Category Archives: Political ads

Can Norm Coleman Recover From His Recent Tea Party Cheerleading Role?

Posted on by
4

So, Norm Coleman won’t rule out a run for Minnesota Governor.  Well, let’s see, what has Norm been doing to ingratiate himself with Minnesota voters since he lost to Al Franken in 2008?  He:

1)   Moved out of Minnesota at the first opportunity.

2)   Became a Super PAC (Congressional Leadership Fund) political hit man doing the dirty work for a group of Tea Party-controlled House members sporting a 9% approval rating, an all-time historic low.

3)   Promoted Michele Bachman, Minnesota’s most irresponsible Tea Partier and McCarthyite, to serve a heartbeat away from the Presidency.

Over the last four years, Norm bought into the Tea Party scene lock, stock and Bushmaster barrel.

So, how is Coleman’s Tea Party cheerleading role selling back in moderate Minnesota, a blue state which recently gave Democratic President Obama a relatively easy 8-point victory?  Not well.  In 2008, Norm Coleman only lost to Senator Al Franken by a small fraction of one percent.  But after watching Coleman go all Tea Party the last few years, Minnesotans now choose Al over Norm by a comfortable 7% margin.

Norm Coleman would be a better gubernatorial candidate for Republicans than, say, Kurt Bills or Michele Bachmann.  But that isn’t saying much.   Norm in 2013 is a much weaker candidate than he was when he lost in 2008 to a highly flawed DFL challenger.  His Super PAC adventures have further besmirched his image in recent years.  Minnesotan Republicans could do much better with a fresh face.

Three Reasons For The Silence On The Campaign Trail About Vikings Stadium Subidies

Posted on by
Reply

In 2012, the dominant issue in the Minnesota Legislature was the debate about public subsidies for the Vikings Stadium.  No issue was more emotionally charged.  No issue was more polarizing.  No issue was more heavily covered in the news.

So just a few months later, why is this marquee legislative issue such an insignificant factor in the campaign for control of the Minnesota Legislature?  After all, based on last year’s debate, you might expect that  it would be The Issue out on the stump.

But I’m not seeing it.  The issue hasn’t been raised once in any of the many political direct mail pieces that have clogged my mailbox, or cable TV ads flooding my living room.  Moreover, I Googled “Vikings Stadium and election,” and found no stories where the mother of all legislative Issues was playing a prominent role out on the political hustings.

How about stadium champions like Senator Julie Rosen (R-Fairmont)?  Surely she must be getting pummeled for championing the Vikings’ cause.  Well, the Mankato Free Press reports that Rosen’s opponent Paul Marquardt isn’t making it an issue:

Marquardt isn’t critical of the stadium bill (other than Rosen’s failure to get a more iron-clad guarantee that the Vikings would keep their training camp in Mankato). His primary complaint isn’t even with Rosen herself as much as with the Republican majority she supports.

“They got hung up on constitutional amendments that were just a complete waste of time and taxpayer money,” said Marquardt, a retired union plumber. “… They created no jobs. And on top of that, we lost our homestead credit.”

On the other side of the aisle, DFL Senator Leroy Stumpf (DFL-Plummer) has no problem bragging to the St. James News about the economic development benefits of the stadium:

“We also have a good commitment on the part of Governor Dayton to create jobs by using the state’s bonding capacity for smart and strategic investments such as the Viking Stadium…”

Mostly, the issue seems to be missing from campaign debates.  When it does come up, it is much more low key than it was during the State Capitol debate.

So, why the has the Vikings stadium debate lost its political edge?

REPORTERS MOVED ON AND POLS FOLLOWED.  During the session, the Vikings stadium issue was the ultimate “water cooler issue,” an issue that almost all Minnesotans could and did discuss in their social spheres.  For that reason, the news media, looking to give the masses what they craved, covered the issue like none other.  Reporters stoked the fire almost daily.  But now that the issue has been resolved, reporters have dropped the issue cold and moved onto new hot button issues, principally the gay marriage ban and voter restriction constitutional amendments.   If reporters are interested at all these days, their interest is limited to whether the stadium roof will be retractable, and how many toilets it will house.  Politicians craft their messaging around what reporters will cover, and reporters have moved on.  As a result, the politicians have also largely moved on.

BIPARTISAN SUPPORT NEUTRALIZES PARTISAN ATTACKS. Because both DFLers and Republicans supported stadium bill, the political operatives who shape legislative campaign messaging have to be cautious about how they play this issue.  Neither party can have a coordinated party-based attack on subsidies, because valued members of both parties supported the subsidies.  As a result, the stadium subsidy issue takes a back seat to issues where the parties can have coordinated messaging, such as taxes, jobs, and education.

THE ISSUE HASN’T BEEN POLITICALLY POTENT IN THE PAST.  Finally, this issue doesn’t have a history of  providing a political payoff.  Like the Vikings, the Minnesota Twins also spent a decade in a bitter debate over ballpark subsidies.  But after the Twins debate ended, I am not aware of a single politician who lost their position over the issue.  If the Twins ballpark subsidy vote had led to a massive political bloodletting, you can bet that the Vikings vote would be a major topic in the 2012 debate.  But it didn’t, so it isn’t.

Whatever the reasons, this much is clear:  The Vikings stadium debate is ending the way all too many Vikings seasons have ended, in stone cold silence.

- Loveland

 

Note:  This post was also featured in Politics in Minnesota’s Best of the Blogs.

Governors Glum and Glummer Team Up In Voter Restriction Ad

Posted on by
2

In an era of extreme partisan polarization, DFL Governor Mark Dayton and Republican former Governor Arne Carlson have teamed up in an interesting bipartisan effort to defeat the highly partisan voter restriction constitutional amendment.

While I admire the integrity of both men, let’s just say these are not two of the more perky pitchmen you’ll ever hear. Minnesota has been host to the filming of Grumpy Old Men, Grumpier Old Men, and, now, Grumpiest Old Men.

For his part, Carlson has long been the Oscar the Grouch of Minnesota politics, perpetually fussing about all things fiscal.  The former State Auditor never met a spreadsheet that hasn’t made him sputter.  Governor Carlson was never mistaken for The Happy Warrior during his time in office.  No, he was known by both friend and foe as “Governor Grumpy,” and the nickname was well-earned.

Similarly, the anhedonic Governor Dayton has established himself as the Eyeore of the left, leading Minnesotans forward earnestly and droopily.  While the Grinch’s heart was two sizes too small, Dayton’s heart may well be two sizes too big, because he oozes agony over the constant stream of bad news for under-priveleged people flowing out of the GOP-controlled Legislature. When the world weary Dayton appears on the TV with more bad budget news to report, I hide the sharp objects in our house.

You might think that an ad featuring this non-dynamic duo engaged in an epic grimace-off could be too depressing to be effective, even for emotionally flat Minnesotans.

But it seems to work, because what Dayton and Carlson lack in charisma they make up in political good will.  Dayton’s approval rating is running around 50% these days, which is about 30-points stronger than the GOP-controlled Legislature that dreamed up this amendment.  Carlson left office with an approval rating in the 70′s, about thirty points higher than his Republican successor Tim Pawlenty.  Clearly, dour sells in Minnesota.

Recent polls are finding that the voter restriction amendment probably will pass, which will be an embarrassment and a tragedy for a state that has historically led the nation in encouraging voting.  But support levels for the amendment have decreased significantly in recent weeks, so I’m keeping my fingers crossed.  If anyone can cast a dark cloud over this shameful voter restriction proposal, maybe it’s Governors Glum and Glummer.

- Loveland

Note:  This also appeared in Politics in Minnesota’s “Best of the Blogs” feature.

Anti-Marriage Ban Ads Are Rove-esque

Posted on by
Reply

Bare knuckles political consultant Karl Rove was famous for advising former President George W. Bush and other conservative clients to attack their opponents’ strengths, rather than their weaknesses.  For instance, Bush’s 2004 opponent John Kerry was a war veteran and hero, while Bush got a draft deferment.  But before Rove was done, Kerry’s heroism somehow was twisted to be a political weakness, rather than the strength it should have been.

Fortunately, gay marriage supporters have taken Rove’s strategy to heart, and this time are using the power of the strategy for good instead of evil.  Two ads they recently released go directly at the strengths of the groups trying to ban the freedom to marry – the skepticism of the elderly and aggressive opposition of some religious leaders.

These ads counter the conventional wisdom that religious leaders and seniors are universally opposed to gay marriage.  It frames the issue as a referendum on love, individual freedom and religious freedom.  It shows that skeptics’ opinions are evolving, and that even historic opponents are seeing the issue in a new light.

These are outstanding ads, alternatively moving, funny and thought-provoking.  And again, they go directly at the strengths of the marriage banners.   If he could manage to get over his anti-gay bigotry, Karl Rove would approve.

- Loveland

Poor Kurt Bills Needs To Learn Modern GOP Fundraising Tactics

Posted on by
Reply

I’ve got a tip for poor Kurt Bills or any Republican candidate out there running low on cash:  Say something really, really bizzaro.

I don’t mean a mere gaffe, or run-of-the-mill lie.  I mean the kind of batty stuff that used to get people drummed out of politics.  Because in the increasingly outlandish Republican Party, such rantings are a money magnet.

In today’s Republican Party, if you caterwaul “YOU LIE!” at the President of the United States during a quiet moment of a formal occasion, you no longer will be interrogated by the authorities and have a lifelong security clearance flag on your record.  Instead, you will receive a quick infusion of $200,000 from adoring Republicans.

If you state as incontrovertible fact that 80 Members of the United States Congress are members of the Communist Party, with much less evidence than disgraced Joe McCarthy brought forth, you will no longer be marginalized in American politics.  Rather, you will immediately use your hallucination as fundraising fodder, and be rewarded with a seven-figure avalanche of cash.

If it comes to light that you sexually harassed numerous women while married, you will no longer be ostracized by vigilant marriage-defending Republicans.  You will immediately receive a flood of $400,000 from them, and see your poll numbers spike.

And if you give voice to your reckless McCarthyesque delusions about terrorists infiltrating Hillary Clinton’s inner circle, you will no longer see your career fade to irrelevance the way McCarthy’s did.  Instead, you will open your mailbox to find a cool million waiting for you.

All of which is to say, Minnesota congressional candidate Mike Parry is a political genius.  Because now that he has viciously accused the Governor of being a drug addict with absolutely no evidence, and even ultra-conservatives in his own party contradicting him, he will not be quietly walked off the Republican stage before he does the Party more damage.   Instead, he will probably see Minnesota Republican activists flock to him with wallets wide open.

Therefore, look for U.S. Senate candidate Kurt Bills, now sitting on a mere 6,000 bills, to say something kooky in the coming days to revitalize his somnolent campaign.  I’m talking even loopier than “look at me, I’m Paul Wellstone!”  Perhaps he could accuse Senator Kloubachar of being a cleverly disguised blood thirsty space alien pedophile cannibal commie intent on overthrowing God, and Smith & Wesson, through provisions she has secretly inserted into the tax code, in invisible ink.

That ought to get him a seat on Hannity tonight, and several million dollars in the bank by morning.

- Loveland

 

Note:  This post was also featured as part of the “Best of the Blogs” feature in Politics in Minnesota’s Morning Report.

Twenty Debates? Oh No, Mr. Bills!

Posted on by
Reply

“Less is more,” minimalist designers tell us.  “The law of diminishing returns,” economists explain.

And so it goes with campaign debates.

Campaign debates serve a lot of important purposes for our democracy. They are a more efficient way to communicate with voters than door-knocking or pressing the flesh one clammy hand at a time.  They get candidates off-script, which captures rare moments of candor, humor, humanity, intelligence, stupidity and reality.  They cover more issues than ads, direct mail and other forms of political communications, which exposes candidates’ depth, or shallowness.

But clearly, there can be too much of a good thing.  In the 2010 gubernatorial campaign, Mark Dayton, Tom Horner, and Tom Emmer debated and debated, and debated some more.  They debated an eye-glazing 25 times.  Most of the debates ended up getting ignored by reporters, and just about everyone else, because they became complete and utter re-runs. I mean, even if you love Gilligan’s Island, and who amongst us does not,  the 25th time you see a re-run about Gilligan’s pedal powered bamboo car is significantly less riveting than the first 5 times.

As Washington University political scientist Steven Smith observed about the 2010 marathon debate-a-thon:

 “…there is a point of diminishing returns and I think in the Minnesota case we may have reached the point in the last month where there have been so many debates that the individual debates just don’t receive much attention.

Now in 2012, State Representative Kurt Bills wants to debate U.S. Senator Amy Kloubachar 20 times over about 90 days.  This desire likely has less to do with Bills‘ love of debates than it does with the fact that his campaign is broke and having a difficult time delivering his oddball Wellstonian-libertarian fusion messaging.

Though Kloubachar is a bright and skilled debater, her campaign strategists would prefer to keep the popular incumbent in highly controlled settings until Election Day, to preserve her large lead.  Therefore, so far they have agreed to two debates.  For context, former U.S. Senator Norm Coleman agreed to debate challenger Al Franken five times.

Somewhere between Kloubachar’s 2 and Bills’ 20 is a reasonable number.  I’d say the number is no higher than 10.

Here is my rationale:  Most of what is learned by undecided voters through debates is conveyed through news coverage.  After all, the people actually attending the debates, or monitoring them start-to-finish on TV or radio, are predominantly voters who made up their minds long ago.  So, when the news coverage stops, the debates pretty much stop yielding benefits for undecided voters.

Minnesota’s newsrooms continue to shrink dramatically, and are decreasingly willing to cover politics, particularly broadcast news outlets.   Given those unfortunate trends, I find it difficult to believe that the Minnesota’s press corps will give decent coverage to more than about 10 debates.

So, I’m all for debates.  And two is not enough.  But oh no, Mr. Bills, not 20.

- Loveland

 

Note:  This post also was featured as a “best of the best” on MinnPost’s Blog Cabin feature.

Missing: Kurt Bills

Posted on by
Reply

If anyone has seen this man, please notify the authorities immediately.  His name is Kurt Bills, and he has been missing since the moment in mid-May that he was endorsed by the Minnesota Republican Party.

It is feared the man is squandering his donor’s money on bizarre, inscrutable ads that are invisible to the swing voters that he needs to win over in order to have any hope of defeating overwhelmingly popular U.S. Senator Amy Kloubachar.

The man is likely dressed like Rod Sterling, muttering about the gold standard, and attempting to use “Minnesota Dollars” to purchase additional cryptic ads.

His Party is worried about him, and would appreciate any clues about his whereabouts.

The Unofficial Backgrounder For Getting To Know Tim Pawlenty

Posted on by
2

For the national news media scurrying to cover Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty’s impending Vice Presidential nomination by Mitt Romney, here are a few facts that may not be included in the Romney for President news release:

The “Fees”.  Like any obedient GOP presidential aspirant, Tim Pawlenty HATES him some taxes.  He will stress this fact dozens of times per speech.  But the less publicized aspect of our former governor is that he actually loves him some “fees.”  GOP former Minnesota Governor Arne Carlson points out that Pawlenty actually passed the largest tax increases in Minnesota history.  But national reporters should not listen to people like Arne Carlson.  Fees are revenue collected from citizens by government so the government can provide services, and national reporters should understand that is completely different from a “tax.”  Reporters covering Pawlenty will need to take a crash course on how to speak Pawlentese.

The Body.  You thought our Governor, Jesse “The Body” Ventura, had a great physique?  Well, Pawlenty is also very proud of his willowy figure.  In fact, he is so proud of his bod that he actually found a way to awkwardly shoehorn into an ad the fact that he has “a 34-inch waist.”  I kid you not.  Strangest ad claim ever. Take that, Christie!  However, it should be noted that Politifact has not yet verified the claim.

The “TPaw.”  Just so you know, in Minnesota, we like to call him TPaw.  Why, you ask?  Because Minnesotans are all a bunch of urban hipsters?  Because local gangstas bestowed that street name out of admiration for the Guv’s swag?   No, actually we call him TPaw because Pawlenty’s handlers started calling him that in some kind of shallow attempt to broaden his demographic appeal.  And when we Minneosotans repeated it, we thought it made us sound AWESOME.

The “Red-Hot Smokin’ Wife.”  Get used to hearing that, because Tim Pawlenty says it, and says it, and says it some more.  The red-hot smokin’ line is borrowed from the critically acclaimed film Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby.   You see, Pawlenty isn’t from the south, but he has carefully studied movies mocking southern culture in order to strengthen his appeal in the south.

The Hockey Brain.  In Minnesota, if you’re not a professional wrestler, you are required to be a hockey player to serve as Governor.  It’s in the Constitution. Current Governor Mark Dayton was an All State goalie, and in his day Tim Pawlenty took his share of sticks to the temple.  We Minnesotans try to keep this in mind when Pawlenty can’t seem to recall that he used to support Romneycare insurance mandates and a cap-and-trade policy.

The Occassional Twang.  It’s not easy when a Minn-e-SOH-tan runs for President in a Republican Party increasingly dominated by the south.  But Pawlenty is nothing if not politically malleable.  So now when speaking to southerners, Pawlenty simply drops his “g’s.”  Know what I’m sayin’? And did he mention he’s from SOUTH St. Paul?

The Mullet.  Following on the heels of our first African American President, Tim Pawlenty had a chance to become the first mulletted President. But just as one could always tell that Ted Kennedy was running for President when he lost weight, Minnesotans always knew Pawlenty was preparing to run for President when he cut the mullet, or, alternatively, when the sun rose in the east.  In Minnesota, we still thought the mullet hairstyle was pretty sweet.  But apparently the folks in the Super PAC suites were demanding the Standard Issue Presidential Haircut.  Still, WE know that deep down, there’s a shorty longback itching to return.

So, national reporters, we Minnesotans hope you enjoy covering our former Governor.  You too, national comedians.

 

Note:  This post also was featured as a “best of the best” on MinnPost’s Blog Cabin feature.

DFL Statewide Media Campaign Needed: “Replace The Worst Legislature Ever.”

Posted on by
Reply

“All politics is local,” Democratic House Speaker Tip O’Neill famously proclaimed.   To question this proclamation in DFL activist circles is a bit like questioning the Gospel in church circles.

But, unusual times dictate that the DFL candidates for the State Legislature broaden their messaging beyond the predictable O’Neilian “I brought home the bacon” messaging.  After all, the reality of these fiscally austere times in St. Paul is that Minnesota legislators have been bringing home festering carcasses, not bacon, and that is not going over real well locally.

(Incidentally, at the congressional level, New York Times whiz kid Nate Silver makes a compelling case that “all politics is local” hasn’t been true for a long time.)

Therefore, in 2012 I’d argue “all politics is local” is a dumb strategy for for DFL legislative candidates.  This year, the Minnesota DFL should use more of a statewide messaging and media strategy than they typically do.

I nominate this theme for a statewide TV and radio campaign to serve as an overlay for individual candidacies:

“Replace the worst Legislature ever.”

Real subtle, right?  And I’m not kidding.  This rallying cry works because it is simple, provocative, sticky, and, most of all, true.

Just ask the people of Minnesota.  The current GOP-controlled legislature is the proud recipient of a 19 percent approval rating, which appears to be the lowest approval rating  anyone can find on record.

Ponder on that for a moment.  The worst approval rating ever.  This is a truly putrid moment in Minnesota political history.  Therefore, the minority party needs to make “worst Legislature in history” the rallying cry of a unified TV and radio campaign to unseat the majority party that gave this special gift to Minnesotans .

Such a campaign might sound something like this:

 Who says the Republican-controlled Legislature is the worst in Minnesota history?

Minnesotans.  In surveys, Minnesotans give this current Legislature the lowest approval ratings in the entire history of our state.

Not just lousy.   Not just terrible. The.  Worst.  Ever.

Why?

Their shameful use of our local school funding as their own personal ATMs.

Their bizarre obsession with policing Minnesotans’ personal lives.

Their stubborn refusal to take a balanced approach to the state budget.

Their reckless shutdown of our state parks and government.

For the past two years, Minnesotans have watched all of this in horror.

Now, it’s time to send a clear message:  It’s time to replace the worst Legislature in Minnesota history…and move forward with a new Legislature, and a fresh start.

Tying together legislative races into more of a statewide campaign would mean the DFL would need to focus much more than usual on statewide messaging and media, and much less on localized messaging and media.   That’s an extremely unpopular proposition with local candidates, who want the campaign to be more about them personally.  But in times like these, statewide political leaders need to have the courage to seize the historic political opportunity before them.

Many voters – particularly the much larger group of less active voters that turn out in presidential election years – don’t know much, or anything, about the candidates in down ballot races.  A memorable theme can guide them.  ”Replace the worst Legislature ever” does that.  ”Support good old Senator Bob because he brings home the bacon” does not.

So sorry, Tip, this campaign needs to focus on the smelly statewide whole, not the local parts.  This year, the DFL can, and should, run a unified statewide campaign against the the Republican Party’s Frankenstein — the Legislature that Minnesota citizens say is the worst ever.

- Loveland

 

Note:  This post was also featured as part of the “Best of the Blogs” feature in Politics in Minnesota’s Morning Report.

Minnesota Now Has To Look To South Dakota For Interesting Political Ads

Posted on by
1

For a time, the nation looked to Minnesota for innovative political ads.  Working with local ad pros in 1990, an obscure college professor’s “Fast Paul” and “Looking for Rudy” TV ads were a national sensation.

Since then, Minnesota’s pols have gone conventional.  Most ads now follow The Recipe:

Ominously droning music.  Grainy photo of Evil Opponent caught in an unflattering facial expression. The Big Accusation(s).

Transition to heroic music!  Lovely images of Our Photoshopped Candidate helping school children read, seniors do paperwork, and veterans secure their lapel pins! Images of Our Photshopped Candidate working at his desk in the wee hours, and in front of a sea of flags inspiring the masses with a forceful finger jab in the air! Call-to-action!  Logo!  Disclaimer.

Sound familiar?  The ingredients to The Recipe never change appreciably.  Just add special interest money, and repeat ad nauseum.

The Recipe produces ads that are so similar in tone and feel that it is very easy for voters to tune them out.  Nothing about them sparks enough curiosity to prevent voters from closing their ears, changing the channel, or skipping the commercial via DVR.  For this reason, The Recipe remains more effective than most tactics, but much less effective than it once was.

Still, year after year, political consultants convince politicians and special interests to bake up enormous batches of The Recipe.  Consultants push it because it is relatively fast to produce, low-budget, and low-risk.  Just shoot stock video and drop it into the template.  Those are somewhat defensible reasons.  But consultants also push mass production of The Recipe because it earns them a high profit margin, in the same way that any assembly line has higher profit margins than customized craftsmanship.  The Recipe often serves the constulant’s needs more than the candidate’s needs.

In every election cycle, there are a few exceptions to the rule.  Wellstone in 1990 was one.  Jesse Ventura had a few.   A couple of years ago, Steve Novick in Oregon was another.  This month, there is a pretty decent non-conventional web video from South Dakota congressional candidate Jeff Barth:

Scoff at the production value if you like.  Look down your nose at the campy humor.  But this video, airing for free, has had over 150,000 YouTube viewings, due to peer-to-peer sharing, and referrals from free airings on news programs.  For a primary candidate in a state of 380,00 voters, that’s a big deal.  And unlike conventional ads, it is airing for free.

Why is something like this successful? After all, it’s not nearly as glossy, glib or compact as The Recipe.  Barth’s video is successful because it is many things that the 30-second cookie cutter ads are not.  It’s unique enough to draw you in.  It’s funny enough to cause you to want to share it.  It’s informative enough to make it worth your while.  It’s provocative enough to stick in your memory.

Even if you only watch this video once, you come away knowing something about the candidate’s background, personality and approach to life and politics.  This video leaves me thinking this guy Barth might not be another risk averse  congressional clone.  In a year when job approval ratings for Congress are at 10% that “not like the others” message is a strategically important leave behind.

Will anyone in Minnesota be imaginative and courageous enough to do anything unique with their political ads this election cycle, or can we look forward to heapin’ helpins of The Recipe?

Loveland