The following is an ad from the Ross Perot (I) campaign for President in 1992. Perot finished third to then-Governor Bill Clinton (D) and the incumbent President, George HW Bush (R). What are the highlights or lowlights of this ad? Critique it.
This is a button from the John Anderson for President campaign in 1980. Anderson was a Republican congressman from Illinois who lost to Ronald Reagan in the Republican primaries that year. He decided to run as an Independent or in some states a National Unity, candidate. Anderson polled very well in the Summer and early Fall of 1980, but as the campaign inched closer to November, Anderson faltered. His campaign finished third behind Reagan and President Jimmy Carter. Why is it difficult for Independent candidates to win the Presidency? (None have.)
“Evaluating the Ads” takes us to Maine where there is a three-way race for Governor. Governor Paul LePage(R) is running for re-election against Congressman Mike Michaud (D) and attorney Eliot Cutler (I). This race involves a rematch of sorts as LePage and Cutler vied for the same seat four years ago.
The following is an ad for Governor LePage.
What do you think the purpose is for using Democratic and Independent voters in an ad for a Republican candidate?
Here is Congressman Michaud’s ad.
What can be inferred from the ad about Governor LePage?
In the following ad for Eliot Cutler, United States Senator Angus King endorses the Independent Cutler. King was a former Governor of Maine and is an Independent himself.
There aren’t many specifics in this ad. Does that matter to you?
There is a three person race in Kansas involving US Senator Pat Roberts (R), Shawnee County District Attorney Chad Taylor (D), and businessman Greg Orman (I). Roberts has been United States Senator since 1997.
The above ad was run in the Republican primary, and not in the upcoming general election. What is the purpose for such an ad?
The above ad is the first commercial for Taylor. What is your impression of his opening ad?
Orman, as a third party candidate, is trying to demonstrate that he is different from both party candidates. Do you believe that his ad makes the case?
Recently, C-Span, the cable channel devoted to covering federal government affairs, began covering the 2016 Presidential race for its Sunday evening series entitled, “Road to the White House.” For political junkies, this could not have started soon enough. To casual political observers, the race for the White House does not begin in 2013, but in 2016. However, imagine yourself as a political insider for either the Democratic or Republican Parties (or for that matter, the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, or other third parties/Independents). What would you be looking for in a candidate at this time in 2013?
The ad below was run in 1980 by the Ronald Reagan campaign for President. Reagan, a Republican, ran against the incumbent Democrat, Jimmy Carter in the general election. Congressman John Anderson, also a Republican, ran as a third party Independent or National Unity Party candidate in that election as well. The man that you see in the ad is neither Reagan nor Carter. It is not Anderson for that matter.
The speaker is then-Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy who ran for President in the Democratic primaries against Carter. Kennedy attempted to capitalize on his name and his left-leaning populism against the unpopular Carter. Kennedy’s campaign sputtered at the start and the Senator never really mounted a challenge to Carter throughout the primary season.
What Reagan’s campaign did with this ad was to use Kennedy’s words against Carter in the general election. This is sometimes called a “them on them” ad. It is where a candidate uses the words of his opponent’s former opponents against him. In this case, Reagan uses the words of Kennedy against Carter. Reagan does not have to say a word in the ad. The goal is to get dissatisfied Democrats to switch parties on Election Day and support the Republican Reagan.
Do you believe that ads of the “them on them” variety are effective?
The United States is two-party system, meaning that in an election, one of two parties will have the best chance of winning almost every time. This has been true since the birth of this country’s political parties when the first two parties, the Democratic-Republicans and the Federalists, vied for public support. This does not mean that there aren’t other parties competing in the electoral arena. Third parties have sprouted up from time to time and have influenced electoral outcomes at the federal, state, and local levels.
However, victories have been few and far between for many third parties in the United States. This is due to in part to formal rules and informal practices that hinder the chances of a third party succeeding. A formal rule deals with ballot access. In order to gain access to a ballot, third parties must gather an inordinate amount of signatures on petitions in comparison to their major party counterparts. These rules differ between states and have been created by members of the state legislature who, alas, belong to one of the two major parties. An excellent website that describes how ballot access laws work in the United States can be found at Richard Winger’s Ballot Access News site. Another example of a formal rule is one that is set up by the federal government during the Presidential elections. In order for third party Presidential candidates to receive federal funding for their Presidential bid, the third party candidate from the previous Presidential election must have received 5% of the popular vote. Five percent also ensures equal ballot access protections for third party candidates (i.e. automatic ballot access). However, no third party candidate has received more than 5% since Ross Perot in 1996. No third party candidate received 5% in 2012. Libertarian Gary Johnson received 1% of the popular vote. Therefore, third party candidates in 2016 already start their Presidential bids at a ballot and monetary disadvantage.
An informal practice that stunts the growth of third parties is that our nation’s history has always been a two-party system. It is what the public is used to. From the Democratic-Republicans vs. Federalists to Democrats vs. Whigs and Democrats vs. Republicans, the country’s pedigree eliminates the need for third party involvement in the political process.
What can third parties do to compete on a somewhat level playing field? At the state level, third party candidates have turned to humor and unconventional ads to promote their political messages. Here are two examples:
In this 2009 ad, two actors portraying then-New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine (D) and Chris Christie (R) find themselves trapped on an escalator. Only Chris Daggett, Independent for Governor, can save the day. The ad won award in 2010 for its creativity. Daggett, who won the endorsement of the largest newspaper, the Newark Star-Ledger, finished with 5.8% of the vote. Christie won the election.
Musician/Actor/Entertainer/Businessman Kinky Friedman ran a spirited campaign for Governor of Texas in 2006. Friedman’s Independent campaign, modeled after Jesse Ventura’s successful 1998 bid for Governor of Minnesota, was as colorful as his professional and personal background. Friedman finished fourth with 12.43% of the vote, behind Rick Perry (R), Chris Bell (D), and another Independent, Carole Keeton Strayhorn. A candidate from the Libertarian Party finished fifth.
What from these commercials would appeal to an undecided voter who may be considering a vote for a third party candidate? These commercials may be unconventional, but are they too unconventional, in that they may turn voters off because of their style? Should more commercials like these be produced by third party candidates to help gain interest in their campaigns?
After all, the two-party system is tough to crack. Third party candidates need any advantage that they can create for themselves.
For more information about the creators of the ads, please visit the site for North Woods Advertising.
On June 5, 2012, the state of California held a nonpartisan blanket primary where candidates running for the United States Senate and the United States Congress ran in the same respective primary regardless of party affiliation. Known as the “Top 2” Primary, the top two candidates in the primary advance to a run-off in November’s general election. Traditional open/closed primary elections guarantee a nominee from each political party who holds a party primary. Therefore, if three parties hold primary elections, then each party will have a nominee on the ballot in the general election. In a “Top 2” system, no party is guaranteed a nominee in the second round of voting. You could end up with the top two primary winners from the same political party. In the case of the California, eight November Congressional contests will have two candidates from the same political party (six – Democrat vs. Democrat, two – Republican vs. Republican). In four cases, a major political party is shut out of the general election (three – Democrat vs. Independent, one – Republican vs. Independent). Forty-one races still have the traditional Democrat vs. Republican two-party contest. That also holds true for the United States Senate race, as a Democrat and a Republican will be the only two on the general election ballot. The Green, Libertarian, and Peace and Freedom Parties will not have a candidate in November’s Senate and Congressional elections in California.
What are your opinions on a “Top 2” Primary? Do you favor such an election? Do you favor the traditional open/closed primaries that most states have where each party will have some form of representation on Election Day?
Below are a couple of races that have piqued the interests of voters in California.
In the 33rd Congressional District, Incumbent Congressman Henry Waxman (D) is going up against Bill Bloomfield (I). This district is newly drawn up after the Congressional districts were redrawn after 2010 Census. Waxman is currently the representative of the 30th Congressional District.
Another race worth a look is in the 30th Congressional District, where Congressman Howard Berman (D) of the 28th Congressional District is going up against Congressman Brad Sherman (D) of the 27th Congressional District. Both of their seats were redrawn into the newly redistricted 30th. The race has been contentious at times.
Politics Matters 