UPDATE: The commentary below discusses potential attack ads against Mike McGavick to slow his recent momentum. They've just started. I caught an ad from the Cantwell campaign bashing McGavick over his tenure at Safeco; it's not exactly a puff piece.
The crux of the ad is McGavick is bad for Washington because he turned Safeco around (which included layoffs) and was well compensated for it. One would think Maria Cantwell of Real Networks fame should know better than to complain about prosperous executives. Even Joel Connelly agrees such attacks against McGavick are without merit (here and here). Let's see if Cantwell at least has the courage to put this ad online, unlike her other attack ad.
UPDATE UPDATE: In a stunning display of fortitude, Cantwell's staff actually issued a press release about this Safeco ad...and even the video. And the Social Security ad? Yeah, right. Good luck finding that one. Anyone think based on the tone of the Safeco ad that the Cantwell campaign's internal polling shows the race closing?
****
Last night's US Senate debate produced little controversy, but likely set most of the table for the coming apex of the campaign season. With that in mind, let us examine some notable themes that will influence the course of events the next few weeks.
Bruce Guthrie is a non-factor
Don't get me wrong, he might well have a higher vote total than the gap between Mike McGavick and Maria Cantwell, but as a campaign season dynamic he may be a dud. Guthrie secured a place at the debate by loaning himself nearly $1.2 million, though "how much of that money Guthrie will actually spend is unclear." It seems likely now that the debate is done that Guthrie's campaign will repay him all or most of the money he loaned himself to buy a ticket to King 5's studio. If that happens, he deserves to be chastised for needlessly limiting the opportunity for voters to hear exclusively from the two serious candidates on the ballot.
Maria Cantwell will demagogue on seniors' issues
In response to a question last night on healthcare, Cantwell moved quickly to a discussion about complaints with the Medicare prescription drug program. The problem is, she's wrong. And a recent column by centrist pundit Mort Kondracke specifically debunked the "donut hole" and VA drug pricing issues she raised. Cantwell might also be reminded that the reason the donut hole exists is because she and her fellow Democrats insisted that all seniors be covered by the benefit when it passed Congress. If means testing were included, the donut hole - now being addressed by the marketplace Democrats often deride - wouldn't have been needed to help pay for the cost of providing the benefit to more affluent seniors.
It will come as no surprise either that Cantwell will demagogue on Social Security as well. Last night, she again dodged a question about Social Security solvency and began a canard about tax cuts instead. Too bad the general budget which tax cuts affect has nothing to do with Social Security's financing system. Yet, her Social Security attack ad - which the gutless Cantwell campaign still refuses to put online for all to see - continues to run in attempt to scare seniors into believing McGavick will threaten the benefits of current retirees, all while defending her against the charges she voted for higher taxes on Social Security benefits and for Social Security credits for illegal aliens.
McGavick latches on to "differences"
Speaking of Social Security, and Maria Cantwell's one (hiding) attack ad of the election, McGavick's last three TV ads (here, here, and here) all hit her on at least one of the Social Security charges noted above. Based on his repetition, and her rapid, virile response, there is without a doubt legs to that "difference," let alone the continued drum beat he's providing on her spendthrift ways in Congress and English as a national language.
Race analysis
So, where does that leave the race? Closing some in all likelihood. A recent Survey USA poll showed a shrunken 8% lead for Cantwell, after the same pollster previously showed a 12% gap. Digging into the cross tabs of the two polls, one can see a significant shift favoring McGavick in both "independent" and "suburban" voters, long held to be the swing votes of competitive statewide races.
My sense is this movement correlates with McGavick's recent ad campaign, and may continue since his current ads are modestly more effective than Cantwell's. As noted at my first post-debate comments, McGavick needs to "embed" a reason to vote out Senator Cantwell, not just a reason to vote him in. That may be in progress with his latest round of ads (including this radio spot). Be forewarned, however, that as McGavick closes, Cantwell and/or the DSCC are likely to unload with attack ads to suppress his gains.
And as I've said, it may take some other group weighing in to knock Cantwell down enough for McGavick to win. Will that happen? I don't know, but the whole affair should be interesting.
Posted by Eric Earling at October 18, 2006 06:45 PM | Email ThisYes, we can all agree, that we will see on election day.
Posted by: thatcher on October 18, 2006 08:53 PMGo McGavick. End the Progressives in WA.
Posted by: Jeff B. on October 18, 2006 09:13 PMWhile the DNC doesn't have $10M to just toss around to another campaign committee, the DNC apparently has decided to go into debt to come up with the extra cash DSCC Chair Chuck Schumer has been pleading for from DNC Chair Howard Dean. The actual amount of the loan the DNC is taking out is not known as the committee holds out hope they can raise nearly everything they need before the election. But a line of credit has been opened.Posted by: SouthernRoots on October 18, 2006 09:30 PM
Thanks for the note. It appears when my first paragraph was italicized and was long enough to reach the "read the rest" feature it italicized the whole page. I dropped my italics and all seems right again at SP.
Posted by: Eric Earling on October 18, 2006 09:39 PMRepubs need to turn out though and realize how horrendous the Senate would become if crooked Harry Reid becomes the majority leader. If you think the Senate is bad now and the Dems take over, you ain't seen nothin' yet ! Is that enough motivation ?
Posted by: KS on October 18, 2006 09:44 PMFurthermore, the debate was lackluster. Except for libertarians. Dems can't give a damn about Cantwell's appearance, and I don't see people taking the streets for McGavick. But how excited do you think libertarian voters are going to be about Guthrie's appearance?
Posted by: Travis Thomas on October 18, 2006 10:07 PMIf you REALLY hate the war- you're going to make a point of not voting for anyone who isn't advocating an immediate pullout.
Guthrie was nutty like a fruitcake and I disagree that he is going to get a lot of people excited about the libertarian movement (ie he was too flip about serious issues) - but he is offering a place to protest.
Posted by: Andy on October 19, 2006 12:01 AMYou're seeing things, VoterBoy. Since I have some experiance lighting for TV (not at KING 5), I just looked at the video for the first time out of profesional curiousity. Mike! and Guthrie were back lit, I could see it on some of the cut away shots looking at the shadows on the floor and I saw some light on the back of all their shoulders. I also saw some softer shadows from their heads that wouldn't have come from any of their key lights. My guess is the fact that since she wore a lighter shade of red as opposed to the dark gray or black suits the others wore against the dark background, it would have "popped" a little more. She has more hair that the light could bounce off of that could have made it look that way. Guthrie has very wavy hair which may not have bounced his back light as much, and Mike! is losing his hair, so it wouldn't surprise me if they simply gave him less back light (whether by their own initiative or via request by Mike!'s campaign) to help with the glare (I do the same thing for some folks I work with who are going bald). Plus, she's a lot shorter than the others, so the lights are not going to hit her the same as the others if they were all aimed identically and are the same height off the floor and distance from the candidate. How exactly KING's lighting grid is set up might have also made it impossible to get the lights the exact same height and distance from the candidate and that may have also been a factor.
It could be some of those reason's, it could be none of those reason's (internet video alone is lousy for figuring this stuff out). Hopefully this answer made sense, since I just got off work and I'm writing this at 1am. The only way the KING 5 folks could have gotten the lighting exactly the same for everyone was to have the candidates stand there for a couple of hours while they messed with the lights, and I don't they would have done that. Frankly, I liked Mike's lighting better as it was a little more flat and natural looking. I don't think Cantvotewell looked all that great, her light almost seemed a little harsh. In any event, I wouldn't read too much into it.
Posted by: Mike H on October 19, 2006 01:24 AMI think his sole goal is to return the Libertarian party back to major party status, and by going the "cut n run" route he knows he can capture the D protest vote.
Posted by: Aaron on October 19, 2006 03:43 AMCantwell wants to focus on the job cuts and executive pay. Many will buy it, but if one looks at it from a long term perspective, which is what we need as a country one can see it is totally off-base. The first assumption made is that businesses' goal is to provide employment. This is a secondary benefit to business. A for profit business' first goal is to provide a return on its shareholder's investment. Without the investment the business wouuld cease to exist and their wouldn't be jobs. Without an adequate return on investments, shareholders will pull their money and follow the companies that provide better returns. This is the situation Safeco was in. Therefore, without the job cuts, many more jobs would have been lost. So, is Marie saying it is better to keep excess capacity and lose even more jobs than cut some to save the rest. What our country needs is to look at the long term and cut spending where it is wasted. It starts with the Pork-barrell spendidng that the Republicans are doing as much as the Democrats (re: Republican Ted Stevens from Alaska).
The second assumption Marie makes is that Mike was paid too much in bonus for his efforts. This is incorrect on two aspects. However, one could make a reasonable argument that CEO's, in general, are overpaid when compared to the average worker, but this isn't what Marie is stating. She is stating Mike was overpaid. Here her math doesn't add up for the fact that she states a dollar amount not what percentage of savings Mike's bonus equates to. Is his bonus more or less than what she received at Real Networks? What was her real job at Real Networks? She wasn't a programmer, nor a software project manager. These are the people that do the real work that made Real Networks. No, she was a PR person and main job was to smooth the political skids. Why should she have been paid a lot more than the people who made the product.
I could go on, but one can see how she is trying to play to people's fears and fallacies about companies and CEO's. Mike does need to respond. It will be interesting to see what the response is.
Posted by: tc on October 19, 2006 06:00 AMthis race will be over before election day.
Cantwell 55
Gunthrie 2
Dixon 1
McGavick 42
If Cantwell puts out anymore dumb ads like the Safeco ad, your numbers will be all wrong.
Cantwell is not "senatorial" and doesn't get past the sniff test. This ad is proof.
So, you take a company/bad corporation that is failing, you do what every other CEO has done by cutting costs, you make your product better and then you go on. When your product is successful, you get your bonus. That is the way the corporate world is run. The fact that Cantwell doesn't understand this basic fact is proof she doesn't deserve more time in DC, except as an employed lobbyist for Dotzhauer.
Posted by: swatter on October 19, 2006 07:05 AMI wonder what she said to Rob when he laid off his workers? Did she give some of her golden parachutte to them to cover bills?
Posted by: Dengle on October 19, 2006 08:36 AMExactly!!!! I was enraged when I saw that ad during a commercial break for LOST. Really ticks me off that she can do that kind of garbage and Mike still keeps playing nice guy. Well, you know what they say about nice guys.... He better get the claws out already.
Posted by: ferrous on October 19, 2006 11:46 AMThe big problem with privatization of Social Security or even if relying on people to make their own retirements ignores reality.
I read your blog, so I think you are serious in your political beliefs.
There are people that are born to live paycheck to paycheck. There are people who will not save. My mom was one of them and it bugged the heck out of me. I am direct opposite.
So, one of the Democrats key valid complaints against privatization is that people cannot manage them themselves. So, what do the Republicans do? They create a massive investment program to protect those that can't balance a checkbook and always are in trouble. A good solution? No, but at the same time, it is a heck of a lot better than the Rs (or the Libertarians for that matter).
Posted by: swatter on October 19, 2006 04:05 PMThe big problem with privatization of Social Security or even if relying on people to make their own retirements ignores reality.
I read your blog, so I think you are serious in your political beliefs.
There are people that are born to live paycheck to paycheck. There are people who will not save. My mom was one of them and it bugged the heck out of me. I am direct opposite.
So, one of the Democrats key valid complaints against privatization is that people cannot manage them themselves. So, what do the Republicans do? They create a massive investment program to protect those that can't balance a checkbook and always are in trouble. A good solution? No, but at the same time, it is a heck of a lot better than the Ds (or the Libertarians for that matter).
Posted by: swatter on October 19, 2006 04:06 PMIt really goes much deeper than that. Maria is primarily a secular progressive who actually voted for the war in Iraq - she is not into cutting and running, but she is missing in action and is a sellout on the borders - and spews the DNC talking points. For that, I lose most of my respect for her. McGavick is for securing the borders and believes the war in Iraq is being sorely mismanaged, which I agree with. The ads that Maria Cantvotewell put out are icing on the cake and help me realize what mediocre Senator/manager she really is. Patty Murray has more going for her - she at least helped on the Secure Ports legislation, but I have not been enthralled with her.
I question if this state has the guts to elect a new leader but rather stick with a mediocre manager - hope that I am wrong here.
Posted by: KS on October 19, 2006 09:48 PM