The Political Notebook 9.1.22
An inane NRSC ad attempting to depict Mark Kelly as a wimp. A strategically misguided Katie Hobbs border security ad.
People get paid for coming up with this stuff?
I don’t watch much commercial television, so I’m not as inundated by political ads as most voters and commentators. Perhaps that’s why their inanity is so striking to me.
Particularly inane is an ad the National Republican Senatorial Committee is currently running against Mark Kelly. It ran during a golf tournament, so I encountered it.
It starts out with scenes of Kelly in his own ads wearing a black tee shirt. The ad implies that Kelly is trying to make himself out to be a tough guy by wearing the black tee shirt. Words on the screen read: “Tough guy on TV”.
But, according to the ad, Kelly is really a wimp because of some votes he has cast. Of the three votes cited, two of them are distorted – one related to Medicare spending, the other to taxation. The only reasonably fair hit is Kelly’s vote to increase IRS auditors.
The close is: “Mark Kelly, tough TV ads. But soft fighting for us.” Words on the screen read: “Soft on Washington”.
Now, Kelly is a former combat pilot and astronaut. He doesn’t play a tough guy on TV. He is a tough guy.
Ironically, the leading phony tough guy in American politics today is the de facto head of the GOP, Donald Trump. He projects a tough guy image, but has done nothing in his life that required physical or moral courage.
I’m not sure that it makes much sense for the NRSC to be casting the general election between Mark Kelly, combat pilot and astronaut, and Blake Masters, tech geek and venture capitalist, as a test of toughness or mettle. Or investing serious money calling attention to Kelly’s sartorial choices in his own television ads.
Moreover, Kelly’s votes on the matters cited may be wrong. But they are only wimpy if he didn’t believe they were the right ones to cast, but made them anyway to spare himself political grief.
My impression is that Kelly is still feeling his way through the ideological political landscape. I don’t know that he’s the committed centrist that Kyrsten Sinema has proven herself to be, although he freely borrows from her general election playbook. However, there’s no evidence that he has been voting against his conscience in Washington.
A case can certainly be made that Kelly’s voting record in Washington is more liberal than Arizonans would want. Rather than make that case, the NRSC is trying to make Kelly out to be a wimp, which even the casual voter will know to be untrue.
The astonishing thing is that political marketeers get paid handsomely to come up with this stuff.
Hobbs loses focus on Ducey-Sinema voters
Katie Hobbs’ border security ad, which I looked up on the internet, isn’t inane. It’s just strategically misguided, and in a big way.
The ad is all about getting tough on the border, with all the usual elements for such ads: striding resolutely in the border desert, a couple of sheriffs in tow offering testimonials regarding the candidate’s resolve.
This is playing on Kari Lake’s turf. If border security is the issue, Lake is the winner.
Why in the world would Hobbs decide to launch her general election bid within Lake’s framing of it?
If Hobbs is to win, she needs to be laser-focused on the Ducey-Sinema voters. In 2018, roughly 225,000 Arizonans voted for Republican Doug Ducey for governor and Democrat Krysten Sinema for U.S. Senate. Given Trump’s attempted coup, the support of it by Arizona Republicans, inflation, and a general sense that the Biden administration isn’t up to the job, the ranks of swing voters, not firmly committed to either party, is probably larger this year, potentially much larger. They are Hobbs’ path to victory.
There probably aren’t many immigration hardliners among them. To the extent Hobbs needs to address the border and illegal immigration, striding resolutely in the border desert aside tough-talking sheriffs isn’t the way to appeal to the Ducey-Sinema voters.
Hobbs has a broader, more nuanced position on the border and immigration on her website. The totality of it would probably appeal more to the Ducey-Sinema voters than imitating Lake’s enforcement-only approach.
In Arizona, a Democrat can’t seem indifferent to the disorder on the border and the need for more effective enforcement. But swing voters are likely open to a broader discussion of immigration reform. If Hobbs feels a political need to play on this turf, she has little to lose, and perhaps something to gain, by engaging in that broader discussion.
Reach Robb at robtrobb@gmail.com.