If the GOP underperforms in the House again (from this writing in Fall 2024), this may in some part explain why. From Nebraska's 2nd CD, Omaha's swing seat, NRCC launches this ad as we enter the stretch run: <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/M8kq_LeVAI0?si=N7MklEP9OnznBzbA" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe> Real professionals produced and edited the spot, of course. But the _concept_ is inconsistent - making a negative ad ugly and ominous doesn't make it _work_. This thing is a mess of orange coloration, stock images... and messages. Is the _problem_ that Tony Vargas is an extreme liberal? Or that Omaha's crime rate is skyrocketing? (That will be news to the Republican mayor) Or is it that Vargas excuses child porn? Or Vargas is responsible for early release of violent criminals? Is he a criminal, or is it just that he likes criminals and/or they like him? _Pick one, then show the evidence for the claim_. Stop the constant changes of scene. And what, pray-tell, is recklessly dangerous about a teddy bear on the floor? ![[Screenshot 2024-09-19 at 3.14.33 PM.png]] Of course, swing voters don't like that crime went up, and some clear hits in the research connect Vargas to that issue. But this is why you [[Don’t Let the Pollster Write the Ads]] - and why our party should no longer rely on the [[Transitive Property of Political Reasoning]]. The spot fails at a more basic level, what [[David Ogilvy]] called "honesty:" clearly tell the consumer your positioning, what you want them to do, with total lack of ambiguity. [[Four principal characteristics of a Political Idea|Internal consistency]] means a viewer should see evidence that connects Tony Vargas to the problem of violent crime, and how that then connects to his eventual performance in Congress. And, we would argue, the spot further misses what this election is _about_: that is, how Don Bacon, GOP incumbent, behaves as a member of Donald Trump's Republican Party, with whom he shares the ballot. All that said: same day, the DCCC launches their own ad: <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/JPJ9LKhuv3U?si=eOpogzW2JqWn18sQ" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe> This spot is clear: Don Bacon won't stand up to extremists in his party, especially on abortion, so you, Omaha Woman West of 90th Street (the swingy suburbs) should vote against him. And you're hearing the message from women who are actually your neighbors. Watch it once; and the call to action, with supporting evidence, is unambiguous. We'll dock the spot a point for using the word "co-sponsored." No one knows what that means. Still, a 9 out of 10. Built for an [[Attention Economy]]. And an example of how, on balance, Democratic operatives tend to put more emphasis on proper creative than does the GOP. To our detriment. ***