, 2008 10:23 PMSo Bush got a majority of the 2000 vote? Do tell! And yes, it is quaint for anyone to expect a Republican to obey the law. IOKIYAR is the highest Republican moral value, after all.
I wasn't aware the BIAW counted as "independent". Perhaps the author could show how the BIAW has no financial ties to the Rossi campaign, or to the WSRP?
Posted by: tensor on October 13, 2008 12:11 AM