We’ll see if Sanford finishes his last 500.

This ad is sending a strategic message with word choice. Bold words like “bailouts,” takeovers,” and “spending spree” emphasize what this administration has already delivered. Describing the proposed health care reform as a “risky experiment” purposefully concerns viewers. Experiment implies a trial of something new to determine whether or not it works. Experimenting with a policy that will affect 267 million Americans and cost trillions of dollars is dangerous. No one wants their health care to be put in jeopardy by a reckless reform that took just months to put together but will be affecting us for decades to come.

The ad is being broadcast in Arkansas, Nevada, and North Dakota; the video is also available at BarackObamaExperiment.com

The RNC runs the website designed to raise opposition to Obama’s health care reform. The site allows visitors to share the link through social networking sites, it provides phone numbers to radio political talk shows, it provides sample letters to send to newspapers, and it encourages people to contact their elected officials, even providing talking points on the opposition.

It’s beginning to be an all-out campaign against Obama’s government-run health insurance plan. And separating this campaign from the RNC’s website makes the issues less about partisan politics and more about the issue at hand. As the health care debate heats up, we can anticipate seeing a lot more ads like this.

Sotomayor’s liberal leanings could greatly impact future decisions concerning hot-button social issues like gay rights and abortion. Comments made in lectures at Berkeley Law School and at Duke University are providing plenty of fodder for conservative opponents.

Coalition for Constitutional Values has released a nationwide ad campaign in support of Sotomayor’s nomination. With a six-figure buy, the thirty second commercial provides a brief biography and pictures of the potential Justice with Obama’s nomination speech emphasizing Sotomayor’s qualifications.

In rebuttal, but on a much smaller scale, conservative Judicial Confirmation Network’s attack ad uses Sotomayor’s Berkeley comment saying Latina women will more often make better decisions than white men to question her ability to provide “equal justice under the law.” The web ad is up on most major news sites and is being passed around via email through conservative activists.

Obama’s approval rating is high and the Democrats enjoy a majority in the Senate, making her confirmation likely. This brings up an important question: is it necessary or appropriate to run campaign-style ads for a Supreme Court Justice nominee? Sotomayor’s confirmation is dependent on the votes of a mere 100 senators.  Does publicizing the nominee to arouse public interest and opinion carry any weight? 

Neither ad mentions any of Sotomayor’s previous rulings that would give insight to her stance on any major issue. These ads provide no firm understanding of where she stands. Both rely on her character, which each side is easily manipulating in their favor.

Only time will tell; when hearings begin in July, we will see if ads have any effect in the court of public opinion or on partisan voting blocs.

According to Hansen:

The FEC, without a press release, recently posted this letter (see also here) in regards to a complaint filed by Democracy 21 and the Campaign Legal Center against the Lantern Project (MUR 5854). The Lantern Project ran ads that were critical of Rick Santorum, then running for U.S. Senate reelection, but that did not contain express advocacy. For example, one ad said: “From privatizing Social Security to cutting student loans for the middle class, when Rick Santorum has to choose between siding with George Bush or middle class Pennsylvanians, Santorum supports Bush. What is he thinking?” The group’s mission statement said its purpose was to “shine the light on Rick Santorum’s extreme positions, failed policies and hypocritical statements — and let the facts speak for themselves.”

Though the FEC agrees the ads are critical of Santorum, and arguably at least one of them attacked his character or fitness for office, they did not constitute an expenditure because they neither contain express advocacy nor do they meet a WRTL-type test for the functional equivalent of express advocacy.

If this is going to be the standard for what 527s can do in the next election without running into the danger of being classified as a political committee, I expect the next few elections will see a great growth in this activity. I think this ruling will take a lot of fear away from potential 527 donors in the next election.

For political parties, interest groups and political advertisers this could be considered big news.

Over the past several years, 527’s teeth have been filed down as a result of rulings and legislation that ramped up regulations in what a 527 could or could not say in their communications within the theater of a particular election.  There have also been new regulations on 527 donor reporting, in an attempt to shed light on the funders of these groups, which pared back their ability to get large donations from individuals who desire to have their identity and contribution completely veiled.

Hat Tip: @politicsmag via twitter

List of Democrats targeted by NRCC
John Adler (NJ-03); Jason Altmire (PA-04); Michael Arcuri (NY-24); Tim Bishop (NY-01); John Boccieri (OH-16); Leonard Boswell (IA-03); Allen Boyd (FL-02); Chris Carney (PA-10); Gerry Connolly (VA-11); Kathy Dahlkemper (PA-03); Peter DeFazio (OR-04); Steve Driehaus (OH-01); Chet Edwards (TX-17); Brad Ellsworth (IN-08); Gabby Giffords (AZ-08); Alan Grayson (FL-08); John Hall (NY-19); Debbie Halvorson (IL-11); Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD-AL); Baron Hill (IN-09); Jim Himes (CT-04); Steve Kagen (WI-08); Paul Kanjorski (PA-11); Mary Jo Kilroy (OH-15); Larry Kissell (NC-08); Ron Klein (FL-22); Dan Maffei (NY-25); Eric Massa (NY-29); Jerry McNerney (CA-11); Charlie Melancon (LA-03); Dennis Moore (KS-03); Gary Peters (MI-09); Loretta Sanchez (CA-47); Mark Schauer (MI-07); Kurt Schrader (OR-05); Joe Sestak (PA-07); Carol Shea-Porter (NH-01); Heath Shuler (NC-11); Vic Snyder (AR-02); Zack Space (OH-18); John Spratt (SC-05); Bart Stupak (MI-01) and Dina Titus (NV-03).

The effort, the first targeting a 2010 senate candidate, flies under the website called www.REIDistributewealth.com .

The new spot, titled, “Trillion” was released this week.  The details of the broadcast buy are unclear. 

The NRSC’s interest in targeting Reid stem from what Republicans consider his staunch partisan approach and what appears to be his electoral vulnerabilities.

A Las Vegas Review-Journal article on Monday cited recent polling, by a conservative political action group, showing Reid vulnerable among Nevada voters.

Reid was viewed favorably by 47 percent and unfavorably by 47 percent of Nevadans surveyed by the Salt Lake City-based polling firm NSON Opinion Research for the Legacy PAC, a California-based activist group that hopes to target Reid for defeat in 2010.

In the survey of 400 Nevada voters, which carries a margin of error of plus or minus 4.9 percentage points, 47.3 percent viewed Reid favorably, including 27.3 percent who had a very favorable view and 20 percent whose opinion was somewhat favorable.

Among the 46.8 percent who had an unfavorable opinion of Reid, 8.8 percent of those polled viewed him somewhat unfavorably, while a whopping 38 percent had a very unfavorable view.

If you read my post: Top 50 books for Political Operatives,

The book, titled, Campaigning for Hearts and Minds: How Emotional Appeals in Political Ads Work (Click here), is a must read for anyone interested in political media communications and advertising.

Author, TED BRADER, provides an in-depth analysis of varying political advertising strategies, with specific attention to non verbal cues, an aspect of political media rarely touched by others in academia.  He references and discusses well-known and obscure political advertising campaign tactics, which played an important role in recent and historical elections.

In his thorough examination, Brader makes a strong argument; that carefully crafted audio and visual elements used in political advertising effectively create an emotional appeal which has an intrinsic dramatic effect on viewer/voting audiences.

In 2006, I wrote a piece for Politics Magazine (aka Campaigns & Elections), which I similarly argued that emotional appeals are the strongest form of political communications and advertising.

While my piece dealt more specifically with the use of images and symbolism related to September 11th in political advertising, I held that content and techniques used to create emotion is critical for maximizing moving voter opinion and creating action.

Here’s some relevant highlights from my piece:

Provoking emotion is one of the most important aspects to any political activity. 

Successful campaigns usually create a situation or series of situations that draw emotion from audiences – constituents or voters.  Emotional connections made in speeches, press releases, direct mail pieces or television spots are fundamental to controlling the message and the issues in an election.

Emotional appeals almost always trump rational appeals when attempting to gain political support or create negative views about an opponent.  Voters are more apt to create positive or negative feelings about an issue or candidate through emotions and sentiments rather than rational or logical arguments.

Campaigning for Hearts and Minds goes into much greater depth in making this argument.

Below, I’ve included a few well crafted reviews, by other readers as posted on Amazon:

Ted Brader’s “Campaigning for Hearts and Minds: How Emotional Appeals in Political Ads Work” drives yet another nail into the coffin of academic wisdom that voters are either rational decision-makers or complacent habit-following creatures by providing compelling evidence for the role of emotions in political campaigns… In sum, this book is a must-read for anyone interested in learning how emotions influence politics by substantially advancing our understanding of how emotions drive our political thoughts, decisions, and actions. (Patrick A. Stewart)

The general audience may find the statistical discussion somewhat slow going, but this is not a turgidly written academic tome. At the same time, it is a solid academic work. His takeoff point (page 2): “. . .the motivational and persuasive power of campaign advertising depends considerably on whether an ad appeals to fear or enthusiasm.” He contends that emotional appeals built into campaign ads makes them more effective–the mixture of a political message plus emotion can be powerful if crafted well….The book is also worth looking at because of its notice of the relevance of psychology and the neurosciences for understanding why emotional elements in political ads can have such an effect. This demonstrates powerfully the importance of cross-disciplinary research.

It’s really quite amazing how one man can wake up one day, meet Barack Obama, ask him a question about taxes, and then instantly get shot onto the national stage of presidential politics.  Joe, the plumber from Toledo, instantly filled the role of average American worker perfectly for both candidates, as their poster child on a range of issues from taxes to healthcare and everything else in between.

But in my book you really haven’t made all the history books until you’ve been immortalized in a political TV spot.  Well, Joe the Plumber” did that one too.