You win elections by promising less pain than the GOP. Voters either don't agree with or simply don't care about most of the issues advanced on this and other liberal websites. However, the future of Medicare represents a fruitful opportunity for Democratic congressional candidates.
When voters ask, as they inevitably will, "What's in it for me?" you want to be there with something that your campaign-contribution-sucking GOP opponent cannot easily co-opt.
A quick review of the covers on the magazine rack at 7-11 should convince you we care about different things than most voters: celebrities, babies, marriages, nearly naked women, 9/11, fast cars, fashion, guns, and money. Money and Medicare are especially fruitful topics for Democrats.
I listened in on a conversation in a restaurant for nearly an hour last night, notable because there was not a single mention of politics in any form. One of the diners wore a IBEW windbreaker, so I thought the topic might come up, but it did not. They talked about the following: Restaurant food and service, sex, problems with their kids, problems with their parents, missing and malfunctioning TV remote controls, local mini-celebrities they knew (i.e., name-dropping), Harrison Ford's latest, parental control of dirty movies and.credit card fees and service charges. Interestingly, although they were angry, they did not conclude that "there ought to be a law," but simply that one should take reasonable precautions, such as arranging for automatic payments to avoid late charges.
I think this failure to blame Congress is instructive. Americans (in both parties) cherish responsibility and self-reliance. For this reason, I think a recently-launched commercial against Conrad Burns misfires. The spot shows pitiful old people who can't afford to buy their pills after Burns-authorized Medicare cuts. I think most young people see that spot and say, "not my action item." I think most middle-aged and elderly people say, "Screw 'em. They should have worked harder and saved more money the way we did." More than half of the peoople in the vote-rich 45-54 age bracket make $75,000 a year or more.
http://www.clickz.com/...
They aren't particularly worried about being able to pay for their blood-thinners and Viagra.
I would have aimed the Medicare spot at baby boomers (35-58) who represent about 40% of the population of Montana (and everywhere else) and 60-70% of likely voters.
My Ad Concept:
Main idea: 1: With special interests in charge of Congress (pic of Gangster Jack), no wonder our parents and grandparents are getting gouged. (Pic of old man paying bills).
Copy point 1: (Middle-aged man or woman speaking) Thanks a lot Senator Burns. I wonder if Medicare will even be there when I'm old enough to need it.
Copy point 2. Conrad Burns took a MEAT-AXE to Medicare, causing the eldery to turn to their children for money. Big business benefits, but the public pays.
Copy point 3: BIG money from convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff (pic of the gangster).went to Conrad Burns. Whose side do you think he's on?.
Get Conrad Burns out of Washington. He doesn't represent Montana.
The real Internet ad: http://www.montanalegacyfund.org/...