*** UPDATED x1 *** Question of the day
Monday, Oct 7, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* The House Majority PAC has been running a version of this “crybaby” TV ad against other Republican incumbents, but it’s now targeting Rodney Davis…
* From the House Majority PAC…
House Majority PAC announced today that it would expand its television advertising campaign to include Rep. Rodney Davis due to Davis’s support for a government shutdown and the reckless games he’s playing with the economy.
House Majority PAC will begin airing today “No More Tantrums” today in Champaign.
The spot condemns Rodney Davis for throwing a temper tantrum after not getting his way, shutting down the government, and playing dangerous games with the economy. It ends with a call for Davis to end his wrongheaded approach.
* The Question: On a scale of 1-5, with 5 being most effective, how would you rate this TV ad? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.
web polls
*** UPDATE *** Sun-Times…
Davis spokesman Andrew Flach dismissed the ad as politics.
“While the Democrats resort to playing political games, the House will continue passing legislation to fund federal government operations and bring an end to the shutdown,” Flach said.
“Our hope is that the president and the Senate will stop trying to score political points and come to the table to negotiate a commonsense solution to our nation’s fiscal crisis.”
- Almost the Weekend - Monday, Oct 7, 13 @ 12:44 pm:
When you hear Rodney Davis’ name its going to be hard to not getting that crying from the baby out of your head.
- 47th Ward - Monday, Oct 7, 13 @ 12:45 pm:
I gave it a 4. It’s cute and somewhat memorable, but it is very early and I don’t know if they’re putting enough GRPs behind it to make an impression.
- Rail Sitter - Monday, Oct 7, 13 @ 12:49 pm:
It reminds you who the adult is. Not sure that’s what they were going for. Petty name calling, generic message, amateur production values. Not a good ad at all.
- Publius - Monday, Oct 7, 13 @ 12:50 pm:
A constituent criticized a congressman for some congressional action he didn’t like. The congressman said “I didn’t vote for it.” And the constituent said “You was there!”
- Just Observing - Monday, Oct 7, 13 @ 12:54 pm:
I don’t think it will do much to flip hard core GOP’ers into thinking the shutdown is the Dems fault. But for those who sit on the fence as to who is to blame for the shutdown… I think these ads will be effective in framing their perspective. And I think the messaging is great (regardless if one agrees or not with the shutdown).
- And I Approved This Message - Monday, Oct 7, 13 @ 12:55 pm:
There’s a difference between a “tantrum” and a kid in distress. This kid looks like the latter to me. Another Democratic PAC ran a similar ad against John Boehner in Ohio over the weekend. Thirty seconds,closeup of a small child crying. I saw it on a blog where a number of women commented and said the Mom in them felt sympathy for the crying baby not exasperation. Both ads strike me as lazy, easy and mostly ineffective. Back to the drawing board.
- Chicago Cynic - Monday, Oct 7, 13 @ 12:59 pm:
I gave it a 4. The reason it’s so effective is because recent polling has shown 69% of the public believes Republicans in Congress are most like spoiled children. By contrast, Dems are 15 points lower and Obama is ten below that.
- A guy... - Monday, Oct 7, 13 @ 1:01 pm:
It’s a dumb spot. Even dumber they didn’t use a woman’s voice. The crying makes it hard to even hear the guy’s voice. He’s better suited for NFL films.
- State Sen. Clay Davis - Monday, Oct 7, 13 @ 1:02 pm:
The concept is fine, and I see where they’re heading, but the tone of the voiceover undercuts the premise.
You wouldn’t talk to a wailing baby this way. You’d shush or use baby talk or raise your voice or do SOMETHING–ANYTHING TO STOP THE BABY FROM CRYING OH PLEASE STOP.
The phrase “score political points” also doesn’t make any real sense.
I’d make the voiceover more frantic and say that Republicans are threatening to default because, well, because “they don’t wanna eat their peas waaaaaa”
- OldSmoky2 - Monday, Oct 7, 13 @ 1:02 pm:
While I agree with the gist of it, I don’t think it’s an especially effective way to convey it. They could have come up with something better.
- Anon - Monday, Oct 7, 13 @ 1:03 pm:
Gave it a 5. Working for state government, I often have to explain to my friends some of the political “conspiracy theories” and the reason they’re valid is because general assemblymen, as a whole, act like children. At which point, they all believe me.
- Hyperbolic Chamber - Monday, Oct 7, 13 @ 1:07 pm:
The object is to show the GOP as not governing until they get their own way. The Dems have a chance to take the high road and be the “adult in the room” on the issue. This ad cedes their moral high ground by resorting to (visual) name-calling and will turn off the many of the voters they are trying to sway.
- Responsa - Monday, Oct 7, 13 @ 1:08 pm:
Hey, who doesn’t love babies? But seriously, to me the ad is childish and doesn’t really do much other than point out the obvious—-that in a two party system very often members of the two parties don’t agree with each other on policy stuff. So?
- Demoralized - Monday, Oct 7, 13 @ 1:11 pm:
I voted least effective. This isn’t going to resonate with anybody except those people that already agree with the premise. The rest of the sane world thinks all of Congress is a bunch of idiots right now.
This whole situation just keeps getting more bizarre. Government has become completely dysfunctional. You have people in Washington that have now taken politics to the extreme and none of them care about the consequences. They are more interested in being “right” than governing.
- Anon - Monday, Oct 7, 13 @ 1:11 pm:
I gave it a 4. Cute, semi-memorable, and on message.
The argument that needs to be made is that this is nothing but a tantrum- the GOP has lost this fight at every level- it passed legislatively, it was upheld in the supreme court, and the president who created it beat a candidate who vowed to repeal it.
Even after all that, they are threatening shutdown and default if they don’t get their way. IE a tantrum.
- Way South of I-80 - Monday, Oct 7, 13 @ 1:14 pm:
I gave it a “4″ - Would assume the ad is retaliation to the robo-calls Davis has been running that say he didn’t vote for the shut down and it is the Democrats in the Senate at blame. I think if nothing else, it will make people question his actions - did he vote for it or not?
- Just Observing - Monday, Oct 7, 13 @ 1:23 pm:
=== I don’t think it will do much to flip hard core GOP’ers into thinking the shutdown is the Dems fault. ==
Oops… I meant to say “I don’t think it will do much to flip hard core GOP’ers into thinking the shutdown is the GOPs fault.”
- Rich Miller - Monday, Oct 7, 13 @ 1:26 pm:
===I don’t think it will do much to flip hard core GOP’ers into thinking the shutdown is the GOPs fault.===
No ad can do that. Ever.
- Judgment Day - Monday, Oct 7, 13 @ 1:38 pm:
A ‘1′.
If you actually watched the ad, it’s like “Great, it’s 2013 and they’re already started running political ads?”
What are all these creative types going to do if Apple comes through with their digital real-time commercial skipping feature that is being talked about as part of Apple TV? Because if Apple pushes the tech out there, then guess what, everybody else is going to jump on the bandwagon.
What’s that going to do to the political advertising market?
- jake - Monday, Oct 7, 13 @ 1:39 pm:
Gave it a 3. I agree with the message completely. But Davis counters with the true but misleading statement that he has voted for every continuing resolution bill that has come to the floor. The problem of course is that he is probably (but we can’t know for sure) also voting within the Republican caucus not to let anything to the floor that has a chance of passing the Senate and not being vetoed by the President. I guess I just think too much to be able to judge TV ads.
- Angel's Sword - Monday, Oct 7, 13 @ 1:47 pm:
I said 4, because while it doesn’t set the bar in any way, it’s a good ad. People are going to remember it, and they’re going to remember it anytime they see anything on TV about Rodney Davis. If you have a memorable image (positive or negative) that you can connect with someone, then it’s a good ad. Really, what else can you hope for in a 30 second ad?
- curtis - Monday, Oct 7, 13 @ 1:48 pm:
Typical stale political ad…
- Ahoy! - Monday, Oct 7, 13 @ 1:51 pm:
It was weak, it shouldn’t have used a baby, babies are suppose to cry, that’s how they communicate. It should have shown an older child throwing a fit in a grocery story after being told he couldn’t have a candy bar… or something like that.
The optics just didn’t go well.
- Louis G. Atsaves - Monday, Oct 7, 13 @ 1:53 pm:
Voted a 1. Would have been more effective with bratty teenagers and a video of Davis looking angry. Instead we get images of Davis with a calm demeanor while babies screech? I don’t see this being very effective at all.
- Rayne of Terror - Monday, Oct 7, 13 @ 1:57 pm:
Should have been a snot-nosed preschooler instead of an infant. Infants don’t have tantrums.
- wordslinger - Monday, Oct 7, 13 @ 2:03 pm:
I give it a One. It doesn’t work for me at all.
I see an unhappy baby. I don’t want babies to be unhappy. That makes me sad. Sad babies do not translate into a negative or sinister force.
The crew that started this mess are not babies and they are not unhappy. They are coldly calculating extremists who are recklessly throwing people out of work and endangering the economy for narrowly selfish reasons.
Don’t trivialize them. Show them for what they are.
- Ann - Monday, Oct 7, 13 @ 2:08 pm:
Not good. For one thing, every woman will immediately start feeling sorry for the poor crying baby, and that’s not the emotion they’re looking for. If they wanted a tantrum, they should have picked a four year old, at least.
- Skeeter - Monday, Oct 7, 13 @ 2:12 pm:
I give the idea a 5 but the execution a 1. Overall a 2.
As a parent, my thought watching it was to wonder why the baby was crying and why people were taping it rather than comforting the baby. There is a certain level of cruelty to the ad.
The interesting thing is that the Speaker is well known for crying.
Why not use tape of him crying?
- Chavez-respecting Obamist - Monday, Oct 7, 13 @ 2:16 pm:
3. It’s not very creative.
- Crazy Like a Fox - Monday, Oct 7, 13 @ 2:22 pm:
Gave it a 2. The baby crying almost drowns out the narrator and there is just too much time focusing on a baby crying. Should have “Rodney Davis” and “Tea Party” up there for longer.
- someone - Monday, Oct 7, 13 @ 2:28 pm:
I don’t like it. The baby’s cries are annoying. This makes me resent the group that paid for the ad, not Rodney Davis. The baby is pretty cute, though.
- wordslinger - Monday, Oct 7, 13 @ 2:30 pm:
–The interesting thing is that the Speaker is well known for crying.
Why not use tape of him crying?–
Good point. It would be easy to come up with unflattering stills or slo-mo film of the folks pulling this stunt.
It’s like Squeezy. I’d love to see the concepts that were rejected in favor of this one.
- walkinfool - Monday, Oct 7, 13 @ 2:33 pm:
A baby is just too helpless to generate much anger.
Better to use a whining 10 year old spoiled kid.
- otoh - Monday, Oct 7, 13 @ 2:35 pm:
Who knew Davis was the a key player in the shutdown. Fail.
- Carl Nyberg - Monday, Oct 7, 13 @ 2:35 pm:
I saw an another version of the ad. It was mostly annoying to me and a simplification that I found offensive.
I’m not typical, but the ad didn’t work for me.
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Oct 7, 13 @ 2:47 pm:
I voted “1″.
Crying baby makes no point to what it going on.
Lame attempt at pushing a narrative with an infant, when I could barely see a teenager being used like a prop.
You are trying to equate a crying baby to “x”. I didn’t see/hear Davis crying. At all.
Good example of “talking points” having no translation into effective ads on the face of the talking point.
Crying baby…ok, now what.
Dopes.
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Oct 7, 13 @ 2:57 pm:
Add to the point;
Babies cry when they are hungry, wet, scared, hurt, nervous…
I look at the baby, where is the … tantrum?
You can buy into this baby in the ad being …hungry, wet, scared, hurt, nervous…
Tantrum? Not so much.
- Just Me - Monday, Oct 7, 13 @ 3:34 pm:
I voted 2 because while the message is spot-on, the ad itself is annoying as heck. I would change the channel immediately if it came on and I wouldn’t hear the ultimate message.
- Skeeter - Monday, Oct 7, 13 @ 3:36 pm:
Will “continue” passing legislation to fund the government?
I don’t think Flach knows the definition of the word “continue.”
- BehindTheScenes - Monday, Oct 7, 13 @ 3:55 pm:
I gave it a “1″ because that was the lowest choice available. It is a package that could be run by either side against the other in this sideshow (insert different Rep or Sen) and different voice-over. If you are a Dem, you’re gonna love this if you are a Repub., you’re not.
- ??? - Monday, Oct 7, 13 @ 4:03 pm:
Skeeter, they did do an ad comparing Boehner to a crying baby:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/04/boehner-likened-to-crying-baby-in-new-ad/
- Arthur Andersen - Monday, Oct 7, 13 @ 4:55 pm:
1.
I don’t like to hear crying babies. I would hit the mute button or change the channel right away.
- Hamilton - Monday, Oct 7, 13 @ 4:58 pm:
Voted 1. Would have voted 0 if possible. This add really turned me off. It didn’t make any sense, and only made me sad for the baby.
- Sunshine - Monday, Oct 7, 13 @ 5:25 pm:
A typical wasted effort using boring voice and actually thinking those who vote will see this and change their minds. Pretty lame and so, so, election season campaigning weak.
What goof thought this up?
- ChicagoDem - Monday, Oct 7, 13 @ 6:40 pm:
I gave it a #1. A crying baby usually denotes hurt, pain, and overall discomfort. I don’t think the 30-40 TEA Party folks in Congress who are pushing the envelope are crying babies. They really mean what they say. They’re sick of taxes and big government and aren’t crying about it; they’re taking on everybody regardless of party affiliation.
- Anonymous - Monday, Oct 7, 13 @ 9:12 pm:
Voted 1 only because there was no option for 0. It’s level of annoyance backfires, makes me want that 35 seconds of my life back, and makes me wish that I’ll never have to listen to it again. Therefore, it leaves me with absolutely no interest into what the message was, or who it was about–which I missed completely as I was listening to all of the annoying sounds and only know because of the info provided in the thread.
- Jon Zahm - Tuesday, Oct 8, 13 @ 1:53 am:
2- Davis has a moderate record and a friendly demeanor. He will be hard to demonize as Tea Party. No meat to this ad. I prefer Harold to Davis in the primary but this ad won’t push Rodney to the sidelines.
- Squeezy - Tuesday, Oct 8, 13 @ 8:16 am:
==It’s like Squeezy.==
Oh no you don’t. Leave me outta this.
- Squeezy - Tuesday, Oct 8, 13 @ 8:16 am:
==It’s like Squeezy.==
Oh no you don’t. Leave me outta this.