NY-20: VIDEO: Gillibrand's TV Ad For Murphy

On Dicker's show today, (0.00 / 0)

---

by: devtob @ Fri Mar 13, 2009 at 16:09:51 PM UTC

Oops, (0.00 / 0)

the rest -- NY Post editorial page editor Bob McManus, a conservative guy, called bringing Gillibrand in "the heavy howitzer."

Which is a big gun, as you say, Phillip.

---

by: devtob @ Fri Mar 13, 2009 at 16:12:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

This is the ad that will win it for Murphy (4.00 / 2)

With her super high approval rating, all they need to do is play this constantly for the next 2 and a half weeks.  Well, and the ground game.  But this ad will get people to come out that wouldn't otherwise.

---

by: Jrathman @ Fri Mar 13, 2009 at 19:10:08 PM UTC

was Murphy (0.00 / 0)

Awake when he recorded the "I'm Scott Murphy..." Part? Wow.

I fail to see how this ad either a) increases our base turnout or b) decreases his. This ad is going to persuade people who aren't going to vote to be rooting for Murphy when they check the paper the next morning after not voting.

---

by: Amherst Guy @ Fri Mar 13, 2009 at 21:29:18 PM UTC

I'm not sure (0.00 / 0)

much of anything is going to get those people out to vote anyway.  

---

by: nrafter530 @ Fri Mar 13, 2009 at 23:25:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's my point (0.00 / 0)

This ad is good, but its good in a General Election.

What's it going to do in this race?

---

by: Amherst Guy @ Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 03:14:47 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

get out one or two of Gillibrand's (0.00 / 0)

normally Republican supports for Murphy who previously had been considering voting for Tedisco? That's all we need to decide this thing

---

by: nrafter530 @ Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 05:31:44 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think it wins Murphy votes (4.00 / 1)

for two reasons:

1. Gillibrand is really popular in NY20, as the post says. Her endorsement will motivate people who are voting based on that good will for Gillibrand to turn out and vote.

2. The polling says people aren't voting for Tedisco, even though they know him. But that doesn't necessarily mean they are voting for Murphy, because they don't know him. Gillibrand's endorsement translates into someone people know and trust saying it's ok to vote for Murphy. It helps undecideds who are definitely going to vote get comfortable with Murphy.

my 2 cents

Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/SteveinNYC

---

by: SteveinNYC @ Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 13:25:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

or it makes them consider Murphy (0.00 / 0)

and hear him out and then decide to vote for him based on what they learn about him.

"Kirsten says he's ok, let's see what he has to say"

Those types of things work...in Southern Queens, the endorsements of popular local politicians go a long way.  

---

by: nrafter530 @ Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 03:52:52 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

again, you're talking about undecided voters (0.00 / 0)

We can persuade all the independent voters we want. We can have a big independent voter festival up and down main street and show how much they love Scott Murphy.

It doesn't matter even a little bit. They'll never bother to vote in a special election. I can promise you this because history has shown that they never vote in special elections. Not, if you get to them just right they'll vote. No. NEVER. They NEVER vote in special elections. Ever Ever Ever. Not, if you get a person they love to beg them to, they vote in special elections. No. That's been done dozens of times. Im sure you're right that in Queens, they vote in marginally higher numbers in general elections when a popular person endorses. That works just fine in General elections. It never works in special elections. They're independent/undecided because they don't feel strongly enough about anything to join a party. They sure as hell aren't to feel strongly enough to vote.

I'm not going on opinion here. I'm going on raw data. Analyze the state voter file and see for yourself.  It's an unbelievable waste of time and resources to go after them.

2 goals: Turnout our base. Suppress their base. This does a tiny bit of the first and none of the second.

TrashTell the truth about Tedisco, and tell it to Republicans. Appeal to our base. Do nothing else. And we'll win this one.

---

by: Amherst Guy @ Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 04:12:21 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Numbers please (0.00 / 0)

Can you share with us the registration breakdown of prime voters?

Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/SteveinNYC

---

by: SteveinNYC @ Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 16:46:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Define prime voters (0.00 / 0)

You mean people who have ever voted in a special election?

---

by: Amherst Guy @ Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 18:34:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

the usual definition (0.00 / 0)

people who reliably vote in a primary. Since special elections are infrequent, primary voting is usually treated as a proxy because a primary is also a low turnout election.

You said you were going on the raw data. I'm asking to see your analysis.

Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/SteveinNYC

---

by: SteveinNYC @ Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 20:03:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sure (0.00 / 0)

Statewide, 40% Republican, 60% Democrat, <1% Independent + WF + Conservative, 0% Blank/other.

Then again, unaffiliated voters cant vote in primaries. If I were you I'd look at the people who have voted in the dozens of special elections contained in the NYS voter file.

If you get the file (Free on the state boe website), you can look at the pattern yourself: in a special election, the % of people who are enrolled in a party is much higher than in a general, even a low turnout general like 2007 or 2005.

---

by: Amherst Guy @ Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 21:46:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

um, no (0.00 / 0)

From past experience I think it's pretty likely that 1. there's a core group of people who vote regularly and can be counted on to vote in the special, 2. that the number of people in this core group of likely voters who are registered D are not 50%+1, and 3. that some of the people in this core group of likely voters are undecided.

That's why, to bring this back to where we started, I think Gillibrand's ad will win Murphy votes in a variety of ways, including the two I listed.

Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/SteveinNYC

---

by: SteveinNYC @ Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 22:05:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

And to finish this off (0.00 / 0)

1) False. There's a group of people who can be counted on to consider voting in this election. They are nearly all partisan.
2) True, that's why we have to suppress their turnout with negative ads. Fortunately, all we have to do with an albany lifer like Tedisco is tell the truth.
3) False. These people all decided who to support before they had a candidate. They just haven't decided whether to bother turn out. That's what we have to go after.

Here's a diagram
5
5
4
4    5
3    5
3    4
2    3
2    3
1    2
1 5 1
1 4 1
R I D

1's are definitely voting. 5s will only vote if they are both repeatedly badgered and feel very strongly about their candidate.

If its all of ours v. all of his, we lose, even if we take all of that middle.

We've definitely killed off Tedisco's 5s. If we knock off most of his 4s, dig into his 3s, and convince half of our 5s that Murphy is worth the effort, than we should win.

We could go after those people in the middle, but then you have to do both Turnout AND persuasion, and that's twice as expensive. Plus, there's not that many of them. Plus, history tells us that they don't really turnout anyways. This commercial goes after those people. That's why I don't like it.

---

by: Amherst Guy @ Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 22:40:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]