We’ve said it before and we’ll say it again: the biggest obstacle to Michael Hancock‘s mayoral campaign was his ill-advised pay raise vote. That same vote has allowed Chris Romer to frame his whole campaign as of late on attacking Michael Hancock and his “irresponsibility” in handling the city budget.
For Hancock to win, then, he needs to establish an antidote to Romer’s attacks. Well, if you’ve been watching any local television for the past couple of days, you’ll know he’s trying:
It’s a start. It’s a beautiful ad, the best that Hancock’s run thus far, which is really saying something. It goes further than the other spot Hancock is running in tandem at defining Michael as a candidate. It certainly addresses Romer’s attacks on the pay raise vote, but does it do enough? It’s a big move for Hancock to admit to that pay raise vote, and it certainly shows his campaign is cognizant of the effectiveness of Romer’s negative advertising.
Unfortunately, negative campaigning works. Hancock can wax on about the fact that he refuses to run a negative campaign, and that’s admirable. What this specific spot doesn’t do, however, is effectively convey to voters why Hancock thought it responsible to vote for a pay raise for city workers. He admits to the vote and he gives some reasoning, but not enough to totally negate Romer’s attacks, which is what Hancock must do as a candidate. If this is Hancock’s first attempt at remedying the perception of that vote, then it’s a brilliant first step. If it’s all his campaign will be doing to counter Romer’s ads, then it really isn’t enough. In fact, it almost seems as though Hancock is only running this advertisement because he’s being attacked, not because he stands by the principles behind his vote. We think voters will notice that. Hancock also notes that it’s difficult to balance the city budget, but doesn’t describe how the pay-raise lent itself to that effort.
Romer’s campaign has also shown that it’s willing to go negative in this race. Unfortunately for Hancock, the pay-raise vote isn’t the only thing he’s going to have to defend.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
BY: harrydoby
IN: Weekend Open Thread
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: Weekend Open Thread
BY: MichaelBowman
IN: Weekend Open Thread
BY: Duke Cox
IN: Weekend Open Thread
BY: coloradosane
IN: Weekend Open Thread
BY: harrydoby
IN: Weekend Open Thread
BY: Duke Cox
IN: Weekend Open Thread
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: Weekend Open Thread
BY: MichaelBowman
IN: Weekend Open Thread
BY: coloradosane
IN: Weekend Open Thread
Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!
‘During that 1983 workshop before the Iowa Freedom Foundation, according to a contemporary press account, the precocious Frew listed five possible ways a candidate can respond to being attacked. If he’s smart, said Frew, the candidate will either attack the source, ignore the attack entirely or simply say, “Yes, I did it.” What the attackers hope for, however, is that the candidate will play right into their hands by saying either, “Yes, I did it, but it’s not what you think” or, in effect, plead no contest by saying, “I didn’t do it, but I won’t do it again.”‘
“Darkhorse” – Westword http://www.westword.com/1995-0…