Granholm for Governor Ad Campaign

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

It was really interesting to me that:
1) They bashed Bush, NOT DeVos
2) Granholm didn't endorse it.
It didn't do much for me, only said, who else do we have, since we can't rely on the President, so I'd say Weak +.  It just seems like the MDP is bitter for Kerry not winning, but doesn't really talk about DeVos @ all--but @ least there's no mud-slinging--yet.

[Nym90]

I think it's decent, nothing overly spectacular but lays out some differences pretty decently.

I think it makes sense to go after Bush more than Devos, at least for now; remind people of the general state of affairs, then get to specifics about Devos later. Plus, highlight the positive accomplishments as well, negative campaigns almost never work if they don't have a postive record to highlight as well.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I think it's decent, nothing overly spectacular but lays out some differences pretty decently.

I think it makes sense to go after Bush more than Devos, at least for now; remind people of the general state of affairs, then get to specifics about Devos later. Plus, highlight the positive accomplishments as well, negative campaigns almost never work if they don't have a postive record to highlight as well.

Right--negative ad campaigns work best as rebuttals against a positive (whether it's true or false).

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

The MDP came out w/ their 2nd campaign.
Once again it was not endorsed by Granholm (does anyone know why?).
They did take out the jab at Bush at the end--which I think was a better thing for them.  Insulting Bush will:
a)Fire up the strong Dems. more, but do nothing for her
b)Fire up the strong Reps. more, but do nothing for her
c)Perhaps turn away some Bush-supporting fence-voters, while not really adding that many.
d)Turn away more non-Bush-supporting fence-voters than it would've added.

So I think the 2nd ad is better than the 1st, but it still didn't address DeVos--not really a good or bad thing.

[Nym90]

Bush's approval ratings in Michigan are quite a bit lower than Granholm's, so I doubt there are a lot of "Bush supporting fence voters". Obviously there are some but they would be far outnumbered by the swing voters who oppose Bush.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Bush's approval ratings in Michigan are quite a bit lower than Granholm's, so I doubt there are a lot of "Bush supporting fence voters". Obviously there are some but they would be far outnumbered by the swing voters who oppose Bush.

Right, but I still think it was a wise move on the MDP's part.  Do you know why Granholm hasn't endorsed either one?

[Nym90]

Bush's approval ratings in Michigan are quite a bit lower than Granholm's, so I doubt there are a lot of "Bush supporting fence voters". Obviously there are some but they would be far outnumbered by the swing voters who oppose Bush.

Right, but I still think it was a wise move on the MDP's part.  Do you know why Granholm hasn't endorsed either one?

No, I can't say that I do know. Obviously a lot of ads are run without the direct approval of those they are designed to benefit, but I don't know the reason in this particular case.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Obviously a lot of ads are run without the direct approval of those they are designed to benefit,

Right, but this is directly from the MDP.  It's not like the Swift Boat Vets for Truth or anything.  This is HER party.