The Democratic ad wars are on! Angelides for Governor campaign manager Cathy Calfo unveiled the state treasurer and current frontrunner’s first TV ad of the season today after I reported yesterday that his rival, Controller Steve Westly, would begin major market advertising today that is slated to continue through the June 6th primary.
Under questioning, Calfo said that the Angelides TV ad will begin airing in “the middle of the week.” A few days after Westly. And that it is a roughly one million dollar media buy which will last for a week, giving it a specific ending date. Asked if Angelides will attempt to match Westly’s ad spending dollar for dollar, Calfo demurred. Asked if the Angelides ad campaign would be continuous through the June 6th primary to match Westly’s plans, she said that Angelides will advertise “throughout” the primary. Which is not the same as advertising continuously during the primary campaign. With such an early start and already trailing in his campaign war chest with higher ongoing campaign costs than Westly, Angelides almost certainly will not be able to match Westly’s advertising.
Just like the Westly buy, the Angelides buy is in three major markets: Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Sacramento. It is also an introductory spot. But unlike Westly’s ad, which is more of a classic introductory biographical spot, the Angelides ad is entirely political in nature. In fact, it doesn’t mention anything about his life aside from politics and doesn’t mention anything about his political life until a few years ago.
The dominant figure in the candidate’s introductory spot may not be Angelides himself, who does not speak, but U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer, who appears on camera to sing the praises of the former state Democratic chairman who played a pivotal role in her narrow 1992 election victory over Republican commentator Bruce Herschensohn. It also has a much more partisan tone, using the tagline: “”He stood up to Arnold. He’ll stand up for you,” again emphasizing Angelides’ role as the anti-Arnold from day one even when most Democrats were working with Schwarzenegger in his popular early bipartisan mode.
A top Angelides source says the strategy of using Boxer so prominently to introduce a candidate for the state’s top executive post is supported by research showing that she, like Senator Dianne Feinstein, also an Angelides campaign co-chair, is viewed by Democratic voters as a champion against Bush Republicanism nationwide. Making this an interesting attempt to nationalize a statewide race from the beginning of the advertising strategy.
A top Westly source doubts the effectiveness of that strategy, saying that being the anti-Arnold is important to activists but not the broad sweep of Democratic voters. Westly press secretary Nick Velasquez was on hand for the announcement.
Speaking with him later, he talked about his campaign’s view that Westly is better positioned to win the general election and that Angelides is from the beginning going too far left for many Californians. Citing as one aspect Angelides’ support for tax increases. Asked what is Westly’s alternative for eliminating the state’s chronic structural deficit — which is exacerbated by Schwarzenegger’s plan to spend more in this election year — he spoke of the success of Westly’s program to get unpaid taxes paid. Asked if that meant the solution to the chronic budget crisis was to hire more auditors, he said that was not necessarily so, and that “Steve doesn’t rule out a tax hike,” it’s simply not his first reflexive option.
Read 
| Comments (0) |
I agree — Angelides linking himself to Boxer will irritate many independents and centrist voters. Boxer is seen many as being left of Feinstein. If the Dems choose Angelides over Westly, then those independents and centrists will hold their noses and vote for Arnold just to keep a “hard liberal” out of office.
He’s starting out in an unusual position. If their interpretation is correct, it may be brilliant. If not …
I’m puzzled by the assumption that Barbar Boxer scares voters. In 2004 she received the largest number of votes ever cast for an individual in any U.S. Senate election in any state, ever. The only people who received more votes in 2004 than she did were George Bush and John Kerry. While she is somewhat to the left of Dianne Feinstein, that ain’t hard to do. And I doubt how much endorsements sway voters. The person who refuses to vote for Angelides because Barbara Boxer supports him probably was never going to vote for Angelides.
Take it from someone who should know: Endorsements by other politicians are simply never determinative in a high-visibility race for CA governor, where at the end of the day, most voters get a pretty good gut sense of who the candidates are. Angelides touts his campaign co-chairs at least every hour, every day: Sens. Boxer and Feinstein, Rep. Pelosi, and Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez. These are all distinguished and accomplished — even groundbreaking — officeholders in their own way, and have every right to support whomever they choose. But Gray Davis won the 1998 primary — not barely, but overwhelmingly — without the support of . . . guess who? Sens. Boxer and Feinstein, Rep. Pelosi, and the then Latino Speaker of the Assembly, a guy by the name of Antonio Villaraigosa. The first three were for Jane Harman, and Antonio was for Al Checchi. In fact, if Sen. Feinstein — popular as she deservedly is — could confer the Democratic nomination for governor on someone else, Harman certainly would have been our candidate in ’98. The good Senator did TV spots for Harman, turned her seasoned campaign over to Harman, did fundraising events for Harman, was all over Harman’s direct mail. In the event, Harman came in fourth, with exactly 12.3% of the primary vote. Sorry, Phil, you’ve gotta win these top-of-the-ticket races yourself, by standing on your own two feet, not by using other politicians as blocking tackles.
Boxer is hardly the anathema the right imagined her to be. But on the other hand, her opponent in 2004 was a nonstarter who never spent a dime on TV.
Re: the strategy of linkage Phil defender against Bush Republicanism
There is a Field poll (per Bee) today “Latest Marks For White House”
Registered Voters approve 38 Disapprove 56 NoOpinion 6
BUT AMONG DEMS
approve 16 Disapprove 79 No Opinion 5
Ideology Middle of the Road Approve 32 Disapprove 58 No Opinion 10
I am not Dem…but could they be on to something re: linkage and Dem primary vote?
I don’t recall anyone saying Phil Angelides is not an intelligent man. On the other hand, George W. Bush is not running in the Democratic primary.
Oh good …I am so happy you are poo-pooing their strategy ..I would hate to think that so many Dems could be so silly…this there are so many of them in California.
That’s not exactly what I said.
Bill, do you think the fact that Angelides hasn’t (and doesn’t seem like he will) released his tax returns is going to hurt him in a big way? Certainly the Westly folks are running with it, but will it catch on among the voters? Because my guess is that Westly is going to have to do a lot more to make himself distinct.
Hey Garry South, why not combine Westly’s forthright openess with a push for clean money reform? Why not make him the only candidate truly willing to win back the public trust?
Phil is on the record several times promising to make his tax returns available. He has until March 10th to do so under his own guidelines. If he doesn’t, that will be very bad.
Well, I know you did not “exactly” come out and “pooh -pooh” their strategy…I interpreted what you said as you are “pooh-poohing”….but I agree most Dems, except possibly Phil A. and Bob M., do understand that Bush is not running in the California Dem primary..so in away we are pooh-poohing their strategy and I think it deserves to be pooh-poohed.
At some point, maybe soon, if polls show Westly gaining traction from the TV ads, Angelides will have to take on Westly rather than Arnold. They know that, so I think beginning this way is perfectly sensible, establishing Phil as the guy who’s been fighting Arnold, and then shifting, if necessary, to show how he’s more qualified and experienced, and maybe has better ideas thnn Westly.
What we don’t know yet is when and how it might get ugly between the two. This is what Arnold’s team is licking their lips over.
It is dangerous to assume that most Democratic voters know much if anything about Phil Angelides. When you don’t establish who you are, you are very prone to having it established for you.
I should probably point out that when Garry was working for Gray Davis, he sang a different tune about the value of endorsements.
From the LA Times, 8/19/97
While all candidates are panning for endorsements this year, two in California have elevated the exercise into an art form: Democratic Lt. Gov. Gray Davis, who is running for governor, and state Treasurer Matt Fong, a Republican running for the U.S. Senate. Davis’ current list of endorsers–it seems to grow daily–stacks half an inch deep. His campaign wields endorsements with all the finesse of a sledgehammer over his likely rivals.
And in the SF Chronicle, 1/26/98:
”The process (of getting endorsements) started this week and will continue unabated throughout the campaign,” said Garry South, campaign adviser to Davis. ”We’re far ahead in that category and will never be caught up to.”
Brian, I hope you’re not alleging that a campaign guru worshipped by the political press might actually be hypocritical, disingenuous, and self-serving!!!
I do not see the inconsistency. Mr. South qualified his remarks on the value of endorsements by saying “you’ve gotta win these top-of-the-ticket races yourself, by standing on your own two feet, not by using other politicians as blocking tackles.”
Lt Gov race is Not a “Top Of The Ticket Race”…the Guv race is..LT Gov is a no power job with hardly any staff positions..you need to do almost anything and everything to get anyone to pay attention to the race ..so there would be some value in endorsements…
I think Phil will soon dispense with these preliminaries and simply revert to the campaign strategy with which he is most comfortable.
Barbara, South’s comments took place when Davis was running for Guv. Read them again.
And when Harman got in the race the endorsements didn’t matter a bit for Davis. Despite the endorsements, Davis was seen as an automatic also-ran when Harman got in. It took some incompetence and mistakes for her to lose. She was far less credible as a gubernatorial candidate than Westly. So perhaps South has learned something since 1998.
Of course it is important to understand the timing and context of when things are said. And that includes the timing and context of quotes presented by Phil Angelides’ press secretary, Brian Brokaw. Of course, Brian, who is a very bright guy, didn’t actually experience that campaign eight years ago …
I was disscussing his posting here Mr. South is clearly referencing the Governor’s Race from the onset: “Endorsements by other politicians are simply never determinative in a high-visibility race for CA governor,” to his close “top of the ticket” .
Brian’s remarks by Mr. South reference davis’s run for Lt Gov… thus, my remarks discuss that there is no inconsistency by Mr. South … you guys are comparing apples and oranges …not Mr. South…
I just re-read Brian again, now that I know his true identity and of course you are right Mr. Bradley …”Despite the endorsements, Davis was seen as an automatic also-ran when Harman got in”
that’s where Mr. South learned that “you’ve gotta win these top-of-the-ticket races yourself” Thank goodness you are here to help us thru all these political mazes!
No, Brian Brokaw’s South quotes are from the 1998 governor’s race. Trust me.
But as the old joke goes: “I don’t think that word means what you think it means.”
For one thing, one of Davis’s OPPONENTS garnered the biggest endorsements when she jumped into the race. Like, um, Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, etc.
In other words, Davis’s endorsements didn’t help him avoid falling behind when somebody else with a ton of family money jumped in the race. And Harman’s endorsements didn’t help her a bit when she screwed up and Davis mounted a blazing comeback.
So Garry South is both right and wrong, depending on the timing and context of his many voluminous sayings you choose to cite.
Now, what was my view on that 1998 primary race? I said that Jane Harman, while clearly an impressive whatever, was unqualified for the office. When Kam Kuwata, Dianne Feinstein’s campaign manager whom California’s senior senator loaned to Harman for her campaign, called inviting me on a conference call with Harman but told me she would only talk about pro-choice, I told him I would rather watch a rerun of Magnum, P.I.
Then at the state Democratic convention, when the assembled state political press corps voted overwhelmingly for Harman as the pick for the nomination at the customary “Hacks and Flacks” dinner, I chose Davis. His experience, credentials and combat ability were clearly superior and he had the better political team.
Well regardless, as woman I just don’t see Brian’s point…I change mind all the time…also my Dad who was a great authority on human nature use to say “only a dead man never changes his mind” and we all know Mr. South is very much ALIVE AND KICKING…so he can change his mind any time he wants…so there.
Except for initiatives, I don’t really pay too much attention to endorsements, save for when all of the establishment gathers around one particular candidate. This raises flags for me. So I start out as a voter in the Dem primary already distrustful of Angelides BECAUSE of his endorsements.
Has anyone ever seen Barbara and “Mr. South” in the same place at the same time? Just checking…
I am attempting to think of a big political figure who is less mediagenic than Phil Angelides. Can anyone help me, please?
Rich,…Please… there is no mistaking us, I am the very pretty one. He is only tough and dangerous and per Mr.Bradley …very cunning
The Angelides strategy of linking Schwarzenegger to Bush is a good one, especially since Schwarzenegger seems to be playing into their hands, bringing in one high level Bush/Cheney operative after another.
Californians don’t like Bush. Schwarzenegger, arguably, put Bush back in the White House by campaigning with him in Ohio. Now Schwarzenegger, Susan Kennedy aside, is bringing in Bush people. Moreover, they have proposed some similar policies:
Bush proposed privatizing social security, Schwarzenegger proposed privatizing state pensions.
Bush is anti-choice, Schwarzenegger supported Prop. 73.
Bush has cut social programs, Schwarzenegger’s proposed budget cuts social programs (while increasing spending for most other things!)
As long as Bush is so hated in California, it makes sense to try and tie Schwarzenegger to him. It’s going to be a beautiful photo-op for Dems when Chertoff comes to California to tour levees with Schwarzenegger.
Do you honestly believe that Arnold will have Michael Chertoff come to California?
Check the news reports on who slept while New Orleans was about to drown.
Hey, Brian, nice to hear from you. If you read my blog entry carefully, I believe you will notice that I conceded that Gray Davis in the ’98 primary lacked the endorsements of all of Angelides’ “co-chair” — Feinstein, Boxer, Pelosi, and the then Latino Speaker of the Assembly. None of those folks, bless their hearts, could determine who the Democratic nominee was then — and I bet they won’t this time, either. One other little unpleasant reality: In ’98 we were the candidate who was vastly outspent in the primary. That’s why we talked about endorsements. This time, your guy is the one who will be outspent. I assume that’s why you’re talking about endorsements incessantly, too. And I certainly don’t begrudge you that! BTW, you still got a job over there? I hear there’s some changes in the works — which is typical in an Angelides campaign. Good luck, seriously.
Mr. South, but you beg the question: what does your guy have going for him, besides Ebay and a huge checkbook? At this point in 1998, Al Checchi and Jane Harman had wooed some key players, or at least convinced them to stay out. That’s not happening this time around. The teachers (who stayed out of the 1998 primary, if I remember right) and Feinstein (who endorsed Harman) and Boxer (who stayed out as well) must be on to something here. And I must say (unlike Mr. Bradley), I have not been impressed by Westly’s showing on the campaign trail, either in his ads or on the news. There’s still time, of course, and I still haven’t made up my mind completely, but the Westly campaign is looking more and more like a (very rich) fool’s errand.
“Fred,” unless you are Mike Finnegan of the LA Times, I doubt you’ve seen much at all of Westly, because I know you’re not me.
Some of your facts are wrong, by the way.
I’ve seen plenty of Westly–his ads seem to be targetted at my viewing habits, and I’ve seen him two too many times handing out fat checks from the unclaimed property program. Is there anything more demeaning than a politician on TV handing out checks?
Oh, Fred, oh, Fred, whoever you are! Check back with me on June 7 about the Democratic governor’s race. And I assume you are impressed, then, with how Angelides has doled out public money to benefit his campaigns — by virtue of sitting on the boards of the 1st- and 3rd-largest public pension funds? Westly is giving people back money and other assets that belong to them in the first place. I think that’s a distinction, honestly. BTW, have you caught on to how Angelides made all of his millions — as one of the biggest land speculators/developers in the Sacramento area? We’re telling people how Steve Westly made his money in our ads (his work with eBay). Wanna bet Angedides won’t tell voters how he made his money in his own ads?
So, Fred, you have not seen the guy on the campaign trail but you have seen him on the air. Ok, so much for your assessment of how he is doing on the road.
You have seen him giving out a bunch of checks on TV? That is a a very common thing for an elected official to do. As I’m sure you know.
credit card debt consolidation…
mockery ripely bathroom?spark Italianization …