Proxy Wars: Congressional races in Georgia and Montana

The 2018 Election is happening now.  We are watching the opening battles.

Democrats raise money.  Republicans respond with a new form of attack ad.

Trump's appointment of two congressmen to be Cabinet officers, Tom Price of Georgia and Ryan Zinke of Montana, created two vacancies.   Congressional vacancies are not filled by appointment.  One must be elected to be in Congress and we are watching Democrats and Republicans nationally flex their muscles.

From National Democratic Party

It is all about sending a message.  Two votes in the House of Representatives will not change the balance on anything, but election of Democrats in either seat will demonstrate that Trump is weak and Democrats are energized.   More important, it would imply that the Republican agenda is toxic and that it is career ending for GOP officeholders to pursue it.

From Oregon Democratic Party

I am inundated with solicitations for money by Democrats,  first from Jon Ossoff, the Democratic candidate in Georgia, and now from Rob Quist, the Democratic candidate in Montana.  

The solicitations go out over the names of nationally prominent Democrats, especially Nancy Pelosi.  The national party sends me one or two solicitations a day.   The Democratic Party of Oregon sends me  a solicitation once a day, urging both a check and participation in a phone bank for Quist.  I have been getting three or four emails a day asking for money.  Right now.     

Nancy Pelosi fundraising letter

There is a pattern to the solicitations: manic enthusiasm and then crushing agony.  The Republicans are on the run and we can win!!!   We are going to lose because Republicans have poured in money!!!   The words are all superlatives.  The election isn't just important, it is "incredibly important."  Don't just send money, "rush" to send it.  Our candidate is not just facing competition, he is facing a "plunge in the polls."  It isn't just worrisome, "it terrifies."

Money is matched and double matched.  

Meanwhile, Republicans also send emails, but I personally get fewer of them. That is my fault.  Having attended and signed into Town Hall rallies back in 2015 and early 2016 for Trump, Cruz, Christie, Rubio, Fiorina, Kasich, and others I had created a monster for myself .  I was on everyone's list.  Their defeat by Trump did not end the appeals.  It is evident in hindsight that a primary purpose for doing in-person events in New Hampshire and other early primary states is to build a mailing list of good email addresses.  It became tedious to examine and delete them since I was getting so many.  After the election I opted out.

Check out this dangerous new form of attack ad, made possible by Citizens United: Click Here. 30 Second Ad

Clever, Deceptive, Dangerous Advertisement

Republicans Respond. Massive national fundraising has its downside.  It is the subject of a clever attack ad response by a Republican oriented SuperPAC.  This ad breaks new ground, and we may well be seeing more ads of this kind. 

Support Ossoff

I urge readers to take 30 seconds to view the ad.    

It is funded by a SuperPAC which calls itself the "Congressional Leadership" PAC. The name suggests nothing about its orientation, making no reference to Republican Party or a candidate.   The ad appears to be an ad for the Georgia Democratic candidate Ossoff, authorized by Ossoff, intended to support Ossoff.  In fact, it is just the opposite: a cast a plausible--but cliched--San Francisco citizens endorsing Ossoff.   

The ad does not give itself away by using freakishly weird endorsers--no scary armed black gangster character and no flamboyant drag queen--just generally plausible San Francisco characters who will seem "off" to a suburban Georgia constituency.   An unwary viewer could easily think it was a Ossoff ad--just an oddly self destructive one since it implies that Ossoff must be tone deaf to his need to represent Georgia, not San Francisco.

This kind of ad is possible in this post-Citizens United world of SuperPACs, with the author and intent of an ad being unclear or even intentionally deceptive.   This ad has a bright sunny feel to it.  Its power comes from how plausible it is, but because it is plausible as an Ossoff ad it is not clearly negative.  The ad may be too subtle--or just subtle enough.  The ad does not go for humor in its deception; it goes for deception straight up.  Look, Ossoff is beloved by San Francisco; enough said.

This ad may inspire copycats that are not subtle in the least:  I can imagine ads featuring skinhead racist characters earnestly endorsing white Republican candidates, paid by a SuperPAC with a vague or deceptive name, intended to sabotage a Republican candidate.   I can imagine ads intended to sabotage Democrats using endorsers less credible, and more weird or frightening, than the characters in the above ad.  We might see glassy eyed pot smokers and welfare cheats for Democratic candidates, said clearly and earnestly into the camera, paid for by "Leadership for America" or some other vague name.