OR-SEN: Merkley releases web video; median Oregon IQ drops by 20 pts.

[MarkWarner08]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKIsfMJSp1Y&eurl

This web ad is just awful. After watching several months of clever Steve Novick ads (he embraced his hook and short stature in his humorous ads), Oregonians are now besieged by Gordon Smith's greenwashing ads.

Unfortunately, the lackluster Merkley media team has struck back with a milquetoast response ad. Instead of launching a devastating online ad highlighting Smith's lockstep Republican voting record, Merkley's camp posted an ad critiquing Smith's "Common Washington Politics". What kind of an attack is that? Most Oregonians will probably interpret that to mean that Smith enjoys his time in Yakima!

Campaign ads can sway races, as evidenced by the success of GOP media consultant Scott Howell's Senate candidates. If Merkley continues to run cookie-cutter ads, he won't stand out in the cluttered marketplace of commercials and Oregon voters will once again default to voting for our Mark Hatfield-wannabe, Senator Gordon Smith.

[Sam Spade]

I'm on too slow of a connection to watch the ad, but I trust what you say.

[Alcon]

Badly edited, and basically gives Smith free air time...and, yeah, when I read "Common Washington Politics" I thought the same thing.  If they played this ad in the PDX media market it would probably confuse a hell of a lot of Vancouverites.

[Meeker]

Views: 272


Web videos by candidates who aren't running for President are irrelevant. I don't know why campaigns bother spending money or time on them.

[Keystone Phil]

I don't know why campaigns bother spending money or time on them.

Agreed. Why the hell does the NRSC and DSCC do this? I can't imagine those extremely hackish, absolutely disgusting being worth even half of what the parties pay.

[Хahar 🤔]

I'm on too slow of a connection to watch the ad, but I trust what you say.

Same.
I'm on Merkley’s spamlist. He doesn’t seem too bad.

[Verily]

It's just a web video. A lame and terrible one, but like Meeker said, no one watches web ads anyway. Unless they're for a really big name candidate like Obama or McCain.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It's just a web video. A lame and terrible one, but like Meeker said, no one watches web ads anyway. Unless they're for a really big name candidate like Obama or McCain.

Beats Hillary's Behind the Music spoof at least. On the other hand, what doesn't?

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

I don't know why campaigns bother spending money or time on them.

Agreed. Why the hell does the NRSC and DSCC do this? I can't imagine those extremely hackish, absolutely disgusting being worth even half of what the parties pay.

Its for the press to see, not the voters.

[Keystone Phil]

I don't know why campaigns bother spending money or time on them.

Agreed. Why the hell does the NRSC and DSCC do this? I can't imagine those extremely hackish, absolutely disgusting being worth even half of what the parties pay.

Its for the press to see, not the voters.

I know that but is the press really paying attention to the 62 videos calling Mark Udall a BOULDER LIBERAL? I doubt it.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Web ads can only hurt really, see the Hillary one mentioned. That DID hurt her, TIME even referenced it as an example of how "unhip" her campaign is, so it had a negative effect on the press. I can't think of any web ads that have affected the press in a positive way, I suppose the Obama "Yes We Can" video got him a lot of positive press but that wasn't an official Obama campaign ad.

[Eraserhead]

Pop up video? lol.  Does anyone even remember that (besides me)?  Whatever happened to that show?

[Brittain33]

I thought it was kind of weak, but Sam Graves's ad set the bar rather high for what constitutes "awful."

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

I don't know why campaigns bother spending money or time on them.

Agreed. Why the hell does the NRSC and DSCC do this? I can't imagine those extremely hackish, absolutely disgusting being worth even half of what the parties pay.

Its for the press to see, not the voters.

I know that but is the press really paying attention to the 62 videos calling Mark Udall a BOULDER LIBERAL? I doubt it.

Just because they're done for the press doesn't mean the press actually watches them.  I suppose these ads are also targeted at the sympathetic blog community.

Still, judging by the quality of the "ad," it was a one-hour job that probably cost nothing to produce.  The unlikely benefit is worth more than the miniscule investment, I suppose.