Whoa, This Republican Ad Was Super RACIST

The Republican Party and the Democratic Party just lit close to $11 billion on fire. When I see a person standing in front of 3D letters, I'm excited. Welcome to Political Experts React, where we break down political ads in media, explain what the people behind them are trying to accomplish, decide whether or not they did a good job. I'm Dan Pfeiffer, former communications director for Barack Obama and co-host of Pod Save America. Joining me today is the one and only John Lovett. John Lovett, welcome to Political Experts React. Thanks for having me, Dan. First time ever. First time. First time you've ever acknowledged that I'm a political expert. It's in quotes. This time, yes. All right, we've got a bunch of different ads to look at. We are recording this with a little over a week to go until the election. The first ad we're going to look at is an ad run by national Republicans during a football game this past weekend. Michael is a normal guy. He loves a tailgate, and he kind of hates politics. He was ready to skip voting this year, but he remembered Democrats are crazier than his ex. They care more about their pronouns than his paycheck and push record high inflation inflation. They're not going to let him win. Republicans, he's making more. Companies are adding American jobs and the border is closed. Michael won't quit on his team or his country. It's that simple. Vote Republican. What do you think of this ad? So it feels a little bit like they're trying to play the hits. You know, it's like they're they're hoping to get the band back together. It's been a long time since they've had a charting single and they're just sort of kind of out there just sort of like trying their best to see if they can drum up some enthusiasm around this old argument. The other part about it that's strange is it's like it's aimed at two different people. Like in the beginning, it's like you're a normal guy. Normal guys aren't MAGA Republicans. They're not diehard. It says in there, right? You don't like politics. But then by the time you get to the ad, it refers to being on a team. But you just tried to help this person see themselves as not being on a team. So I think it's all a bit confused. Yeah, it's very poorly done. Like there's this concept that is like really sort of all the rage with political consultants now about social pressure. And so the idea here is you're trying to put social pressure on people by identifying them as this part of this group and then encouraging them to do it. Future Forward, the Democratic super PAC is now running an ad that tells people that their voting history is public to sort of encourage them to let everyone know that if you don't vote, they won't find out who you vote for, but they will find out whether you vote. I think the problem with this ad in doing it is, like, they clearly have a bunch of polling and focus groups. It's the same stuff we see that shows that the young men who maybe didn't vote before 2024 or maybe had voted for Biden in 2020 who came over to Trump have abandoned the party. So now we're trying to get them back. But they make two mistakes. You hit on, I think, the most important one, which is you call them a part of the team, and they've never considered them as part of any team, right? They are free agents in this case. And then this is the problem with all Republican ads in the cycle is they feel this pressure to appease Trump in the ad by saying, you're making more money. Almost no one is making more money, which is inflation has exceeded wage growth and border is closed. And so the person you're trying to get is someone who's actually pretty unhappy about how things are going, but you're trying to convince them that Democrats are so bad. But then when you tell them they should be happy about how things are going, you kind of lose them. Yes. And it can't acknowledge what people actually feel about Trump and MAGA, which is outside of the diehards. People don't like it. Their identity might allow for the possibility of what the ad begins with, which is I don't really like politics. I don't like Trump. I don't like Democrats. Everybody's kind of crazy. But yeah, I'm an independent thinker. And I voted for the Republicans last time because I was really unhappy with what the Democrats have been offering. But I certainly don't want to be to feel as though having voted for Trump makes me like Trump or that people in my life, my girlfriend, my girlfriend who replaced this ex is going to be mad at me because I don't want her to think I think the way these mean people do. I don't like them. So, yeah. And the other part of it, too, is, you know, Vance was on the stump doing kind of this, you know, any birthing people here or do you call yourself mothers. And it just feels old. It feels like it's from a couple of years ago. It's shadowboxing a group of people that were annoying Republicans and independents on the internet in 2019 and 2020 that just aren't as pervasive. Yeah. It's just, it feels so like that, that sort of like anti-woke stuff had more purchase when gas prices were not $4. Yeah. Right. And, and just that the, even the ad acknowledges that there's just a lot of people they need that are just thinking about not voting. They're just desperate to figure out how to get these people that they got in 2024 to come back around. But I don't think this is it. No, I don't get it. All right. In the final stretch, campaigns go heavily negative. So we're going to look at two negative ads that are dominating key Senate races. Let's start with an ad from Mike Rogers in Michigan. I served as an army officer, an FBI special agent, and the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. I know a threat to America when I see one. Abdul El-Sayed is funded by people who finance Hamas. His family has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. Abdul publicly supported these terrorists, and they publicly supported his primary win. Those are the facts. Abdul El-Sayed's radical ideology is a threat to our national security. I'm Mike Rogers, and I approve this message. Do you think this kind of attack can work in a state like Michigan? I think it is working. The question is how much it's working, right? This is what they're closing with. It is building off of whatever tens of millions of dollars that APEC spent on against Abdul in the primary. There is a subset of Democratic voters they are hoping to bring over to Mike Rogers or to not vote at all. They are trying to drum up Republicans who might be kind of disinclined to vote based on what we're just talking about to show up for Mike Rogers. Abdul underperforms compared to the generic ballot, compared to how some other Senate candidates are doing. And so you have to assume that this is playing some role, that this is worth some number of points, and they're hoping that it can be enough to make up for the difference in the overall environment and still be effective, even as Abdul does his best to bat it down however he can. So I don't know. It feels very Bush 2002, and it all just feels old. Mike Rogers is an old school kind of Bush-style Republican trying to do this kind of Bush-style national security ad. I hope it's not as effective as it used to be. It's interesting that Rogers puts himself in the ad. The typical way you do this ad is you just do a voiceover. There are a bunch of ads from Super PACs, some from APAC and the primary that basically made the same case. Rogers standing there credentialing himself and then delivering the attack. That does tell me one thing at least is that the polls are correct that Rodgers is behind because you wouldn't do that if it was a tide raiser if you were ahead. You would not – because he has a favorability gap with Abdul despite all these attacks. Abdul's net favorability is higher than Rodgers. When your net favorability is low, you generally don't want to be the one accusing your opponent of being supported by Hamas. But I think it is – this is their probably best attack that they have. I'm not sure it will work. One thing Abdul has done very well is that he dominates on the economic message in the Times-Siena poll from a few weeks ago. He has a huge advantage on cost of living and economic issues and obviously health care over Mike Rogers. So your best bet is to persuade people that he is too extreme to other to win and hope you can peel off enough Democrats, independents, or this is also a Republican turnout play. I don't think they have a lot of levers to pull to jack turnout up against James Tallarico or Josh Turek or even Sherrod Brown or like an Adam Hamilton in Kansas. But Abdul is the kind of candidate that Fox News has been demonizing for 30 years. And so I guess that's the hope here is that this will get some Republicans who are staying home to come out because of this. Yeah, I also do wonder if the most important part of the ad is Mike Rogers just defining himself on these national security grounds, on this sort of kind of almost law enforcement grounds, because this is the kind of ad a Republican could have run if John McCain were president, if Mitt Romney were president, if Marco Rubio were president, just as a signal to either some independents, anti-Trump moderates that he's not one of those Republicans. At the same time, it's just worth saying it's such a dishonest ad. It's so despicable. It's so extreme, right? Like if you're, Abdul is, uh, has been campaigning across Michigan, uh, for a year. Uh, he is, uh, he is up with ads, including ads that are about his own biography, his campaign in the general started with an ad in which he's with his grandparents, uh, who are as wholesome and white as it gets, uh, very clearly intentional. So if you're a voter in Michigan, you're not seeing this in a vacuum. You've been exposed to a ton of Abdul, both on his own terms and with his own message and responding to this crap. Right. And I have to assume for a lot of people, this sort of, you know, Abdul is a terrorist, whatever the details they're kind of hanging beneath it sounds so extreme at this point. And I have to assume whoever's buying it has already bought it. And whoever isn't probably isn't. Yeah, I think that's that's an important point, which is, I think Abdul has responded to these things very smartly over the course of this campaign. In the course of a debate, he will explain that this was something his mother was involved in long before he was born, one and a half years old or whatever it was, nothing to do with him, pushes back on the facts. But on a day-to-day on the campaign trail in his ads, he is showing, not telling. In response to it, his closing statement at the debate on Wednesday night was all about how much he loves America, about how his story, very Obama-esque, The story is only possible in America, how much he respects the constitution, what it means to have a document that protects, you know, the right, how you, not just the right to pray, but who you pray to. And all of this, like he is, if you get to see Abdul and you were not inherently anti-Muslim or inherently racist. It's hard to square the person you see on a day to day basis, either in his ads or on the campaign trail with what you're seeing in this ad. And while I have you, I want to make a pitch for the message box, my sub stack newsletter. It's the best way to get serious analysis of the midterms based on the data and my way too long experience working in politics. And when the election happens, I will help you understand what happened, why it happened and what it means for 2028. Special pre-election discount for viewers of this show. Go to the link in description to get 20% off for a year. Odd Save America breaking news is brought to you by ZipRecruiter. Let's be honest, ZipRecruiter is everywhere. Why? Because top talent is everywhere too. Just like you, your ideal candidates are tuning into business, sports and podcasts just like this one. When these candidates hear all these ads, it increases the chances of them going to ZipRecruiter and responding to your job post. So ultimately you meet them sooner. Of course, you can't meet them unless you go to ZipRecruiter.com slash crooked to try it for free. Once you post your job, ZipRecruiter's matching technology finds top talent quickly. And ZipRecruiter has a new feature that shows you the most interested, qualified candidates first so you meet them faster. No wonder four out of five employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate within the first day. But you've got to go to ZipRecruiter.com slash crooked to post your job for free. Again, that ZipRecruiter.com slash crooked. Oh, and if you forget where to go, don't worry. You'll hear another ZipRecruiter ad soon enough. The next ad we're going to look at is from James Tallarico. Yet another negative ad from James Tallarico against Ken Paxton. Ken Paxton says I don't have his experience and he's right. I've never been indicted for fraud. I've never been reported to the FBI for bribery. I've never been impeached by my own party. And I've never given a sweetheart deal to a pedophile. I have a different kind of experience. I've worked with both parties to cap the cost of insulin and pass the largest property tax cut in Texas history. I'm James Tallarico and I approve this message because we need a different kind of experience in Washington. I originally called this a negative ad. It's actually technically a contrast ad because it's negative and positive. What do you think? First of all, I just want to say it may get played out soon. I am a sucker for giant 3D letters in the world. It works for me. It works for me in a movie. It works for me in this ad. It's exciting to see the letters. Why do you think that is? I don't know. I just love it. I just think it looks cool. He looks cool in the ad. I like that it's one take. It's not hard to make a case against Ken Paxton. He's made this argument on the stump many, many times. It's clearly meant to answer some lingering concerns that people might have if they're either a Republican or independent to give James Tallarico a vote. He's just letting people know he cut taxes, which is for a lot of people the proof point they need for a national politician that they can get the vote. Yeah. I love this ad for a couple of reasons. One, there's a real house style for James Tallarico ads. It's a lot of him walking towards the camera with a blurred out background. And a black shirt with two pockets on the front like that. That is his look. But what is smart about it is I know you have an aesthetic attraction to these 3D letters. The reason why it's important to politicalize is because people are on their phones or the TV is muted. And so you want them to see the ad and not have to have the sound on or be paying close attention to get the message. So if you're in Texas, you're turning on the television. You're already seeing basically as many ads as has happened. I think it is a fair question to ask after election, whether it's a fair question to ask after election, whether it's a fair question to ask after election, whether it's a fair question to ask after election, whether it's a fair question to ask after election. I think it is a fair question to ask after election, whether it's a fair question to ask after election, whether it's a fair question to ask after election, whether it's a fair question to ask after election, whether it's a fair question to ask after election, whether it's a fair question to ask after election, whether it's a fair question to ask after election, whether it's a fair question to ask after election, whether it's a fair question to ask after election. I think it is a fair question to ask after election, whether it's a fair question to ask after election, whether it's a fair question to ask after election, whether it's a fair question to ask after election, whether it's a fair question to ask after election, whether it's a fair question to ask after election, whether it's a fair question to ask after election. I think it is a fair question to ask after election, whether it's a fair question to ask after election, whether it's a fair question to ask after election, whether it's a fair question to ask after election. I think it is a fair question to ask after election, whether it's a fair question to ask after election.