I recently stumbled upon a youtube video of a political campaign ad that Howard Kleinhendler created. I couldn't help but be struck by how low budget it looked, but I shouldn't have been surprised given the fact that Kleinhendler raised about only $93,000 during the 2010, and reportedly only has around $7,000 left for use. Kleinhendler is a long shot in this election and this advertisement shows that he does not have the political savvy of other candidates, such as Chris Smith.
Kleinhendler start's out his video by going over who he is and three main points that would be the primary focus of his agenda if elected. Although this seems good in theory, in reality, Kleinhendler should be focused on destroying Smith's reputation than building his own. Paul S. Herrnson points out in Congressional Elections: Campaigning at Home and in Washington that negative advertising is a key component in the success of challengers against incumbents because it helps voters think twice about casting a vote for their incumbent. After introducing himself, Kleinhendler than turns to Smith. The only negative thing that he can say is that Smith has lost it after spending so much time in Congress. The video is not effective in hurting Smith in any way- it's rather confusing and the viewer is not quiet sure what to take away from it.
Kleinhendler should take some points from other candidates negative ads and make something with a little punch next time if he wants to steal a few votes away from Smith.
I wonder how voters react to poorly done smear campaigns, meaning Kleinhendler put out an inneffective negative campaign about his competitor, how does that make him appear to voters? or does it not make a difference?
ReplyDeleteI would think that a candidate who knows his chances of winning against the incumbent are slim to none would spend more time and effort reaching out to the public. A mediocre advertisement that is questionable as to whether it helps that candidate or his opponent may come across to voters as lack of effort in campaigning. i think that there are definitely other things that Kleinhendler could have done in an ad not only to bash his opponent a little but also to make it clear to voters that he is the right choice. An ad that is confusing will only end up hurting Kleinhendler in the end.
ReplyDeleteWhile I was watching this ad I had flashbacks of filming a mock debate in my dining room for a high school project. The message gets lost in the mist of all the negative comments about the opponent. It would have been more effective to make short, clear and simple statements about the other candidate as reason why Kleinhendler is the a more suitable candidate for this district. Instead of attacking his opponent's weak points Kleinhendler's ad revealed a weakness of his own; lack of clarity and direction.
ReplyDelete