I have to say, it is pretty adorable. And spot on. I don’t know if it will work, but you have to give him credit for injecting some sense of how this race looks to non political junkies.
Christophersays
…won’t know who Steve and Martha are. I’ve been amazed and disappointed at the lack of familiarity voters seem to have with this race.
SomervilleTomsays
Scathingly, humorously, and — most of all, accurately — capturing the essence of this “race”. Not just the gubernatorial race, either — see the tempest-in-a-teapot in the AG race. The tempest is unbecoming to Democrats.
I love the tenor of this ad. The two kids are adorable — you love them, and chuckle with affection at their game. Yet — and this is, for me, why this ad is so good — you KNOW that they are playing a game.
This election is NOT a game.
Trickle upsays
Measured dash of cute contrasts with that “house call” web spot released recently.
The timing is good too, as people are apparently reassessing the Inevitable One.
Would be more effective, though, had Berwick previously been able to introduce himself to voters as more than just “the single payer guy.”
JimCsays
It doesn’t work. The race has not become nearly as nasty as the ad implies, and “NRA” is far too serious to be turned into a joke of an insult. The actual goal of the ad, to remind people of those charges, probably helps Grossman. it might help Berwick a little, but I think it’s overreach and will be seen as such.
A miss.
Pablosays
Polling shows that the Democratic primary electorate likes both Coakley and Grossman. In this context, Dr. Berwick’s ad is really poor strategy. If people are just starting to pay attention, their first view of Dr. Berwick is an ad that places him in a snarky, condescending context.
The Globe poll
Coakley 46%
Grossman 24%
Berwick 10%
Berwick has been stuck at 10% all summer. With a quick sprint to the finish after Labor Day, how does this ad move the numbers?
To win, Berwick needs to capture each and every undecided voter and motivate them to come out to the polls, but that will only get him to 30%. He would also need to peel away 9 points worth of Coakley voters (that’s about a fifth of current Coakley supporters), 17 points worth of Grossman supporters (that’s more than 2/3 of current Grossman supporters), or come combination of the two.
For all the folks who are saying, “Wow! Great ad!” Explain to me how this ad persuades all the undecideds, and a very large number of Coakley and Grossman supporters, to move to Berwick?
johntmaysays
We all heard this was in the works. I think it covered the past few weeks quite well.
johnksays
is more than saying you’re a leader. It’s showing how you will lead, so points for showing what a leader is not, but he needs to show how he will lead.
jconwaysays
And boy did he need it after his last two efforts. Also does a good job elevating the policy wonk as the adult in the race focused on the actual issues and not just point scoring. I wonder where they found these kids, they did a great job!
I saw the cover — with the kids on the slide — and I immediately knew the joke. It’s clever.
margiebhsays
Why I always miss those references!
judy-meredithsays
Business. This ad only reinforces the public’s disdain for politics and it’s image of policy making as bickering politicians.
In my classes I teach the politics is the process used by those in authority decide who gets what, when and where …In families, in private business, in government without resorting to physical violence. Sometimes those in authority consider the facts before they make decisions, sometimes they don’t.
We start off asking “What was the rule you hated most when you were growing up!” The discussions in adult and teen groups are fun, pretty similar actually, often are reported with a tone of resentment or frustration. And the response to “How are rules established in your home?” are even funnier. MY fav is “Ask your Mother”
We go from family politics to business politics, to government politics pretty quickly …and the teens are quick to understand that the politics of policy making in government is practiced by human beings doing the best they can to figure out solutions to hugely complicated complex problems. Adults are pretty cynical.
Teens love electoral politics because they are not afraid of conflict and love being a champion for for positive change in their community, without resorting to physical violence which they equate as negative campaigning in electoral campaigns.
Negative campaigning against another candidates is bad enough. Dismissing politics as a negative concept is really destructive.
.
johntmaysays
I agree with most of your post. The problem is that politics has earned a bad reputation, rightfully so in some cases, and it’s those cases that Don is referring to. I was a salesman for over 30 years and would often receive compliments from people saying, “I like you, even though you’re a salesman”. Are salesmen supposed to be bad people? Had I chosen a evil career? Or, was I in a profession where too many of my colleagues had tarnished the our reputation. Yes, I scratch my head sometimes when Don says “I’m not a politician” during a political debate, as he runs a political campaign for an elected office. But then, I know that what he means is that he is not what politics has become in Massachusetts.
judy-meredithsays
He is only dismissing “politics as usual” and he is not “what politics has become in Massachusetts.”
This is exactly the kind of comment that reinforces the public’s mistrust of politicians and politics and keeps them away from the polls.
Smart, savvy candidates brag on their skills and accomplishments in the political arena, not expose themselves as having no experience. …geez.
rcmaurosays
The reason the ad works is that it’s not mean-spirited. The kids are cute as buttons and I don’t think he means to say that Coakley and Grossman themselves are squabbling children, rather that they can easily get drawn into the he said/ she said narratives that are emphasized by the press and various political junkies.
I want to see little Maura and Warren next!
SomervilleTomsays
I’m sorry, but I’ve had more than my fill of “smart and savvy” candidates — like Bob DeLeo and, yes, Martha Coakley — “brag on” their alleged skills and accomplishments, while actively DOING just the opposite of what their campaigns are talking about.
I think you’re objecting because the ad hits home. I think you know, as well as the rest of us, that Ms. Coakley and Mr. Grossman HAVE been acting like children while major and important issues remain undiscussed.
I’d say that Bob DeLeo’s post-conviction statements about the Probation Department scandal — and Mayor Walsh’s similar outburst — do FAR MORE to harm “politics” than anything johntmay or Don Berwick says here.
I’d encourage you to spend rather more time using your considerable influence to make sure our political leadership understands just how strong the stench of the Probation Department scandal is (together with the VERY long list of similar outrages), and how offensive it is when our “leaders” defend the actions and attitudes of convicted felons.
johnksays
in the process and a greater appreciation for leadership and authenticity when they see it. Conversely, based on their experience in life, and again this is deeply personal to each individual, they see tendencies which shows a lack of leadership which troubles them. Sometimes a kid doesn’t have that perspective or experience, it’s something they will learn as the grow.
Identifying clear goals, mobilizing and inspiring others and staff to take action to achieve those goals based on trust that you are doing the right thing is what people are hopefully looking for. A Governor, AG, or whatever, is not going to do everything themselves. Berwick IMHO showed in his ad what should trouble people, now what we need is a clear definition of his goals, and hopefully it’s more than universal health care to lead the state.
Of course, some might describe me as the loud guy in the blue shirt with the Don Berwick button…
methuenprogressivesays
At long last Berwick’s team gets it right!
kbuschsays
This ad that essentially insults Martha Coakley and Steve Grossman and tells us with a very smirky face that insults don’t constitute leadership. After portraying one’s opponents as children.
What’s the message? Arguing is bad? Playing on the swings and avoiding politics is better because politics is unbecoming?
Really, the smirky condescension with which the “moral” of the little story is delivered could only be attractive to those who already adore Dr. Berwick. Anyone else is going to regard this ad as nasty and unpleasant.
*
Where the f. is Berwick’s political director? This is just appalling.
johntmaysays
Coakley and Grossman are following the polls.
kbuschsays
non sequitors
johntmaysays
I replied to your post “insults don’t constitute leadership.”
How does one “lead” if ones policies are poll driven?
kbuschsays
I was making no assertion about who has or doesn’t have leadership abilities. I was commenting on what the ad conveyed. My sole use of the word “leadership” was an indirect quote of the candidate in the ad.
There are plenty of ways to disagree with, agree with, qualify, or elaborate on what I wrote. You did none of that. Instead you gave us a random, weakly grounded comment about Berwick’s opponents. If it was a disagreement, agreement, qualification, or elaboration, you have left out a lot of words.
johntmaysays
When Martha Coakley says, time and time again that casinos are not the best option for our state but she will not support the citizens who are trying to stop casinos and that she herself will vote for casinos, I can only assume that she has watched the polls and seen a narrow majority in support, so she will follow, not lead.
This does not strike me as at all likely to persuade anybody to vote for the guy who they still know nothing about by the end of the ad.
It just doesn’t ring true: most people don’t have any sense that Coakley and Grossman have been squabbling. Hell, I follow the race obsessively, and even I don’t feel put upon by an annoying amount of squabbling. Even the Berwick people could only come up with one squabble topic for each side, and then had to have them repeat it with different wording.
I agree. I think it clashes with the thoughtful, somewhat wonky brand being pushed by the Berwick folks to this point. As the thing went on, I sort of expected Berwick to shout, “Get off of my lawn!”
kbuschsays
This ad seems particularly unfair to Coakley. The public has not seen her run negative ads, or act particularly petty or squabbling in public debates or appearances. And here comes Berwick accusing her of being petty and squabbling for … objecting to Super PACs, which most people think of as degrading the political discourse that Berwick is accusing Coakley of degrading.
she did not initiate -so no – she has not “gone after Grossman on his super pacs”. She responded to an attack by calling out the Treasurer on super pac attack ads. After Dukakis and Kerry’s campaigns I figured most of us know that failing to respond to negative attacks isn’t a good strategy.
Good to see you acknowledge that they are in fact Grossman’s super pacs. He’s been denying that with little crediability.
johntmaysays
Sort of like her reply to casinos. I like consistency, but not in this case.
It accurately depicts how Berwick sees the race. Agree or not, it’s honest.
Pablosays
…I can only imagine how he views the legislature, and how the legislature is going to respond to him.
SomervilleTomsays
We’re talking about the legislature that, for example, torpedoed a crucially needed plan, offered by a popular DEMOCRATIC governor, to restore a sustainable revenue foundation to our public transportation system? A legislature that refuses to consider finding ways to tax our wealthiest residents, while aggressively pursuing gambling revenues that plunder our most destitute? A legislature whose speaker routinely embarrasses and gives the middle-finger salute to a governor from the same party?
One of Mr. Berwick’s strongest assets, in my view, is the likelihood that he views the legislature EXACTLY as what it actually IS. It is no accident that three consecutive speakers have been felons, and that the current speaker escaped indictment only because prosecutors couldn’t get the goods on him.
I think it’s long past time our Democratic leadership acknowledges just how corrupt, and just how UN-Democratic, our legislature is — and does something about it.
Pablosays
We have a legislature with a substantial bloc of DINOs, and the House is essentially controlled by a center-right leadership team. There are signs of a progressive move in the Senate, and I look forward to seeing what changes may take place under Stan Rosenberg.
That 16 year string of Republican governors, including Mitt Romney, found it easy to get things done because of the center-right DINO nature of the legislature during their tenure. We had Republicans running against Finneran and the Democrats in the legislature (wink-wink) while they had a friendly working relationship with lots of aligned policy initiatives.
My sense is that Coakley and Grossman can move the legislature toward more progressive policies, Berwick would be scolding them with progressive orthodoxy (they haven’t read the literature), and Charlie Baker would be embracing and nurturing their DINO nature.
harmonywhosays
Berwick is working with our BEST progressive legislators. He no doubt has been counseled on the peculiar culture of Beacon Hill that blunts the edges of everything progressive and interesting, that blocks anything cutting edge. He’s understanding it and working on a way to CHANGE it, not just “Work with it”. Listen to our progressive champions. Listen to Jamie Eldridge. We must support THEM more than just voting for them and giving ‘attaboys.’ Give them something — someone — to work with in the Corner Office. They are ASKING US TO DO THIS so they can be more effective. Eldridge, Livingstone, Chang-Diaz, Provost, Jehlen. Over and over again we see them valiantly pushing against the flow, and we cheer them and we ask them to do it again. They need some help!!! They’re asking us to make progressive change agent, a man with an incredible record of impossible successes, our governor. Why wouldn’t progressives take this really, really seriously?
Do you really think Coakley or Grossman are interested in cultural power shifts in the legislature? Or working within the political quid pro quo that has been the river carrying the ships of their long political careers?
harmonywhosays
This should be resurrected/reread, in context of one of our best Legislators –whom we all agree, I think, needs our support — TELLING US what we need to get the changes we want.
I have worked closely with fellow progressives in the House and Senate during Governor Patrick’s eight years as Governor, and seen what has worked, what hasn’t worked, and how I think the next Governor should lead to create bold change that makes a dramatic difference in people’s lives.
A few thoughts:
A bold, clear vision by a Governor can create systemic change. [Casinos, Single Payer, Progressive Tax]
In 2007-2008, I saw Governor Patrick push for bold legislation to embrace alternative energy and reduce Massachusetts’s carbon emissions, through the passage of the Global Warming Solutions Act and the Green Communities Act. Governor Patrick didn’t achieve this merely by the legislation he proposed. He inspired the public to get behind a core principle of his, generational responsibility, by connecting that principle to Massachusetts doing its part now to move away from fossil fuels. People across the state actually were excited about what was going on at the State House! Governor Patrick made strong alliances with environmental groups and activists across Massachusetts, such that the public understood the goals of the GWSA and GCA, and therefore continued to support the progressive ideas behind it to this day. Without that bold vision set out in 2007 by Governor Patrick, I don’t think Massachusetts would be where it is today.
Challenging the Legislature through the grassroots can work
In the 2007-2008 legislative session, Governor Patrick proposed legislation to close corporate tax loopholes that upset some members of the Legislature, most notably then-Speaker Sal DiMasi, and some of the corporate special interests that are so powerful on Beacon Hill (utilities, real estate interests, cable companies). Governor Patrick employed a strategy of barnstorming the state to put pressure on the Legislature to pass both bills, including rallies across the state and at the State House, allied with municipal officials and advocates in favor of revenue to fund key government programs. In a famous recounting after the bill had passed, Governor Patrick recalled that Speaker DiMasi chided Patrick never to employ such an “unorthodox” approach again (which, sadly, he never did again). But did it work? Yes, it did. The proposal raised approximately $285 million in FY09, helping plug the massive revenue loss that was soon to come with the 2009 global fiscal crisis. Did the effort by Governor Patrick upset legislators and corporate lobbyists? Absolutely, and that is sometimes what leaders must do, to change the status quo. Would the revenue package have passed if Governor Patrick had not gone to the grassroots for support? In my opinion, highly unlikely. Take note, this is the only revenue package passed under the Patrick administration that was progressive.
If the Governor does not lay out a bold vision and engage the grassroots, bold change will die on Beacon Hill
This is the sad part, to be honest quite heartbreaking. As the power structure inside the State House exists right now, corporate special interests have incredible sway on how a bill looks like when it comes out of conference committee for final passage. I experienced this directly on the gas leaks bill just recently, when the provisions I was able to add to the gas leaks bill on the Senate side were stripped out of the conference committee, a few days after a lobbyist for one of the state’s utilities said straight to my face, “We’ll see what happens in conference.”
Unless you have a governor willing to express a bold vision with progressive values behind it, that connect with the public, and establish a strong relationship with the grassroots, sharing strategy, the bold change that many of us are fighting for will not happen. Anyone looking to understand this strategy further, I encourage you to read Drew Weston’s “The Political Brain.”
I saw this directly in the effort behind the Act to Invest campaign, to raise over $2 billion in revenue by raising the income and capital gains taxes. Governor Patrick did not coordinate his efforts with the grassroots, and proposed a different, semi-progressive tax proposal that confused progressive legislators, advocates and the public as to what to get behind. While the Governor did some speaking on his proposal across the state, he did not develop close relationships with supportive legislators on his proposal, nor municipal officials, which helped lead the MMA to endorse the legislative leadership weakened revenue proposal ONE DAY after it was unveiled. And hence, that is the revenue package that the state ended up with.
It appears that a similar result will happen with the effort to raise the minimum wage. While I’m extremely proud that Massachusetts will likely have the highest minimum wage of $11/hour by 2017, we could have done much better. The Raise Up Mass coalition did an amazing job of organizing across the state, but Governor Patrick did not help lead the effort. Imagine a couple of images like this: Governor Patrick (and legislators, I cast blame on myself too) going to restaurants across the state, talking to waiters and waitresses who earn only $2.63 an hour in tipped wage, perhaps working at that restaurant for a couple of hours to highlight the moral cause of ensuring that every hardworking person deserves to earn a living wage; Governor Patrick sitting down with a family where the parents work at Wal-Mart or McDonald’s, highlighting that their employer pays them so little that they rely upon food stamps and MassHealth to have basic security for their kids every month. Such images, and stories could have generated the moral outrage from the public to push the Legislature to a final minimum wage bill that more closely reflected the referendum.
Instead, the battle over the minimum wage, despite the pressure applied by the Raise Up Mass coalition to gather signatures to bring the minimum wage to the ballot, was negotiated behind closed doors on Beacon Hill. And we have a result that while positive for the state’s hundreds of thousands of low-wage workers, is not as bold as many of us hoped.
My point? A Governor can make a difference on these issues, but if the default is behind closed doors negotiations, without the populist and moral weight of the public behind it, without a Governor using the bully pulpit to hold elected officials accountable, corporate special interests always win. We can do better than that.
The Phoenix wanted to sell copy. Mark Bernstein got to write something, sort of dumb, to help them.
petrsays
…
harmonywhosays
Political ads suck. I hate them. I never watch them. I have TiVo; I skip thru them. I have better things to do when I’m wasting my time on the Internet than watch political pitches on the YouTubes.
TV ads are 30 seconds long. They are absurdly expensive. They are broadcast alongside Dancing with the Stars, room fresheners, and Jordan’s Furniture.
TV ads are a horrible way to have political discourse. They’re a terrible way for voters to learn about a candidate.
But TV ads are the way we do civic engagement and education in America. It’s the devil we live with.
Parsing and analyzing them, the way that often happens here, on tone, and hitting the mark, and substance and whatever, to me really just misses the mark.
In America, we need to, in 30 gold-plated seconds, grab an uninterested viewer by the chin and, hopefully, shimmy and dazzle enough that s/he will register some something that will register on election day (if s/he votes, which s/he probably doesn’t). In a context where name recognition drives much of our voting choices, piercing thru the distraction and disinterest to put A Name into viewer/voter’s head is the sine qua non.
So, in America, the way we have chosen to organize our civic and political life, this ad, which is I’m 100% certain, a template used over/over again across the country, is exactly what is required.
If that depresses you, let’s start talking about campaign finance spending limits, equal broadcast time on public airwaves to remove the jaw-dropping cost (and Big Media/Big Consulting/Big Advertising revenue streams), and public campaign financing.
High art, nuanced policy discourse it’s not. Pretending like it ever could be is disingenuous.
kbuschsays
1. Don Berwick closes his eyes a lot when talking to me: 0:11 and 0:16. Low info voters look for character. That suggests lack of openness.
2. Don Berwick smirks a lot. To those who don’t know him and who might be wondering about whether to entrust the governorship to him, that’s not a good sign.
Again where the f. is his political director?
JMGreenesays
just before the convention to CM Mike Lake’s campaign. I’m not sure who’s been tapped as a replacement.
kbuschsays
KKickmamma responded:
I have spent a lot of time in Berwick HQ, and they have a great team. Steve Bouchard has been campaign manager since Luke Quandt left, and Cindy Friedman is doing a great job in charge of political and operations.
Subsequent web searches indicated that Steve Bouchard, at least, is quite a professional at this. I couldn’t turn up anything on Cindy Friedman.
Three hypotheses:
1. Just you wait. They have this whole thing under control and they’re going to blow the doors off this primary any day now.
2. Steve Bouchard is actually working for more than one campaign and really only giving the Berwick campaign half or less of his attention.
3. The too clever ads stuff and the condescending style seen in both this ad and the first debate (I haven’t seen the second yet) are Berwick’s own and he wants to retain those elements of style even if political professionals object.
Maybe none of these hypotheses are true, but it does lead me to wonder.
JMGreenesays
is that between Coakley, Grossman, Berkwick, Kerrigan, Cheung, Lake, Tolman, Healey, Conroy, Feingold and Goldberg campaigns, there’s a lot of talent spread up and down the ballot.
Not to mention the DCCC is attaching a lot of people with their House majority push.
Christophersays
…but if Mr. Bouchard is truly the CM I hope and assume he is focused on only one.
johntmaysays
Yes, he needs to learn how to speak in subtle empty nuances without any real meaning in order to appeal to the voters who will misinterpret it all as “he stands for what I stand for” when in fact, he stands for nothing other than getting into the corner office on Beacon Hill. He needs to tell voters that he will “lead a discussion” on issues important to them in order that he may read the polls a few days later to see what side he ought to take. He’s not wearing an American Flag on his lapel, and where is his pickup truck? Yes, where the f. is his political director?
kbuschsays
A campaign just breaking into double digits with not a lot of money puts out a snarky, smirky ad. And you think I’m complaining about the lack of flag pins?
I’m more used to this level of discourse from right-wing trolls.
johntmaysays
You did post a ridiculous comment. Thanks for the warning. Was the ad hominem in closing was a special bonus?
kbuschsays
Berwick does not close his eyes at 0:11 and 0:16?
Maybe you didn’t watch the ad.
johntmaysays
Facing an opportunity to stand up for patients, business, laborers, and communities, Martha Coakley did not just blink; she closed her eyes.
kbuschsays
Berwick does not close his eyes at 0:11 and 0:16?
I now think you haven’t watched the ad. Give it a look. I think you’ll see it does him no good.
petrsays
I now think you haven’t watched the ad. Give it a look. I think you’ll see it does him no good.
… youtube and associated media it becomes possible to not only see the add multiple times but to stop and to start at will, etc. One of the things I like to do, with all ads, is to watch it at least once or twice with the sound turned off. In this particular instance it’s a completely different ad and, sans auditory accompaniment, Berwicks body language is excruciating and contradictory.
I do give Berwick a lot of credit (and Tolman also) for being ‘face first’ in their ads (and this isn’t the first, for either of them, in which they face and speak directly to the camera). I like that a lot. I think it could be effective, but I don’t think, at least in Berwicks case, that he’s at ease enough in front of the camera to actually pull it off.
kbuschsays
I found Berwick’s body language excruciating enough with the sound on that I doubt I’m capable of repeating your experiment.
It must have been an unusual focus group . . .
harmonywhosays
30 seconds lost your vote. Unfortunately, 30 secs will gain others’ votes.
I am disappointed that anyone would decide their vote on 30 seconds.
Join me in hours of conversations at doors and in the community. Join Don Berwick in lengthy, substantive q/a’s from real people.
Join me in waging the uphill — but essential — battle to fundamentally transform our politics. It doesn’t take 30 seconds.
petrsays
30 seconds lost your vote. Unfortunately, 30 secs will gain others’ votes.
I am disappointed that anyone would decide their vote on 30 seconds.
.. as I did not take merely “30 seconds” to decide my vote.
Join me in hours of conversations at doors and in the community. Join Don Berwick in lengthy, substantive q/a’s from real people.
As charming in its naivete as it is breathtaking in its arrogance.
You have no idea the extent, breadth and depth of conversations that I’ve had… Yet you insist that I couldn’t possibly have those conversations and come to a different conclusion that you. Sheer, un-mitigated, un-adulterated, un-distilled — and un-mistakable– arrogance.
harmonywhosays
I have ZERO idea of what you’ve done. I’m simply inviting you to join me in the work I’m doing. Maybe we can do that work together! Teamwork, takes a village, etc.
I’m sorry you took my suggestion for moving forward as an insult. It wasn’t intended in that spirit.
SomervilleTomsays
I think you miss the point of the comment, and I frankly find your response snarkier than the comment that provoked it. In particular, your final sentence really is simply uncalled for.
Whatever it is johntmay intended to say, the MEANING that I resonate with is that the campaigns of Mr. Grossman and Ms. Coakley are, to me, empty, condescending, and insultingly devoid of content (except when they are actively insulting to left-leaning Occupiers like me).
He is referring to the endless commentary about whether or not candidate Barack Obama wore a flag pin on his lapel, and to the endless accolades about candidate Scott Brown and his famous truck. I enthusiastically agree with him that such rubbish IS one hallmark of professional campaign directors. Not the only one, but one.
I also think that the Coakley campaign IS being run by a professional (I seem to recall Doug Rubin in that role), and the mere fact that she is in such command of the primary says that the Mr. Rubin’s strategy is working. I hated Mr. Charmin’, but that character sold millions of paper towels.
I think a great many voters resonate with this “snarky, smirky ad”. I think this ad speaks to the vibe that is causing the sudden narrowing of the Baker/Coakley contest reported in Friday’s Globe.
JimCsays
This absurdly expensive locally produced ad can’t be parsed and analyzed? Isn’t some of that expense to pay writers who are willing to be parsed?
Of course it can be parsed and analyzed!
Have at it.
It’s not meant for you. It’s meant for the scads of voters out there who barely know there’s an election, let alone that Don Berwick is running in it.
Enjoy the parsing and analysis! You should, though, consider who’s being addressed by the ad as you proceed in your textual deconstruction. Hint: It’s not you. Or anyone here at BMG. Or anyone who went to a caucus. It’s for the people who decide their votes because of these ridiculous wastes of money we call Ads. USA! USA!
JimCsays
Parsing and analyzing them, the way that often happens here, on tone, and hitting the mark, and substance and whatever, to me really just misses the mark.
harmonywhosays
It misses the mark, is IMO a navel-gazing self-indulgent and disingenous waste of time. If textual analysis is your thing, to have value, IMO, such analysis should have in mind the intended audience (it’s not you, anyone else here or anyone who spends more than 5 minutes thinking about candidates). But have at it.
JimCsays
I think that’s too low a bar. A political ad should be able to withstand scrutiny.
harmonywhosays
It withstands scrutiny. It fails for people here for reasons irrelevant to the intended viewer. So, sturm und drung in a teacup. :shrug:
sabutaisays
Neil Clegg used a similar strategy back in 2010 to great effect for a while. While I don’t agree with denigrating politics and politicians, I think an honest ad has to be frank about how some politicians denigrate their field, which this ad does.
I don’t think calling out such behavior is worse than actually committing it.
Pablosays
THIS is a great political ad.
I was committed to another candidate, and that ad made me sit up and take notice. Wow. If I was merely leaning, this ad would have made me lean differently. It made me like the guy, made me want to vote for him.
Berwick’s ad? I like him less today than I did before I saw it.
Pablosays
It seems the embed to the Sciortino ad was stripped out of the post. Let’s try it again. If it doesn’t work, just go here and watch it again.
harmonywhosays
As it criticizes your candidate and as it is not aimed at you (or any of us) who airway know the name Don Berwick.
Hate the game (politics by expense 30 second ads), not the player (any given ad).
harmonywhosays
This is for the vast majority of voters who do not pay attention to politics and issues with the same close textual analysis as BMGers.
kbuschsays
And to those people, it says politics is a petty, childish game.
Why, that’s just great. Just great.
kbuschsays
The obscure stuff includes the resemblances between the children and the candidates, and even what the children are talking about. Digging deeper, one might wonder about the their game/my game distinction. The better point is perhaps that this politics stuff is not really a game: it affects actual lives. “My game is leadership” just doesn’t sound all that different from what the two adorables were saying.
Getting all pyschodynamic, there’s this mirror parallel between children playing adults but being childish and the adult playing adult and eschewing childishness. If I remember correctly, transactional analysis guys used to point out that the “I’m the adult” pose is fundamentally a child maneuver.
So there’s some obscure stuff for you. We’re not complaining about it.
harmonywhosays
So join me working at the grassroots level, building an alternative to the vapid soundbite politics!
I’m always organizing in my community for progressive dialogue, policy, change, candidates. Let’s brainstorm how to move that needle — not on the empty calories of political ads and the soul-sucking, profit-driven media corporations and consultants who benefit from them. I think that work takes long-term work, person by person, community by community.
kbuschsays
But I’m going farther. I think it is harmful — and not just to Berwick.
For me, this isn’t just a taste thing.
harmonywhosays
In working with substance, with the hard work of long-term community organizing for progressive change, including HOW we fund and mobilize our campaigns/candidates/voters!
kbuschsays
Actually, I was planning to vote for Berwick, but, sad to say, this ad provides an argument against doing so.
It’s a civic disengagement ad. We need less of that.
harmonywhosays
I agree that we need more civic engagement. We need leaders who understaned and promote civic engagement.
What we don’t need is more ads. We need fewer ads. We need more media coverage of oppos for Civic Engagement and interest/care/involvement in the “politics” (issues, policy) that shape our lives. We need more insistence that we move away from 30 sec pitches to the general voter, squished between erectile dysfunction and toilet cleaner ads.
Ads like this are exactly what an outsider candidate has to do. I hate it. Like I hate just about every single political ad I’ve EVER seen except for Carl’s.
Clutching our pearls over breaches of supposed (bs) norms of political decorum is akin to rearranging decks on the Titanic.
That’s why I listen to people like Jamie Eldridge who believe in and work for restructuring the way we finance campaigns and the way we engage with policy/politics. Someone on the inside who wants to change the way things are done from inside and the outside. If I didn’t know anything else about any of the candidates, the fact that the best legislators who care about grassroots civic engagement more than anyone else are overwhelmingly supporting DOn Berwick would be enough to convince me.
johntmaysays
as I admire what he has done as Treasurer. I appreciate that his family owned business worked with labor unions. That was a big plus as well. His campaign up to the convention was stellar but what the heck happened after that? And I was sympathetic to a Coakley comeback, after all, she did some good things while AG. However, my two key issues are health care and the widening of wealth disparity. I was very disappointed to see how flat both candidates were on health care reform. Why, their proposals are the same as Baker’s (except Grossman does not even list Health Care a key issue on his web site!) and of course it is well documented that casinos widen the wealth gap while Coakley and Grossman are tripping over each other to see who is supporting casinos more than the other! So what am I do do? I am willing to compromise my principles, but abandoning them is rather tough when I can support Don Berwick.
kbuschsays
I gave links on Coakley’s and Grossman’s positions on healthcare. I’d be very surprised if Baker comes anywhere close. You’re the one making the assertion though.
Could I ask you to please stop being so reckless? I’d never blithely write “Why, their proposals are the same as Baker’s” unless I could fucking prove it. You didn’t, and that’s irresponsible. Do your homework. Please.
kbuschsays
HarmonyHu. What is it with you guys?
Are reckless accusations what you’re about?
Why the uprate? We’re liberals. We’re supposed to care about getting things right and not about getting things ideological.
harmonywhosays
Nothing much for me to do with that disappointment, but thank you for name-checking me.
kbuschsays
Is this your clique vs my clique?
Or do you really think unsourced accusations are just dandy provided they make Berwick look good?
harmonywhosays
I loved what JTM said. I didn’t see “unsourced accusations.” You’re zeroing in on “just like Charlie Baker”; I appreciate the rest of the post. Is “uprating” something more precious on BMG than, say, “likes” and “+1s” elsewhere? Because I’m really chuckling here. Seriously? This is the bone you’re gnawing on?
Have fun…?
kbuschsays
rationality will return on September 10.
bluewatchsays
Berwick is denigrating both Grossman and Coakley. That’s not good! It’s really unfortunately that Berwick doesn’t show greater respect for his opponents.
Pablosays
… but that’s exactly what Don Berwick is doing in this ad.
johntmaysays
She hates most political ads, learned to mistrust them all, gets fed up with the attack ads, and she loved this ad. Of course, I asked her, “But this is an attack ad and you hate attack ads”. She came back with, “This is not an attack ad based on some distortion of fact or “gotcha” thing, this is an attack of the petty arguing with no substance that I’m sick of.”
I have to say, it is pretty adorable. And spot on. I don’t know if it will work, but you have to give him credit for injecting some sense of how this race looks to non political junkies.
…won’t know who Steve and Martha are. I’ve been amazed and disappointed at the lack of familiarity voters seem to have with this race.
Scathingly, humorously, and — most of all, accurately — capturing the essence of this “race”. Not just the gubernatorial race, either — see the tempest-in-a-teapot in the AG race. The tempest is unbecoming to Democrats.
I love the tenor of this ad. The two kids are adorable — you love them, and chuckle with affection at their game. Yet — and this is, for me, why this ad is so good — you KNOW that they are playing a game.
This election is NOT a game.
Measured dash of cute contrasts with that “house call” web spot released recently.
The timing is good too, as people are apparently reassessing the Inevitable One.
Would be more effective, though, had Berwick previously been able to introduce himself to voters as more than just “the single payer guy.”
It doesn’t work. The race has not become nearly as nasty as the ad implies, and “NRA” is far too serious to be turned into a joke of an insult. The actual goal of the ad, to remind people of those charges, probably helps Grossman. it might help Berwick a little, but I think it’s overreach and will be seen as such.
A miss.
Polling shows that the Democratic primary electorate likes both Coakley and Grossman. In this context, Dr. Berwick’s ad is really poor strategy. If people are just starting to pay attention, their first view of Dr. Berwick is an ad that places him in a snarky, condescending context.
The Globe poll
Coakley 46%
Grossman 24%
Berwick 10%
Berwick has been stuck at 10% all summer. With a quick sprint to the finish after Labor Day, how does this ad move the numbers?
To win, Berwick needs to capture each and every undecided voter and motivate them to come out to the polls, but that will only get him to 30%. He would also need to peel away 9 points worth of Coakley voters (that’s about a fifth of current Coakley supporters), 17 points worth of Grossman supporters (that’s more than 2/3 of current Grossman supporters), or come combination of the two.
For all the folks who are saying, “Wow! Great ad!” Explain to me how this ad persuades all the undecideds, and a very large number of Coakley and Grossman supporters, to move to Berwick?
We all heard this was in the works. I think it covered the past few weeks quite well.
is more than saying you’re a leader. It’s showing how you will lead, so points for showing what a leader is not, but he needs to show how he will lead.
And boy did he need it after his last two efforts. Also does a good job elevating the policy wonk as the adult in the race focused on the actual issues and not just point scoring. I wonder where they found these kids, they did a great job!
But extra points for “Steve’s” orange tie
I saw the cover — with the kids on the slide — and I immediately knew the joke. It’s clever.
Why I always miss those references!
Business. This ad only reinforces the public’s disdain for politics and it’s image of policy making as bickering politicians.
In my classes I teach the politics is the process used by those in authority decide who gets what, when and where …In families, in private business, in government without resorting to physical violence. Sometimes those in authority consider the facts before they make decisions, sometimes they don’t.
We start off asking “What was the rule you hated most when you were growing up!” The discussions in adult and teen groups are fun, pretty similar actually, often are reported with a tone of resentment or frustration. And the response to “How are rules established in your home?” are even funnier. MY fav is “Ask your Mother”
We go from family politics to business politics, to government politics pretty quickly …and the teens are quick to understand that the politics of policy making in government is practiced by human beings doing the best they can to figure out solutions to hugely complicated complex problems. Adults are pretty cynical.
Teens love electoral politics because they are not afraid of conflict and love being a champion for for positive change in their community, without resorting to physical violence which they equate as negative campaigning in electoral campaigns.
Negative campaigning against another candidates is bad enough. Dismissing politics as a negative concept is really destructive.
.
I agree with most of your post. The problem is that politics has earned a bad reputation, rightfully so in some cases, and it’s those cases that Don is referring to. I was a salesman for over 30 years and would often receive compliments from people saying, “I like you, even though you’re a salesman”. Are salesmen supposed to be bad people? Had I chosen a evil career? Or, was I in a profession where too many of my colleagues had tarnished the our reputation. Yes, I scratch my head sometimes when Don says “I’m not a politician” during a political debate, as he runs a political campaign for an elected office. But then, I know that what he means is that he is not what politics has become in Massachusetts.
He is only dismissing “politics as usual” and he is not “what politics has become in Massachusetts.”
This is exactly the kind of comment that reinforces the public’s mistrust of politicians and politics and keeps them away from the polls.
Smart, savvy candidates brag on their skills and accomplishments in the political arena, not expose themselves as having no experience. …geez.
The reason the ad works is that it’s not mean-spirited. The kids are cute as buttons and I don’t think he means to say that Coakley and Grossman themselves are squabbling children, rather that they can easily get drawn into the he said/ she said narratives that are emphasized by the press and various political junkies.
I want to see little Maura and Warren next!
I’m sorry, but I’ve had more than my fill of “smart and savvy” candidates — like Bob DeLeo and, yes, Martha Coakley — “brag on” their alleged skills and accomplishments, while actively DOING just the opposite of what their campaigns are talking about.
I think you’re objecting because the ad hits home. I think you know, as well as the rest of us, that Ms. Coakley and Mr. Grossman HAVE been acting like children while major and important issues remain undiscussed.
I’d say that Bob DeLeo’s post-conviction statements about the Probation Department scandal — and Mayor Walsh’s similar outburst — do FAR MORE to harm “politics” than anything johntmay or Don Berwick says here.
I’d encourage you to spend rather more time using your considerable influence to make sure our political leadership understands just how strong the stench of the Probation Department scandal is (together with the VERY long list of similar outrages), and how offensive it is when our “leaders” defend the actions and attitudes of convicted felons.
in the process and a greater appreciation for leadership and authenticity when they see it. Conversely, based on their experience in life, and again this is deeply personal to each individual, they see tendencies which shows a lack of leadership which troubles them. Sometimes a kid doesn’t have that perspective or experience, it’s something they will learn as the grow.
Identifying clear goals, mobilizing and inspiring others and staff to take action to achieve those goals based on trust that you are doing the right thing is what people are hopefully looking for. A Governor, AG, or whatever, is not going to do everything themselves. Berwick IMHO showed in his ad what should trouble people, now what we need is a clear definition of his goals, and hopefully it’s more than universal health care to lead the state.
Well done, Team Berwick!
I got an invite today to march with Don in Marlborough’s Labor Day Parade on Monday – who’s with me?
I’ll be the guy in the blue shirt and the Don Berwick button.
Of course, some might describe me as the loud guy in the blue shirt with the Don Berwick button…
At long last Berwick’s team gets it right!
This ad that essentially insults Martha Coakley and Steve Grossman and tells us with a very smirky face that insults don’t constitute leadership. After portraying one’s opponents as children.
What’s the message? Arguing is bad? Playing on the swings and avoiding politics is better because politics is unbecoming?
Really, the smirky condescension with which the “moral” of the little story is delivered could only be attractive to those who already adore Dr. Berwick. Anyone else is going to regard this ad as nasty and unpleasant.
*
Where the f. is Berwick’s political director? This is just appalling.
Coakley and Grossman are following the polls.
non sequitors
I replied to your post “insults don’t constitute leadership.”
How does one “lead” if ones policies are poll driven?
I was making no assertion about who has or doesn’t have leadership abilities. I was commenting on what the ad conveyed. My sole use of the word “leadership” was an indirect quote of the candidate in the ad.
There are plenty of ways to disagree with, agree with, qualify, or elaborate on what I wrote. You did none of that. Instead you gave us a random, weakly grounded comment about Berwick’s opponents. If it was a disagreement, agreement, qualification, or elaboration, you have left out a lot of words.
When Martha Coakley says, time and time again that casinos are not the best option for our state but she will not support the citizens who are trying to stop casinos and that she herself will vote for casinos, I can only assume that she has watched the polls and seen a narrow majority in support, so she will follow, not lead.
A leader leads.
Bernstein gave it thumbs down.
I agree. I think it clashes with the thoughtful, somewhat wonky brand being pushed by the Berwick folks to this point. As the thing went on, I sort of expected Berwick to shout, “Get off of my lawn!”
Really?
she did not initiate -so no – she has not “gone after Grossman on his super pacs”. She responded to an attack by calling out the Treasurer on super pac attack ads. After Dukakis and Kerry’s campaigns I figured most of us know that failing to respond to negative attacks isn’t a good strategy.
Good to see you acknowledge that they are in fact Grossman’s super pacs. He’s been denying that with little crediability.
Sort of like her reply to casinos. I like consistency, but not in this case.
Not worth another trip. See you Sept 9th.
It accurately depicts how Berwick sees the race. Agree or not, it’s honest.
…I can only imagine how he views the legislature, and how the legislature is going to respond to him.
We’re talking about the legislature that, for example, torpedoed a crucially needed plan, offered by a popular DEMOCRATIC governor, to restore a sustainable revenue foundation to our public transportation system? A legislature that refuses to consider finding ways to tax our wealthiest residents, while aggressively pursuing gambling revenues that plunder our most destitute? A legislature whose speaker routinely embarrasses and gives the middle-finger salute to a governor from the same party?
One of Mr. Berwick’s strongest assets, in my view, is the likelihood that he views the legislature EXACTLY as what it actually IS. It is no accident that three consecutive speakers have been felons, and that the current speaker escaped indictment only because prosecutors couldn’t get the goods on him.
I think it’s long past time our Democratic leadership acknowledges just how corrupt, and just how UN-Democratic, our legislature is — and does something about it.
We have a legislature with a substantial bloc of DINOs, and the House is essentially controlled by a center-right leadership team. There are signs of a progressive move in the Senate, and I look forward to seeing what changes may take place under Stan Rosenberg.
That 16 year string of Republican governors, including Mitt Romney, found it easy to get things done because of the center-right DINO nature of the legislature during their tenure. We had Republicans running against Finneran and the Democrats in the legislature (wink-wink) while they had a friendly working relationship with lots of aligned policy initiatives.
My sense is that Coakley and Grossman can move the legislature toward more progressive policies, Berwick would be scolding them with progressive orthodoxy (they haven’t read the literature), and Charlie Baker would be embracing and nurturing their DINO nature.
Berwick is working with our BEST progressive legislators. He no doubt has been counseled on the peculiar culture of Beacon Hill that blunts the edges of everything progressive and interesting, that blocks anything cutting edge. He’s understanding it and working on a way to CHANGE it, not just “Work with it”. Listen to our progressive champions. Listen to Jamie Eldridge. We must support THEM more than just voting for them and giving ‘attaboys.’ Give them something — someone — to work with in the Corner Office. They are ASKING US TO DO THIS so they can be more effective. Eldridge, Livingstone, Chang-Diaz, Provost, Jehlen. Over and over again we see them valiantly pushing against the flow, and we cheer them and we ask them to do it again. They need some help!!! They’re asking us to make progressive change agent, a man with an incredible record of impossible successes, our governor. Why wouldn’t progressives take this really, really seriously?
Do you really think Coakley or Grossman are interested in cultural power shifts in the legislature? Or working within the political quid pro quo that has been the river carrying the ships of their long political careers?
This should be resurrected/reread, in context of one of our best Legislators –whom we all agree, I think, needs our support — TELLING US what we need to get the changes we want.
Link the post
I did.
the copy/paste?
?
This
What’s happening in that little animated cartoon? I apologize; I do not get it.
But thank you for taking the time to google it and link it for my edification, despite my limitations in comprehension.
Can we spend some more time and have you explain it to me with words?
You are linking the Sen. Eldridge’s diary from June 20th. I mistook it for the diary from Thursday.
I will read more closely next time.
Misunderstandings in intent and meaning happen all the time. We figure it out ABC move on.
Do we want a governor who is a puppet of the legislature, or a servant of the people?
for not following the thread
The guy who peddles this crap.
…I’m considering it right now.
…Still considering…
… still considering…
…
The Phoenix wanted to sell copy. Mark Bernstein got to write something, sort of dumb, to help them.
…
Political ads suck. I hate them. I never watch them. I have TiVo; I skip thru them. I have better things to do when I’m wasting my time on the Internet than watch political pitches on the YouTubes.
TV ads are 30 seconds long. They are absurdly expensive. They are broadcast alongside Dancing with the Stars, room fresheners, and Jordan’s Furniture.
TV ads are a horrible way to have political discourse. They’re a terrible way for voters to learn about a candidate.
But TV ads are the way we do civic engagement and education in America. It’s the devil we live with.
Parsing and analyzing them, the way that often happens here, on tone, and hitting the mark, and substance and whatever, to me really just misses the mark.
In America, we need to, in 30 gold-plated seconds, grab an uninterested viewer by the chin and, hopefully, shimmy and dazzle enough that s/he will register some something that will register on election day (if s/he votes, which s/he probably doesn’t). In a context where name recognition drives much of our voting choices, piercing thru the distraction and disinterest to put A Name into viewer/voter’s head is the sine qua non.
So, in America, the way we have chosen to organize our civic and political life, this ad, which is I’m 100% certain, a template used over/over again across the country, is exactly what is required.
If that depresses you, let’s start talking about campaign finance spending limits, equal broadcast time on public airwaves to remove the jaw-dropping cost (and Big Media/Big Consulting/Big Advertising revenue streams), and public campaign financing.
High art, nuanced policy discourse it’s not. Pretending like it ever could be is disingenuous.
1. Don Berwick closes his eyes a lot when talking to me: 0:11 and 0:16. Low info voters look for character. That suggests lack of openness.
2. Don Berwick smirks a lot. To those who don’t know him and who might be wondering about whether to entrust the governorship to him, that’s not a good sign.
Again where the f. is his political director?
just before the convention to CM Mike Lake’s campaign. I’m not sure who’s been tapped as a replacement.
KKickmamma responded:
Subsequent web searches indicated that Steve Bouchard, at least, is quite a professional at this. I couldn’t turn up anything on Cindy Friedman.
Three hypotheses:
1. Just you wait. They have this whole thing under control and they’re going to blow the doors off this primary any day now.
2. Steve Bouchard is actually working for more than one campaign and really only giving the Berwick campaign half or less of his attention.
3. The too clever ads stuff and the condescending style seen in both this ad and the first debate (I haven’t seen the second yet) are Berwick’s own and he wants to retain those elements of style even if political professionals object.
Maybe none of these hypotheses are true, but it does lead me to wonder.
is that between Coakley, Grossman, Berkwick, Kerrigan, Cheung, Lake, Tolman, Healey, Conroy, Feingold and Goldberg campaigns, there’s a lot of talent spread up and down the ballot.
Not to mention the DCCC is attaching a lot of people with their House majority push.
…but if Mr. Bouchard is truly the CM I hope and assume he is focused on only one.
Yes, he needs to learn how to speak in subtle empty nuances without any real meaning in order to appeal to the voters who will misinterpret it all as “he stands for what I stand for” when in fact, he stands for nothing other than getting into the corner office on Beacon Hill. He needs to tell voters that he will “lead a discussion” on issues important to them in order that he may read the polls a few days later to see what side he ought to take. He’s not wearing an American Flag on his lapel, and where is his pickup truck? Yes, where the f. is his political director?
A campaign just breaking into double digits with not a lot of money puts out a snarky, smirky ad. And you think I’m complaining about the lack of flag pins?
I’m more used to this level of discourse from right-wing trolls.
You did post a ridiculous comment. Thanks for the warning. Was the ad hominem in closing was a special bonus?
Berwick does not close his eyes at 0:11 and 0:16?
Maybe you didn’t watch the ad.
Facing an opportunity to stand up for patients, business, laborers, and communities, Martha Coakley did not just blink; she closed her eyes.
Berwick does not close his eyes at 0:11 and 0:16?
I now think you haven’t watched the ad. Give it a look. I think you’ll see it does him no good.
… youtube and associated media it becomes possible to not only see the add multiple times but to stop and to start at will, etc. One of the things I like to do, with all ads, is to watch it at least once or twice with the sound turned off. In this particular instance it’s a completely different ad and, sans auditory accompaniment, Berwicks body language is excruciating and contradictory.
I do give Berwick a lot of credit (and Tolman also) for being ‘face first’ in their ads (and this isn’t the first, for either of them, in which they face and speak directly to the camera). I like that a lot. I think it could be effective, but I don’t think, at least in Berwicks case, that he’s at ease enough in front of the camera to actually pull it off.
I found Berwick’s body language excruciating enough with the sound on that I doubt I’m capable of repeating your experiment.
It must have been an unusual focus group . . .
30 seconds lost your vote. Unfortunately, 30 secs will gain others’ votes.
I am disappointed that anyone would decide their vote on 30 seconds.
Join me in hours of conversations at doors and in the community. Join Don Berwick in lengthy, substantive q/a’s from real people.
Join me in waging the uphill — but essential — battle to fundamentally transform our politics. It doesn’t take 30 seconds.
.. as I did not take merely “30 seconds” to decide my vote.
As charming in its naivete as it is breathtaking in its arrogance.
You have no idea the extent, breadth and depth of conversations that I’ve had… Yet you insist that I couldn’t possibly have those conversations and come to a different conclusion that you. Sheer, un-mitigated, un-adulterated, un-distilled — and un-mistakable– arrogance.
I have ZERO idea of what you’ve done. I’m simply inviting you to join me in the work I’m doing. Maybe we can do that work together! Teamwork, takes a village, etc.
I’m sorry you took my suggestion for moving forward as an insult. It wasn’t intended in that spirit.
I think you miss the point of the comment, and I frankly find your response snarkier than the comment that provoked it. In particular, your final sentence really is simply uncalled for.
Whatever it is johntmay intended to say, the MEANING that I resonate with is that the campaigns of Mr. Grossman and Ms. Coakley are, to me, empty, condescending, and insultingly devoid of content (except when they are actively insulting to left-leaning Occupiers like me).
He is referring to the endless commentary about whether or not candidate Barack Obama wore a flag pin on his lapel, and to the endless accolades about candidate Scott Brown and his famous truck. I enthusiastically agree with him that such rubbish IS one hallmark of professional campaign directors. Not the only one, but one.
I also think that the Coakley campaign IS being run by a professional (I seem to recall Doug Rubin in that role), and the mere fact that she is in such command of the primary says that the Mr. Rubin’s strategy is working. I hated Mr. Charmin’, but that character sold millions of paper towels.
I think a great many voters resonate with this “snarky, smirky ad”. I think this ad speaks to the vibe that is causing the sudden narrowing of the Baker/Coakley contest reported in Friday’s Globe.
This absurdly expensive locally produced ad can’t be parsed and analyzed? Isn’t some of that expense to pay writers who are willing to be parsed?
Maybe everyone should go the Mike Gravel route.
Of course it can be parsed and analyzed!
Have at it.
It’s not meant for you. It’s meant for the scads of voters out there who barely know there’s an election, let alone that Don Berwick is running in it.
Enjoy the parsing and analysis! You should, though, consider who’s being addressed by the ad as you proceed in your textual deconstruction. Hint: It’s not you. Or anyone here at BMG. Or anyone who went to a caucus. It’s for the people who decide their votes because of these ridiculous wastes of money we call Ads. USA! USA!
It misses the mark, is IMO a navel-gazing self-indulgent and disingenous waste of time. If textual analysis is your thing, to have value, IMO, such analysis should have in mind the intended audience (it’s not you, anyone else here or anyone who spends more than 5 minutes thinking about candidates). But have at it.
I think that’s too low a bar. A political ad should be able to withstand scrutiny.
It withstands scrutiny. It fails for people here for reasons irrelevant to the intended viewer. So, sturm und drung in a teacup. :shrug:
Neil Clegg used a similar strategy back in 2010 to great effect for a while. While I don’t agree with denigrating politics and politicians, I think an honest ad has to be frank about how some politicians denigrate their field, which this ad does.
I don’t think calling out such behavior is worse than actually committing it.
THIS is a great political ad.
I was committed to another candidate, and that ad made me sit up and take notice. Wow. If I was merely leaning, this ad would have made me lean differently. It made me like the guy, made me want to vote for him.
Berwick’s ad? I like him less today than I did before I saw it.
It seems the embed to the Sciortino ad was stripped out of the post. Let’s try it again. If it doesn’t work, just go here and watch it again.
As it criticizes your candidate and as it is not aimed at you (or any of us) who airway know the name Don Berwick.
Hate the game (politics by expense 30 second ads), not the player (any given ad).
This is for the vast majority of voters who do not pay attention to politics and issues with the same close textual analysis as BMGers.
And to those people, it says politics is a petty, childish game.
Why, that’s just great. Just great.
The obscure stuff includes the resemblances between the children and the candidates, and even what the children are talking about. Digging deeper, one might wonder about the their game/my game distinction. The better point is perhaps that this politics stuff is not really a game: it affects actual lives. “My game is leadership” just doesn’t sound all that different from what the two adorables were saying.
Getting all pyschodynamic, there’s this mirror parallel between children playing adults but being childish and the adult playing adult and eschewing childishness. If I remember correctly, transactional analysis guys used to point out that the “I’m the adult” pose is fundamentally a child maneuver.
So there’s some obscure stuff for you. We’re not complaining about it.
So join me working at the grassroots level, building an alternative to the vapid soundbite politics!
I’m always organizing in my community for progressive dialogue, policy, change, candidates. Let’s brainstorm how to move that needle — not on the empty calories of political ads and the soul-sucking, profit-driven media corporations and consultants who benefit from them. I think that work takes long-term work, person by person, community by community.
But I’m going farther. I think it is harmful — and not just to Berwick.
For me, this isn’t just a taste thing.
In working with substance, with the hard work of long-term community organizing for progressive change, including HOW we fund and mobilize our campaigns/candidates/voters!
Actually, I was planning to vote for Berwick, but, sad to say, this ad provides an argument against doing so.
It’s a civic disengagement ad. We need less of that.
I agree that we need more civic engagement. We need leaders who understaned and promote civic engagement.
What we don’t need is more ads. We need fewer ads. We need more media coverage of oppos for Civic Engagement and interest/care/involvement in the “politics” (issues, policy) that shape our lives. We need more insistence that we move away from 30 sec pitches to the general voter, squished between erectile dysfunction and toilet cleaner ads.
Ads like this are exactly what an outsider candidate has to do. I hate it. Like I hate just about every single political ad I’ve EVER seen except for Carl’s.
Clutching our pearls over breaches of supposed (bs) norms of political decorum is akin to rearranging decks on the Titanic.
That’s why I listen to people like Jamie Eldridge who believe in and work for restructuring the way we finance campaigns and the way we engage with policy/politics. Someone on the inside who wants to change the way things are done from inside and the outside. If I didn’t know anything else about any of the candidates, the fact that the best legislators who care about grassroots civic engagement more than anyone else are overwhelmingly supporting DOn Berwick would be enough to convince me.
as I admire what he has done as Treasurer. I appreciate that his family owned business worked with labor unions. That was a big plus as well. His campaign up to the convention was stellar but what the heck happened after that? And I was sympathetic to a Coakley comeback, after all, she did some good things while AG. However, my two key issues are health care and the widening of wealth disparity. I was very disappointed to see how flat both candidates were on health care reform. Why, their proposals are the same as Baker’s (except Grossman does not even list Health Care a key issue on his web site!) and of course it is well documented that casinos widen the wealth gap while Coakley and Grossman are tripping over each other to see who is supporting casinos more than the other! So what am I do do? I am willing to compromise my principles, but abandoning them is rather tough when I can support Don Berwick.
I gave links on Coakley’s and Grossman’s positions on healthcare. I’d be very surprised if Baker comes anywhere close. You’re the one making the assertion though.
Could I ask you to please stop being so reckless? I’d never blithely write “Why, their proposals are the same as Baker’s” unless I could fucking prove it. You didn’t, and that’s irresponsible. Do your homework. Please.
HarmonyHu. What is it with you guys?
Are reckless accusations what you’re about?
Why the uprate? We’re liberals. We’re supposed to care about getting things right and not about getting things ideological.
Nothing much for me to do with that disappointment, but thank you for name-checking me.
Is this your clique vs my clique?
Or do you really think unsourced accusations are just dandy provided they make Berwick look good?
I loved what JTM said. I didn’t see “unsourced accusations.” You’re zeroing in on “just like Charlie Baker”; I appreciate the rest of the post. Is “uprating” something more precious on BMG than, say, “likes” and “+1s” elsewhere? Because I’m really chuckling here. Seriously? This is the bone you’re gnawing on?
Have fun…?
rationality will return on September 10.
Berwick is denigrating both Grossman and Coakley. That’s not good! It’s really unfortunately that Berwick doesn’t show greater respect for his opponents.
… but that’s exactly what Don Berwick is doing in this ad.
She hates most political ads, learned to mistrust them all, gets fed up with the attack ads, and she loved this ad. Of course, I asked her, “But this is an attack ad and you hate attack ads”. She came back with, “This is not an attack ad based on some distortion of fact or “gotcha” thing, this is an attack of the petty arguing with no substance that I’m sick of.”
Grossman
I guess I had started to buy the assumption that the Globe was in the tank for Coakley.