Steve Grossman just released a new TV ad that goes after Coakley (a bit).
It opens with “Who do you trust to grow our economy as Governor? A career prosecutor? Or a proven jobs creator?”
I think it’s fine, but utterly forgettable. It won’t turn anyone off, but I doubt it will attract too many voters.
Also, someone might want to tell the Grossman campaign that the Massachusetts unemployment rate is 5.5%. The lowest it has been since August 2008.
Please share widely!
My read of it was the same: fine but utterly forgettable.
The “Endorsed by The Massachusetts Democratic Party” text appears for too long, in my opinion. And I don’t understand why he has it on two lines. That makes it look like a list that never happens.
I’d hate for it to trigger anyone’s anti-insider reflex.
it’ll trigger a ‘who is this guy,’ reaction. I think that’s what he’s going for.
He has to have some recognition as a constitutional officer.
The total of ‘don’t recognize’ and “recognize but can’t rate” for Grossman was greater than 50%. I’m thinking he’s hoping the commercial reaches those people.
The ad’s OK. Not alienating anyone is a good first step.
Of the scenes where at least one person is talking, he’s talking the majority of the time in five and listening in the other five.
Republicans do this too.
Creating jobs in the private sector is a rather different task than creating jobs through the levers of government. Being a prosecutor is neither more nor less of a qualification for this than is being a CEO.
Governments and businesses have substantially different structures and objectives, perhaps most importantly the degree they are directly accountable to the people they serve. Frankly, I don’t want politicians that do not understand that distinction.
I similarly dislike the phrase, “run government like a business”, which fortunately does not appear in this ad.
This ad may fly as an introduction, but our candidates should be explaining precisely what they mean. Saying they have done something in the past is a possible credential, but what specific problems need attention, and how government will accomplish better outcomes for the Commonwealth is what is at stake. Most voters take a selfish attitude by asking “What’s in it for me?” The more broadly a candidate’s platform affects the populace for the better, the more votes they will get. So the messaging on health care, economics, housing, taxation, transportation, civil rights, education must show that just about everyone will benefit from what the candidate is proposing. This ad is a more about trust me, I will do the right thing without saying what that is. Instead of vagueness, with time so short before the primary election, the public will need attractive specifics.
Remember, this is the first ad from a candidate with low name recognition. He needs to introduce himself to many people. It’s a great first ad! And, it’s interesting that he has chosen to run ads in July.
Congratulations to the Grossman team.
This is a pretty tame and forgettable ad.
Also, Grossman’s name recognition is pretty much a catastrophic failure at this point. He is at like 35%, but has been involved in politics for decades, has run for governor, and been a statewide elected official.
This ad won’t help much unless it plasters the airwaves.
“Didn’t he run a failed home-improvement chain?”
Mr. Grossman has ZERO visibility outside party regulars.
He did win a contested primary and general for TRG after all.
I’m suggesting that there are about 1,000 Massachusetts residents who remember the “Grossman’s” in their neighborhood for every resident who remembers anything about the real Steve Grossman.
Perhaps a bit of humor — doing an ad with a crowd cheering his “business” background in front of closed a Grossman’s location (there are still a few around here and there), and the candidate trying to explain again and again that he’s a “different Grossman”.
A decent writer should be able to come with funny, sharp and memorable punch line for that spot, delivered as an aside to the camera as the 15-sec spot closes.
Couldn’t he find something other than this over used Republican catch-phrase. It’s sad.
At least he is not claiming he created jobs merely by being rich.
Republican catch-phrase is exactly the point. They call anyone with money that we don’t dare tax even if they don’t create jobs, whereas Grossman has in fact not only hired people, but treated them right once hired. He is reclaiming the term and my interpretation is it’s his way of saying to the GOP, “You keep using that term; I don’t think it means what you think it means.”
He is running against other Democrats right now, not Baker.
Besides which it is a lame awkward sounding phrase in any case. No normal person anywhere uses the word “job creator” to describe anyone.
There are much better ways to make the same point.
In any case, I find it hard to believe that this ad will accomplish anything other than to boost Grossman’s name recognition slightly.
…is to set yourself up as the person best suited to take it to the Republicans. It’s also sound strategy to play the long game rather than have to pivot too much (a la Romney’s Etch-a-Sketch) between a primary race and a general race.
The ad is really forgettable and the “job-creator” thing sounds stupid and doesn’t really convey what he is really about.
People like to know I think that someone gets how the private sector economy works, and preferably not the Bain Capital method personified by Mitt Romney. It’s not like this ad is the whole campaign, but it does address his campaign theme.
is the craven pandering to those who would pretend the word “whom” does not exist. “Who do you trust…?” Really?
He also likes to pretend Don Berwick doesn’t exist. I can understand why. Grossman’s best bet is to hope that while he bashes away at Martha Coakley, the media continues to ignore the real progressive in the race, Berwick.
But there’s something unseemly in that strategy for a gubernatorial candidate. Avoiding acknowledging a competing candidate does not engender trust, however he asks the question.
I’ve seen races where two candidates duke it out and the ignored candidate comes from behind when nobody is paying attention and ends up winning. Coakley is the frontrunner, however, so she is the one that needs to be taken down a few pegs if Grossman has any hope of prevailing.
I walk 47 miles of barbed wire
I use a cobra snake for a necktie
I got a brand new house on the roadside
Made from rattlesnake hide
I got a brand new chimney made on top
Made out of a human skull
Now come on take a walk with me Arlene
And tell me who do you love?
Who do you love?
Who do you love?
Who do you love?
Who do you love?
Besides, I think that a true grammarian might take you to task, based on the way you are using “pretend,” for failing to follow with “that” before “the word….” So, whom are you pandering to? đŸ˜‰
And to be clear, I’m pandering to those who believe that it’s perfectly acceptable in modern English to end sentences with a preposition.
because I generally do write “pretend that.” Typing quickly on a blog comment leads to terrible grammar (and spelling). And pointing it out is the sort of impertinence up with which I will not put…
Bo Diddley rocks (blues-es?) but I’m not ready to import his grammar into, say, Supreme Court opinions. Though I could get behind it if it were accompanied by an improvement in their substance.
Like his “The NRA loves Coakley” debacle. Looks like he’s getting better advice.