Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: More audit fallout for Quinn
Next Post: This just in… Illinois Supreme Court consolidates pension cases in Sangamon County
Posted in:
* In person, Sen. Bill Brady is relaxed and has a great smile. As soon as he gets in front of a TV camera to read ad copy, however, he tenses up. It was a problem in 2010 and it’s still a problem in his new Web video…
I mean, he’s not even looking at the camera.
Sheesh.
* Treasurer Dan Rutherford does well in front of a TV camera. But his campaign is so damaged now that this well-produced Web-only ad won’t do much of anything to help…
Protect Your Wallet from Dan Rutherford on Vimeo.
* And Illinois Review spotted a major typo in Bruce Rauner’s banner ad campaign. “Pat” Brady ain’t running for governor…
Oops.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Mar 3, 14 @ 10:28 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: More audit fallout for Quinn
Next Post: This just in… Illinois Supreme Court consolidates pension cases in Sangamon County
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Brady’s ad is not very good.
As Rich noted, he’s not looking at the camera. That makes it seem sort of weird.
The rest of it seems like a mess, as i they had some tape and wanted to string it together as opposed to making a coherent ad.
This sort of ad should be easy to make. Look at the camera, and then a few scenes talking to business owners. Instead, they managed to make it look weird. I give it a D.
I didn’t watch Rutherford’s since, let’s be honest, he’s got no chance at all.
Comment by Smoggie Monday, Mar 3, 14 @ 10:34 am
Not sure if the title “Protect your wallet from Dan Rutherford” conveys the message that they’re looking for.
Comment by Juice Monday, Mar 3, 14 @ 10:38 am
Jim Oberweis wanted to defeat Pat Brady, now Bruce Rauner does too.
Rauner Crew;
Welcome to Illinois. If you need help knowing who is who, how about ya check before wasting all out times and just be a novice somewhere else.
Dopes.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Mar 3, 14 @ 10:39 am
I wouldn’t be surprised if that wasn’t a mistake. Seriously.
Comment by Jackson and Laflin Monday, Mar 3, 14 @ 10:42 am
And ironically Pat has been a shill for Bruce while claiming to be neutral. I like Pat but maybe this should tell him to abandon Bruce!
Comment by Pat Monday, Mar 3, 14 @ 10:42 am
I also question whether it’s a “mistake.” I’ve seen Rauner supporters on some blogs (RedState most recently) mix up Pat and Bill and say Bill is pro gay marriage as a result.
Kind of funny though considering what a hardcore Rauner partisan Pat is on his Twitter account.
Comment by hisgirlfriday Monday, Mar 3, 14 @ 10:45 am
Brady C- Didn’t get my attention enough to even rate a worse grade. Promises to “eliminate the income tax.” That’s a reach.
Rutherford A Make you want to like and remember the guy. Sounds new, not lame.
Comment by Walker Monday, Mar 3, 14 @ 10:46 am
Both ads completely stink.
Brady’s ad looks like he is a candidate running for governor, circa 1990. From the music, from the way he stands in a suit with his hands in his pockets, his inability to speak to the camera, the way he shows strangers or business people fawning all over this big white guy, this ad shows us a man who hasn’t a clue what it is like to be a normal human being in Illinois in 2014.
Rutherford’s ad is another GOP primary ad, targeting GOP voters by repeating the same old phrase - “save you money!” HEY DAN - you are running for GOVERNOR. You have to tell us how keeping your pledges makes you a governor Illinoisans can trust. You need to tell us what you will do as governor, beyond telling us you would be cheaper. I don’t know - pick one of the dozen issues destroying our state and tell us how you’ll fix it? Telling me you would cost me less to be governor over the next guy isn’t what I need to hear. Finally, you need to reassure me that you aren’t the guy I’ve heard rumors about, you needed to have sold yourself beyond telling me you are the cheap candidate.
Not a shred of originality in either ad at a time when we need a hell of a lot of new thinking in the governor’s mansion.
FAIL.
Comment by VanillaMan Monday, Mar 3, 14 @ 10:47 am
It’s just a sign of disrespect. As is the debate skipping. Rauner runs against Quinn, the other 3 run against Rauner. Politics is a chess match. Things aren’t always what they seem.
Comment by Jackson and Laflin Monday, Mar 3, 14 @ 10:47 am
Brady has a lot less mojo this time around. If he had the shred of humbleness in 2010 that he seems to have now, he may have squeaked it out.
Comment by North Shore Joe Monday, Mar 3, 14 @ 10:53 am
What I am also seeing made clearer to me is that Illinois has been a one-party dominated state for so long this crap passes as a campaign ad for the other party.
The last thing the opposition party should be doing is demonstrating for us that they are stuck in the past - a past when they ran things.
Comment by VanillaMan Monday, Mar 3, 14 @ 10:53 am
The good news for Brady is that no one will see the ad anyway.
Comment by Johnny Q. Suburban Monday, Mar 3, 14 @ 10:55 am
Geez, Bill, did you really need the cue card to deliver the line, “Hi, I’m Bill Brady?”
C’mon, man. You had three lines on-camera. You couldn’t memorize those?
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Mar 3, 14 @ 11:05 am
Looking at the Brady spot again, I think what they did is take the on-camera and voiceover in the same take.
In other words, he read the whole thing off cards — the on-camera and off-camera lines in the same take.
I’d call it amateurish, but that would be an insult to amateurs. Wasn’t anyone on the campaign in the A/V Club in high school?
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Mar 3, 14 @ 11:16 am
Weak ads. Will we be seeing one from rauner w the Crains endorsement?
Comment by Langhorne Monday, Mar 3, 14 @ 11:23 am
Rich, you’re right about Brady’s ad. It looks like Jim Ryan 2.0. None of his natural charm comes through, the room full of empty chairs in the background is not good (while he’s shaking hands in his diversity scene, ugh) C- on this one. Rutherford’s ad is an A-. I wonder if anyone will see it. It doesn’t make you forget what he’s dealing with right now.
Comment by A guy... Monday, Mar 3, 14 @ 11:24 am
Web ads are ineffective and simply reflects the miserable funding situation the candidates are in.
Comment by Norseman Monday, Mar 3, 14 @ 12:05 pm
If you take out the reading to the camera parts, I liked Bill’s ad — especially the part about eliminating the state income tax, and the retrievers after the wife kiss.
I’d like to see a candidate give advice on completing line 23 (UT).
Comment by Hans Sanity Monday, Mar 3, 14 @ 12:13 pm
I agree with wordslinger. I think they did the whole Brady ad in one take. And it looks…..strange.
If the candidate is speaking directly to the viewers of the ad, they need to be looking straight into the camera.
There are instances of a “faux interview” style of ad where it makes sense that a candidate is looking at an interviewer off-screen. But in that instance, the candidate is speaking to the off-camera interviewer.
For an apples-to-apples comparison, Dan Cronin in his 2010 race for DuPage county chairman did a few of each style:
Straight ahead:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAgZlDeryKM
Faux Interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cxi6z8roCYk
But combining the rhetoric of the first with the staging of the second is off-putting.
Comment by John Galt Monday, Mar 3, 14 @ 12:22 pm
Those ads make me sad.
Comment by Obamas Puppy Monday, Mar 3, 14 @ 12:28 pm
I used to not want to see candidate family, but now I’m looking forward to the first ad featuring a non-monogamous bi candidate having a group kiss.
…but except for the face on camera talking, I liked the Brady ad.
Comment by Hans Sanity Monday, Mar 3, 14 @ 12:39 pm
To the Ads;
Brady Ad - not worthy of representing WHO Bill Brady is, and allowing the voters to see Bill Brady as someone they can connect to. The lack of “eye contact” is beyond symbolic to Bill Brady’s inability to connect. Brady deserved better in an Ad. “C-”
Rutherford Ad - sorry Rutherford Crew, you are beyond chasing an image of effective government executive. You can’t claim being for voters and their wallets and spend thousands on an internal report you refuse to let see the light of day. I see a disingenuous pandering, ignoring the elephant on the room. Dan is good in front of a camera, but bad in front of a crisis. “C-”.
Positives? Not many will see these poor efforts.
Brady Crew; try to redo get Bill just… talking. Film an hour, non-stop and get 2 minutes of “useful” instead of scripted 1:30 of “unuseful”.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Mar 3, 14 @ 12:40 pm
Couldn’t get past 7 seconds in the Brady ad. He looks uncomfortable, which made me uncomfortable. DISLIKE!
Comment by MissSmartyPants Monday, Mar 3, 14 @ 1:34 pm
Rutherford’s spot is okay. At least he didn’t just assume everyone knew who he was like he did in his first spot. And his syntax wasn’t garbled this go-round.
But that’s damning with faint praise. C’mon, man, you’ve been running for governor since the day you were sworn in as treasurer.
It’s odd that the Other 3 didn’t see the Rauner juggernaut coming. He certainly made a lot of noise, publicly, and behind-the-scenes, among the insiders they were all chasing, he must have been working like crazy to lock all that money down.
The Other 3 have been running for governor forever, but Rauner has run rings around them.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Mar 3, 14 @ 1:57 pm
When I watched the Brady ad the dogs immediately brought to mind the “Brady in favor of killing dogs” attack Quinn used in 2010. I don’t know if he was intentionally trying to show that he LIKES dogs, but that is something from 2010 he does not want to make people think about again!
Also, did he say he wants to eliminate the state income tax? With what does he want to replace it?
Comment by G'Kar Monday, Mar 3, 14 @ 2:50 pm
–When I watched the Brady ad the dogs immediately brought to mind the “Brady in favor of killing dogs” attack Quinn used in 2010. I don’t know if he was intentionally trying to show that he LIKES dogs,–
I’m quite certain that’s not an accident.
Never underestimate the emotions of dog owners. Seriously. Just don’t.
You have noticed the Quinn/JBT love-fest over rescue dogs?
No-brainer visual for a Brady spot.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Mar 3, 14 @ 2:59 pm
But is it a no-brainer, if, like me, the first thought a viewer has is of “Brady the dog killer?”
Comment by G'Kar Monday, Mar 3, 14 @ 3:05 pm
Speaking of ads, did anyone else notice that 4 groups gave almost a million dollars to Illinois Freedom Pac last Thursday?
Comment by G'Kar Monday, Mar 3, 14 @ 3:10 pm
–But is it a no-brainer, if, like me, the first thought a viewer has is of “Brady the dog killer?”-
I get what you’re saying. That it brings the issue back to mind. Why do it?
But I think its reasonable in the minds of the campaign that it had to be addressed. It was such a powerful negative last time.
Put it this way: If Bill Brady had the money, no matter the subject, he’d have puppies crawling all over him licking his face in spots in every media market in the state.
I’m serious. Anecdotally, the emotions that issue generated among neighbors you’d encounter walking their dogs surprised me. It was incredible. I’m guessing a lot of folks would tell you the same thing.
That puppy-killer issue stung badly among a relatively small, but hard-core, portion of the electorate. And he didn’t lose by much.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Mar 3, 14 @ 3:19 pm
Fighting Pat Brady, Pat Quinn, and Bill Brady in one banner ad…how’s that for efficient!?
I agree with the “Protect Your Wallet from Dan Rutherford” comment…an unfortunate juxtaposition fail.
Comment by thechampaignlife Monday, Mar 3, 14 @ 4:03 pm