Attack ads work. This is the point many of you here at RMG hammered home when the RGA released $2 million of attack ads on Tim Cahill. And, to give credit where credit is due, you were (at least for the short term) right: Cahill’s numbers have dropped significantly.
Today the Boston Herald is reporting that the DGA is preparing its own attack ads directed at Charle Baker:
But Patrick – who has called for Republicans to halt all attack ads – may soon be bolstered by a counter-offensive on his behalf, as the Democratic Governors Association yesterday vowed to come out swinging for him.
“We’re gonna be spending a lot of money in Massachusetts,” Nathan Daschle, of the Democratic Governors Association, said yesterday. “It’s one of our target races. You will see us in your state.”
Daschle said the DGA plans to spend $50 million, up from $18 million in 2006, to bolster Patrick. Patrick has held a healthy lead in the polls but has fallen short of his fund-raising goals in recent months. Of the failure to launch an immediate response to the RGA ad, Daschle said, “Baker has not emerged as the threat we thought he could be.”
$50 million?? (Is that a misprint?)
According to the most recent poll released by the Boston Globe, Charlie Baker is still unknown or viewed unfavorably by a majority of Massachusetts voters. So, how do the DGA ads not have the same impact on Baker that they did on Cahill (especially if the amount spent is significantly greater)?
And what do you make of the DGA stating that “Baker has not emerged as the threat we thought he could be”? Isn’t it ironic that – to this point – the RGA considers Cahill a bigger threat than the DGA does Baker?