Sound Politics Public Blog: McGavick's "spoiler" leverage

November 01, 2006

McGavick's "spoiler" leverage

One of the most clever ads this season comes from the McGavick campaign for a smooth "spoiler" leverage using the Dixon and Guthrie campaigns.

The "Iraq/Decisive" ad ... OPENS with recognition of the Dixon and Guthrie campaigns' positions on the Iraq war, in a positive manner.

For a short time I wondered why any campaign would have anything positive to say about another campaign's position on the war, then it was clear this is a very clever "spoiler" appeal to disaffected Cantwell supporters who can't accept her vote on the war - they can vote for Dixon or Guthrie! Yet the McGavick campaign does not need to come out and suggest this directly, just cite the divergent stance of Dixon/Guthrie against Cantwell.

This is the first campaign ad I've seen that overtly uses the "spoiler" leverage by one of the major party candidates. The standard operation either ignores the 3rd party candidates or disparages them along with the major opposition.

While the result of this late TV ad remains to be seen, this is a major development in the marketing of one major party candidate against the other, using a 3rd party campaign as the bludgeon - overtly turn the "spoiler" to your advantage without an explicit appeal to vote for the "others".

Posted by ccwt at November 01, 2006 01:46 PM | Email This

Comments

1. cctw,
You should know that Campaign Manager Travis Wright is the innovator behind virtually all the ideas that have come from the Guthrie campaign. The debate plan, the media, the TV ads, the leveraging of the libertarian strategy-those are the brainchild of a man who, if he could be cloned, would lead libertarians to rule the world. Go Guthrie!

Posted by: mark san souci on November 1, 2006 03:29 PM

2. Look, I just want to bring the troops home from Iraq, defend the Bill of Rights, and reduce the deficit by reducing wasteful spending. I have no control over how McGavick uses those facts.
But one thing is for certain, someone needs to hold Cantwell accountable for her pro-war position, her votes on the USA PATRIOT Act, and her overspending. If she wants to get those votes back in 2012, she will have to adopt our positions. If she wins in a landslide, then she will know that she can safely ignore the anti-war and pro-civil liberties voters.
Don't send her that message.
Vote your values, and in the long run, you are more likely to get them.

Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 2, 2006 03:26 PM

3. One of the more interesting speculations I've heard is, "Has McGavick made a reportable contribution to the campaigns of Dixon/Guthrie?" since he promoted their campaigns and positions. Sort of like a independent expenditure.

Posted by: ccwt on November 2, 2006 03:50 PM