Why no substantial ads about Romney's switch-hitting?

[Mutiny In Heaven]

I find it utterly baffling. It's not hard, the ads themselves could be made on a shoestring budget.

Really, really simple; Romney a few weeks / months / years ago vs Romney now.

Eccentric oddball music implying a flimsy, eccentric weathervane unable to remember his own policy or a stark "Reaganomics / Mondaleomics voiceover.

Something like this should have been out immediately, but instead there's a couple of limp offerings, typified by the "What A Guy" ad, which only serves to make Romney look BETTER (Oh noes! He was pushy and rude!!!) and "Mitt Romney vs The Truth" which, instead of doing the simple job of pitting Romney on video vs Romney on video, references news articles and fact checkers. Lame.


It's all very well Obama making the - factually accurate - assertion at campaign rallies, but few are tuning in specifically to see them, which is what they'd have to do. They're not popping up during a break in their favourite evening TV shows and crucially, it's "he said, she said". Actual video of Romney saying one thing and then completely contradicting that during the debate could be devastating, but it's just not happening. It's like the entire campaign team have overdosed horribly on Xanax.

Two themes: One drawing from unemployment dropping beneath 8% for the first time in almost four years, the other pitting Romney against Romney. Fairly simple, why isn't it happening?

[frazzled]

1. You've missed these two hard-hitting ads

[Mutiny In Heaven]

2. I don't think they're any good.

In fact, I think they're piss-poor, not because they're HORRIBLE ads in themselves, but because there's so much more to work with.

"Dishonest" is the one I erroneously titled "Mitt Romney vs The Truth".

Why fall back on newspaper and media snippets? That's lame, a lot of people are going to simply think that they've come from a source favourable to the President.

There's a treasure trove of Romney contradicting Romney. It isn't something that occasionally, it's habitual, it's baked in, it's HIM. He cannot help himself! Romney vs Romney, split screen, one after the other or whatever.

[MADem]

3. There have been a few, but if you really want to drive that home,

I'd wait till two weeks out--you don't want to wear out that theme and get people past the point of "outrage" to "oh, well, that's just Quagmire...er, Mitt."

[Mutiny In Heaven]

4. I say strike while the iron's hot. The debate is fresh in people's minds.

Nullify it, lay down explicitly just how mendacious he was. People who are wavering need to be propped up before they fall and break their ears.

[VirginiaTarheel]

5. Best thread of the Day

I too am baffled why Democrats have not produced a deluge of Ads showing Romney saying different, contradictory things About a host of topics. Just go to the archives and compare and contrast in his own words. Republicans didn't wait until the last two weeks to paint Kerry as a flip flopper so what are we waiting on?

[Mutiny In Heaven]

6. Yes! I cringed when I first saw "Dishonest"

Toss the newspaper quotes about his dishonesty. That's a horrible, horrible tactical move when you actually have a massive archive of contradiction on film. You're asking for people to be fully engaged, and often they're not going to be when a political ad comes on. There's no deeper interpretation required, no suspicion that YOU might be the one playing fast and loose with the truth when it comes from the horse's mouth.

If I didn't really want to win, those are exactly the sort of half-hearted ads I'd be putting out in response to Romney's constant shuffling of the deck. I'm not saying Obama is - OooohhhHHH can you find a milliner to work with this sheet of tinfoil? - trying to lose on purpose, but someone within the campaign needs to channel Steve Jobs and say "this is SHIT!" and consign this crap to the trash can while zeroing in on what actually turns people away from Romney in a clear, concise way that is digestible by a constipated slug.

[VirginiaTarheel]

7. Team Obama is too soft and nomconfrontational

After the debate, they should be flooding the airwaves with clips of Romney flip flopping through the years, portraying him as a chronic liar who will say Anything to get elected. The ads must aggressively show him as a pathological con artist by using Romney's own words. The current post-debate Ads are weak and ineffectual. Alpha candidates win in America, soft ones do not.

[Mutiny In Heaven]

8. I thought they were on the right track early.

Portraying Romney as "Mr. Etch-A-Sketch". I understand Clinton's "seriously conservative" advice, but you could have blended the two. Who is the real Mitt Romney? Why does he switch to the most reactionary conservative position at the drop of a hat and shape-shift again without explanation when it suits him?

They originally wanted to paint Romney as weird. Again, that would work with such a strange, seemingly unprincipled weathervane. I thought his GOP rivals did pretty well with the dual Romney as-shape-shifter / not a true conservative narrative; a candidate with such a gargantuan financial advantage should have blown them out of the fucking water.