Political commercials used to be slick. That's because they were expensive to produce and run. Even the most basic commercial had to be filmed, edited, produced and broadcast...that means it had to be somewhat formal and it had to be capable of airing--and remaining fresh--thousands of times. It had to appeal to focus groups, strike the right chord, in short, commercials had to be safe, vanilla...corporate.
Now with a simple computer program, digital camera and You tube up link, a candidate can film produce and distribute a commercial in under an hour and at no cost. Think about that...commercials that are free to make and free to distribute.
That means that if your opponent flips flops on a major issue and then runs away when constituents ask him about it, you don't need to spend a week in production and $100,000 for distribution. You can simply do this...
I think it is likely that for undecided voters this commercial which actually make people more sympathetic to Mitchell. It looks like Mitchell is getting in his car and some person comes screaming after him in an ambush.
Another problem is that people are accustomed to more professional looking graphics than what we see here. It is likely that this conveys an amateurish approach which might actually work against the candidate.
Posted by: todd | December 09, 2009 at 10:02 AM
See Harry win in a landslide...
Posted by: RsMantra | December 09, 2009 at 10:21 AM
For those of us in non-guerilla advertising, the conventional "corporate" wisdom is that precious few people will see these videos unless they appear on television ($$$). Most voters are not active enough to research a candidate, let alone flip through a bunch of videos. Unless you get something produced that can truly go viral, these videos are only watched by a handful of activists and maybe the journalists covering the race, which is what makes them worthwhile.
Posted by: Winnie | December 09, 2009 at 11:21 AM
What would have been so hard for Harry to stand there for 15 seconds, defend his vote like a man and not run away? Can he defend his position or not? It doesn't matter if he's talking to someone from a rival campaign. If he had savvy and could think on his feet he could have stood there and given them a pithy and substantive answer. He could then thank them for being a part of a healthy democracy and holding elected officials accountable. Supposedly that's the kind of man Harry is supposed to be: avuncular, sober, respected. All I saw was a typical politician running for cover.
Posted by: DGN | December 09, 2009 at 11:34 AM
Mitchell is toast in 2010 after his vote for socialized medicine. His district has a 10 point Republican advantage. His little dance of pretending not to be a liberal Democrat is over.
This commercial though, is crap.
Posted by: Brandon James | December 09, 2009 at 12:09 PM
I have been so disappointed in Harry. He votes against the record of the day because he wants to look different than Pelosi.
I have seen the "green card / red card? What do I do Nancy" pic.
I wish he really did what he said he was gonna do.
Posted by: Jim Torgeson | December 09, 2009 at 12:26 PM
DGN,
Give me a break. It is clear what happened here. The people with the camera waited until he was leaving and then went screaming after him to set it up to look like he was running from them.
Schweikert has made a mistake attaching his name to this. Mitchell should show this in his ads and ask 'is this the kind of politics we need?' Game over.
Posted by: todd | December 09, 2009 at 12:29 PM
This is old news sonoran alliance had this up over a week ago. The commercial itself unless it gets on tv means nothing.
And brandon I hate to say it but why is harry toast in 2010?
Schweikert lost by 10 last time. What will be different? Is his message going to suddenly resonate that it will switch 1 in 10 voters??
I want to see mitchell gone but schweikert is not the person to do it. We need new candidates to challenege harry or he is going to waltz to another win.
Posted by: johnny | December 09, 2009 at 01:37 PM
Harry Mitchell cannot speak extemporaneously. Couple this with the fact that what he eventually says depends on how it will benefit him. Harry cannot talk to constituents that haven’t been cleared ahead of time.
Posted by: Travis | December 09, 2009 at 02:18 PM
"And brandon I hate to say it but why is harry toast in 2010?"
Actually, The eventual Republican nominee would only need 1 in 20 to change their mind to win. (A 5 point swing) Do you think 1 in 20 Americans has changed their mind about Obama? Right now, Obama has the lowest approval ratings of any first-year President in history.
The difference is the political environment is incredibly toxic for Democrats. Just look at Virginia and New Jersey. Both states went for Obama, but the Republicans won handily, with Virginia being a 20 point blowout.
If voters are rejecting Democrats in blue and purple states, it's reasonable to assume that Republicans will do even better in red districts.
Posted by: Brandon James | December 09, 2009 at 05:54 PM
Travis, those are Mitchell's strong points.
Posted by: Winnie | December 09, 2009 at 06:39 PM
anti-incumbency attitudes are rampant for all elected officials at this point
Posted by: ron | December 10, 2009 at 10:42 AM
The video says that Mitchell "told" the Republic he was against "government run health care. It then show a quote from the Republic which is not a quote from Mitchell but a fact statement-that Mitchell opposes a public option. How is that the same thhing as Mitchell saying he's against government run health care.
Also, is his opponent against "government run health care" in principle? If he is then he's against Medicare, ACCESS, and the VA. Its hit and run pieces like this that debase the entire political dialogue.
Posted by: James L. | December 10, 2009 at 04:12 PM
Good God, Todd. You cannot be this stupid or irrational. You must be a troll trying to make Democrats look stupid.
Posted by: downtowner | December 10, 2009 at 11:33 PM
I am not a Democrat or a troll. As usual you can't even be bothered to make a point other than hurl an insult. I am sorry your life is so pathetic.
Posted by: todd | December 11, 2009 at 12:01 AM
Todd, Todd, Todd:
Our conservative hearts go out to you, you poor misguided soul. Harry has been running away from his constituents from the day he got elected. He's a nice old man, but he can't take a leak without Pelosi's permission. His days as a congressman are thankfully nearing an end. The Nov 2010 elections will be a RED-letter day for the country. And we will be able to rid ourselves of much of the wacky left that's shredding our Constitution.
Posted by: RonJ | December 11, 2009 at 03:49 PM
Unfortunately, Harry will indeed be re-elected unless Arizona Republicans get united, and out on the campaign trail right now. RonJ - we need to stop saying that Harry is a nice old man. Anyone who has ever run against him knows that he is anything but nice. He is willing to let his minions lie and cheat to get him elected. That's not nice - that's far from it.
Posted by: Travis | December 11, 2009 at 05:24 PM
RonJ, RonJ, RonJ:
I don't even like Mitchell - he is a wishy washy Blue Dog type, you guys just don't seem to be able to field a candidate that is likely to beat the guy.
Posted by: todd | December 11, 2009 at 07:53 PM
Have you all seen this Mitchell opponent parody?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0-9G7yUyu0
Posted by: azmod | December 14, 2009 at 02:26 AM