Despite the presence of Hillary Clinton and tens of millions of dollars spent against him, Senator Mitch McConnell beat Alison Lundergan Grimes 56-41 percent.
The 2014 Kentucky Senate race was fierce from the beginning of the primaries to the end on November 4th. McConnell’s low approval in the state gave democrats an opportunity to find a candidate that could expose the 30 year Senator of his “failed leadership”
For a while, Grimes made McConnell and the GOP nervous. She received a lot of money from donors in and outside of the state and had super pacs backing her. From her negative ads to signs at her rallies that said “Ditch Mitch” and “I challenge Mitch”, Grimes’ campaign threw the kitchen sink at Mitch McConnell.
Fancy Farm Picnic
The first important event that really began the race was the Fancy Farm Picnic. At the event, Grimes and McConnell supporters showed up to hear the two candidates and other surrogates like Rand Paul give speeches.
A new ad was released today called Not Very Iowa. It was sponsored by Americans For Prosperity and it attacks Bruce Braley (D) for his unneighborly behavior.
The ad prompts Braley’s campaign to be on the defensive once again. Ernst brought up this story in one of their debates, and although Braley denied it, it became a top of mind issue for Iowa voters. It has plagued Braley’s campaign and transformed his image towards that of an out of touch politician.
The advertisement is very simple but effective. It stars two talking chickens located “somewhere in Iowa”. They discuss leaving their cage, but one chicken brings up the time Braley almost sued his neighbor for chickens walking onto his yard.
The advertisement makes it sound ludicrous that Braley would react that way to chickens on his lawn. The chickens refer to Braley’s actions as “not very Iowa.” The ad is simple, but very comical. It is very different and original when compared to other political ads.
The whole story is not told in the ad, but it doesn’t need to be told. It is enough to point out that Braley threatened to sue his neighbor over chickens on his yard – whether this story did or did not happen. It is confirmed that there was a dispute over the chickens, but it is still unclear if a lawsuit was actually brought up by Braley.
What’s worse? Braley’s neighbor, Pauline Hampton, keeps chickens as pet therapy animals. Braley and his wife both complained about the chickens walking on their yard. Braley eventually took action by contacting the neighborhood association lawyer. Republicans received this email communication, and that is when they began using this attack on Braley.
The new advertisement comes at the worst time for the Braley campaign. They will have to do a lot of denying and find proof to thwart the attack. This is not something they want to be focusing on in the last few days of the campaign.
Alison Grimes recently made false claims about Mitch McConnell and his wife Elaine and has come out with an ad that received four Pinocchio’s from the Washington Post. The lies were centered on the Kentucky’s hot button issue of coal.
Grimes said, “They are shutting down half the plant and laying off their workers because Mitch McConnell didn’t fight to get the scrubbers it needs to reduce coal emissions. Instead, Mitch and his wife pocketed $600,000 from enemies of coal, including New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.”
According to American Electric Power, they had to comply with the scrubber regulation in the first place because of rules handed down by the Obama administration, which McConnell voted against. They also said that if they had decided to comply with the regulation and keep the workers at the plant it would have ultimately resulted in an energy price increase of 31 percent compared to the eventual 8 percent increase by using a West Virginia plant instead.
That’s not the only lie that was debunked in Grimes’ claim. (more…)
With the election getting closer and closer many people in Connecticut are starting to wonder what they have really learned from both Dan Malloy and Tom Foley. According to one political scientist from Quinnipiac University, many people feel that the whole election period has been a race for both of these men to define their opposition. With only two weeks till the election the people of Connecticut are starting to realize most of the efforts put forward by both men have been to attack each other on their records and performances.
But is this effective campaigning?
Sadly, yes. Both men have continuously attacked each other since day one, and the polling numbers for both are still up. This race is extremely close, just like it was in 2010. In recent polls the state is pretty evenly split between who to vote for. At this point the bases have rallied for their candidate, and now they must focus on getting the swing voters to go their way. Many people know the records of both men, but not how they would act and lead in the future. Many independents want to hear the issues and know which candidate most closely identifies with them. In the next two weeks it will be imperative for these men to get their main points out and to stop attacking each other.
If these two men can actually do this the race may be even closer than we already think.
With just twenty two days left until election day, Camp Davis released a controversial attack ad, on opponent Greg Abbott. The buzz surrounding this ad, stems from a strong symbolic use of images; in particular the ad (above, posted by Politico) includes a wheelchair. The Washington Times claim that conservatives, as well as liberals have, “deemed it insensitive.” Will this hurt the democratic Texas gubernatorial candidate? Voters scream they are offended.
Davis has experienced backlash after releasing the “wheelchair ad,” which seems to be referencing the disability of Attorney General Greg Abbott. TIME magazine called it, “the nastiest point yet,” in the campaign. Abbott was reportedly hit by a tree limb while going for a jog in 1984, and has been wheelchair bound ever since. He sued for the damages, and received a $10 million dollar settlement. Abbott’s actions following the settlement, was supposed to be the focus of the ad. Abbott admits to receiving $6 million in damages in the 30 years since the accident.
Davis defends her ad to critics, as well as those who are in wheelchairs, by framing her opponent as a hypocrite. At her Fort Worth field office, Politico reports that Davis claimed, “After receiving justice in the form of millions of dollarsfrom a lawsuit, Greg Abbott has built a career kicking the ladder down behind him and denying to others the very same justice that he both deserved and received.” She claims that the point of the advertisement was not to attack her opponent’s disability, but attack the way that he, “turned around and built his career working to deny the very same justice that he received to his fellow Texans rightly seeking it for themselves.”
The iconic use of the wheelchair symbol seems to have stirred up offended and distasteful feelings among viewers. The narrator of the attack ad shows an empty wheelchair, and claims that Abbott has spent his career working against other victims in his position; victims that are just like him, that deserve the same justice he received.
The Abbott campaign did not take long to respond to these allegations. The campaign released a statement and video on Monday, where Politico reports them stating the ad was “desperate and despicable.” Abbott calmly responds to the ad by taking an even further step to distance himself from his now deemed “ruthless” opponent. He claims to focus on what he will be doing once elected, while Wendy continues to fire out personal attacks. Abbott states that he is worried about attacking the challenges of local Texans and that it is Davis’ choice if she wants to attack, “a guy in a wheel chair.” He doesn’t think that will pan out too well for her. Amelia Chasse, an Abbott spokeswoman, shared that the ad completely disqualifies Davis, probably hurting her future campaigns of higher office, as well as the current gubernatorial race. Chasse deems this a, “historical low.”
However, Zac Petkanas, the communications director for the Davis campaign, responded to the backlash on behalf of Davis. TIMES reports that he said, “This ad does not exist in a vacuum, it includes issues that have been raised throughout the campaign.” Petkanas said Abbott “has been building a career denying that same justice across the state of Texas—not something Texas deserve to hear, they need to hear.” It is also notable that the Abbott’s use of a wheelchair has been featured in his own ads. Where is the line of “offensive” drawn, then?
With such a short time to go until Election day, the ad appears desperate to many news sources, as Davis continues to trail by 11 points (according to Real Clear Politics). CNN describes the political ad, as a “Hail Mary” from the Senator. Her decision to run this ad could ultimately affect the way that voters view the Senator’s character. How far is too far?
The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee released an attack ad on Joni Ernst on October 1st. The ad is called “Gone” and criticizes Ernst for giving tax breaks to companies shipping jobs overseas. It says that entire factories and over 20,000 jobs have been lost due to outsourcing. The ad ends with Ernst’s face stating that she is “too extreme”.
Ernst’s campaign team immediately protested the ad after it was released. Ernst’s counsel felt that it was “demonstrably false.” The complaint was given to the news outlet that played the ad, KWQC, a television station in the Quad City area of Iowa. Ads released by third parties are required by law to contain only factual evidence, otherwise, the station can be held liable for misinformation.
The candidate and her team take issue with the statement that Ernst “wants to keep special tax breaks for corporations shipping jobs overseas.” Ernst’s representative writes that there is a distinction between tax breaks for corporations shipping jobs overseas versus tax breaks for shipping jobs overseas.
In the advertisement, the narrator uses the word “Corporation” but the words in the ad do not use corporation, and instead simply say “tax breaks for shipping jobs overseas.” This is the discrepancy that Ernst’s campaign has a problem with. The written statement in the ad implies that Ernst supports and wishes to incentivise outsourcing jobs.
Although Ernst’s representative took action against the television channel, KWQC continued to run the ad, thus showing their belief that the advertisement is factual. Advertisements can have a big effect on undecided voters, so Ernst’s failure to remove airplay of the ad might effect her popularity. If viewers see truth in the ad, they may begin to have an unfavorable opinion of Ernst.
The Florida’s governor’s race has been the focus of close scrutiny due to the high volume of negative ads.
By September 8, the florida governor’s race had spent $31.8 million on 64,000 TV ads. Yet the campaigns of the candidates are responsible for less than 4% of these ads
Non candidate spending in florida as increased in part to the new campaign finance laws making it easier for candidates to coordinate efforts with independent political groups, who have unlimited money raising potential. Very few states have these policies in place but it has lead to the increase of campaign ads that are from third party sources.
These third party ads have played a significant part in the negative political climate in Florida.
For Gov Scott, the group Lets Get to Work has worked hard to collaborate with the governor with its unlimited amount of money. Established in 2010, the group started out with $12.8 million from a trust fund in Scott’s wife’s name. Due to Florida’s limited restrictions on non candiatiare group money raising capacity, Scoot and his campaign can give millions to the group which in turn are used in ads.
The groups has pent $10.8 million on television ads thus far in the race, the second highest spender nationwide among non-candidate organizations in state races.
Compare this to Scott’s campaign television ad spending at just $176,000.
Only election day will tell how effective the ads will be in Scott’s reelection but many believe that the negative ads have left a bad taste in voter’s mouths.
With just 46 days, 10 hours, and 17 minutes left until the election, the attacks are in full swing. Local Dallas News, reported two attack ads by both candidates Davis and Abbott. Voters may question the difference in the attacks, but both settle on the battleground of ethics.
Davis’ team defined her image with the release of her book Forgetting to be Afraid. Local news stations wondered what voters would remember of her on the day of the elections, and if it would be about her two abortions. As the time until the election dwindles, so does the chance to catch up to Abbott in the polls. Wendy is accusing Abbott on a web ad, that claims her opponent took $250,000 from hospital chairman for his campaign. The ad states that after receiving the money, Abbott defended a surgeon in question, who was accused of performing surgery while under the influence of cocaine. After Abbott accepted the money, he sided with the hospital against the victims (which the ad informs that two are dead, and two remain paralyzed). The ad becomes powerful, showing the victims photos.
Abbott will not make the mistake of not retaliating. His campaign is releasing an ad that accuses Davis of voting as the news quotes, “as a member of the Fort Worth City Council to give tax breaks to businesses in property deals involving her title company.” She did business with the title company which was established by her ex-husband. Her share of the title company is a huge portion of her personal wealth. The company was initially acquired by her previous husband.
Abbott also responded to the Davis accusations, stating that he was defending state law as a matter of principle. Will voters look past the state of the victims, and understand Abbott’s professional choices? The ad contains dramatic music and sound affects of sirens. This gives the voter the image of someone who breaks the law, and capable of serious crime.
Davis’ ad tries to divide Abbott from the people of Texas. Stereotypes posing Republicans as disconnected and un-relateable to the public might agree with her stance. She poses him using his authority as the attorney general to protect powerful people, at the expense of human life.
The polls have not shifted in Davis’ favor. Will these attacks, with such little time left, make a difference on election day? 46 days and counting…
Round one of the closest Connecticut Governor’s race was in 2010 when there was no incumbent running and both parties were able to produce fierce challengers. On the Democratic side was Dannel Malloy, and on the Republican side was Tom Foley. These two men did not agree on much, but one thing they did have in common was their will to fight till the very last days before the general election in 2010. This race was the closest in Connecticut history and resulted with the victory of Malloy by less than 7,000 votes. This was a gruesome race with many different attack ads circulating about what the other’s intentions really were for office. One of the biggest topics the people were concerned about was job creation, and the state of the economy. Four years later and these are still two of the biggest topics the people are concerned about, along with federal government spending, education, and gun laws. But what makes either of these two men any different from the men that ran four years ago, can old dogs have any new tricks?
Welcome to round two of what is yet again going to be a historically close race for the 2014 Connecticut Governor. As of last week the challenger Tom Foley was leading Dan Malloy in the polls by 6% points. But this number will unsurprisingly fluctuate, as it gets closer to the November elections. For this race both men needed to run stronger than they did four years ago, but being frank many cannot see differences from then and now. For instance, one of the most famous attack ads used by Malloy against Foley in 2010 is more or less the same exact one he is using in 2014. Malloy being the incumbent is going to have a much harder time coming up with attack ads because for the past four years his opponent was not in office. For Foley on the other hand he is doing what any good challenger would and is harping on Malloy’s voting records as Governor and using them as different attack ads to appeal to Republicans.
When it comes to ads that they are putting out about themselves they are textbook examples of how an incumbent and challenger should be marketing themselves. Foley is aiming to market himself as a family man or as a “regular guy,” who wants to come in and improve what the current governor couldn’t accomplish. He uses words like, “new direction, optimism, restore,” to make it known that a vote him is a vote for change and when people are not satisfied with their current circumstances, usually in regards to the economy they are more likely to vote for the challenger. As for the incumbent’s strategy Malloy wants to market himself as someone who will need more time to fix the problems, and that when times were tough he was the one who fought for the people. Although the incumbent has a harder job to prove himself Malloy has very effective ads that do just that. In one ad entitled “tough times,” he uses words such as “strong, steady, truthful, leadership, conviction, and progress.”
Both men have made great strides to get themselves out there by participating in open forums, and taking part in many live debates. In the coming weeks they are supposed to have six more televised debates, which can be very effective when dealing with close races. But despite their best efforts the polls show that the state is once again torn between these two men. Image in this election is more important than in any other governor’s election because both men had a clearly defined image and now to succeed these old dogs are going to have to learn some new tricks.
While campaigning for office, candidates work to create their image to have an influence on how the public views them. Female candidates Shelley Moore Capito (R) and Natalie Tennant (D) have both tried to create an image for themselves in order to win the West Virginia Senate race.
Tennant’s campaign has tried to create a maternal image. She frequently shares the story of her daughter’s heart condition when discussing health care reform. In a Charleston Gazette article, she was quoted trying to relate to other parents while supporting the Affordable Care Act: “The insurance company called her a pre-existing condition… I know health care reform wasn’t done right, but there’s a lot I’ll do to make it better for West Virginia. But I wont ever go back to the days of letting insurance companies deny coverage to our children.”
In light of Capito’s mother passing, Tennant has asked for prayers for Capito’s family on her own Facebook page. She related the situation to herself, mentioning that her own mother has recently passed. Tennant showed she wants to bring West Virginia together when she said, “our politics may differ, but we are all West Virginians, and we come together and comfort each other in times like these.” (more…)
Political Faultline 