California Candidates (Collection of TV Ads)

Nov. 2 is just around the corner, less than a week away, and I am sick of it. Aren’t you? 

As a Public Relations major, I see the strategy behind television ads – to get more supporters and get your point across since the First Amendment clearly states you have freedom of speech. But for some reason, 2010 seems to have brought on more negative, vicious ads than any other year.

And I have to ask: why?

Is it because politicians feel that they need to expose the ‘wrong-doings’ of other candidates and tell the viewer, ‘See, he/she is the one that created this economic mess. He/she is the one that left the state with no jobs or money’?

It could also be just a way to get more support. Politicians may think viewers want to see this drama, this sort of attack, this kind of harshness; they may believe these are going to work and persuade people’s choices.

But a newly released Associated Press GfK Poll reports that in the most expensive midterm election in United States history, not even months of constant campaigning have been able to satisfy one-third of the American electorate. These undecided individuals have not fully committed to voting for one candidate – there is still the chance they will change their minds when it comes to Election Day. 

What happened to the politics behind elections? Has our society, our government, gotten to the point where candidates feed off each other to expose the ‘worst’ in people just to get ahead in the race? Sadly, it may be true. 

This past summer I was out of the country studying in Madrid, Spain. It was a nice cultural change – even though their government has a lot of problems, no government is perfect. When I returned to the states, I was unaware of California’s new congressional candidates personalities; once August and September rolled around, I was in for quite a surprise. 

I did have some knowledge of who-was-who and what they were running for, but I didn’t know the new methods of trying to get the vote. The candidates are really trying anything to get the vote--that much is obvious.

Let’s see a few of my “favorite” ads.

In the race for Senate, we have Republican candidate Carly Fiornia and Democratic candidate Sen. Barbara Boxer. Both women have been attacking each other harshly – neither is letting one single thing pass by.

Many people now know that as the former CEO for Hewlett-Packard, Carly Fiorina cut 30,000 jobs and, through complaints made by the laid-off workers,  shipped many of those jobs to China and India. 

In a newly released ad by Boxer’s campaign, former Hewlett-Packard employees bash Fiorina and gives “voters a chance to hear about that record from people who experienced it first hand,” said the Boxer campaign managers Rose Kapolcyznski in a statement.  

“Carly Fiorina says she is proud to run on her record at Hewlett-Packard, and this ad gives voters a chance to hear about that record from people who experienced it first hand,” said Boxer campaign manager Rose Kapolczynski in a statement.

The ad is named “Workers,” and it features three former employees. 

In backlash, Fiorina released an ad titled “Sir,” that points out when Boxer corrected an Army General for calling her ‘Ma’am’ instead of ‘Senator.’

“Twenty-eight years in Washington and Barbara Boxer works hard for a title? I’ll really go to work. To end the arrogance in Washington,” said Fiorina in the ad.  

What's wrong with these two? Boxer needs to calm down, as we have been constantly reminded of what Fiorina did at HP. Do we still have to keep hearing it in between every single television program? Isn’t seeing it on the nightly news enough? 

And then there is the gubernatorial race between Democratic candidate Jerry Brown and Republican candidate Meg Whitman. These ads get nastier each time a new one is released. This campaign is like a bloodbath. 

The one on top of my list is actually one released by Brown. The ad is named “Echo" and it compares Whitman to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. The message of the ad is: “If you think Arnold Schwarzenegger deserves a third term, vote for Meg Whitman.”

Echo runs over a minute – a bit excessive for a TV ad. It is a low blow from Brown. No one needs to be compared to Arnold. Every Politician has his/her own plan and getting footage from previous speeches and saying it was the same thing is not fair. Someone can probably do the same to Brown, and most likely he won’t like it. But with the way things are going today, he would probably just release a new ad. [Side note: I am not siding with Whitman.]

And lastly, Whitman has spent over $140 million on campaigning. That money could be used for many other things, like, I don’t know, towards fixing California’s state budget?

Whitman released an ad earlier in the year that still plays in my head, one of her first “Anti-Brown” ads. The segment, which is about a minute long, points out Browns position towards the death penalty and a debate he had with President Bill Clinton when they were head-to-head for the democratic candidate seat. 

At one point, the segment shows Clinton saying Brown, “reinvents himself every year or two.” 

At this year’s Women’s Conference held at the Long Beach Arena on Tuesday, NBC host Matt Lauer moderated the event and asked Brown and Whitman, “Would either of you or both of you be willing to make a pledge that you would end the negativity?” 

Dem. Jerry Brown said he would take the pledge to do so, but Rep. Meg Whitman only promised to end the personal attacks, not the ads about Brown’s political record.

Instantly, the crowd booed Whitman, and I don’t blame them. 

"The character attacks, the attacks of personal destruction, the attacks on one's character, I think are very different than a debate on the issues," Whitman said at the conference. "What I have found very challenging is the personal attacks. The things that I have been called in this campaign, it's not fair to the voters of California, it isn't polite to me."

To Mrs. Whitman, and all of the candidates running in this election--it isn’t fair for Californians, or anyone in general, to constantly see these attacks. Through many studies, it has been noted that the media does affect the viewer. Well, this has an effect. What are you telling young viewers? That it is okay to bully and be mean to others? Isn’t that the first thing you are taught in pre-school and at home not to do? I know it was for me.

The congressional elections of 2010 have disappointed me. I am not a fan of politics at all, but I was looking forward to hear what these candidates had to offer. I wanted a good old-fashion political race – whatever that is, I don’t think I know anymore. 

I really cannot wait for Nov. 2 to come around. It is less than a week away and it feels like an eternity. 

And when it comes to other TV ads concerning propositions and other chairs for the state, that's a whole other story.

Once elections are over and the hype of the race has calmed down, I will finally get to work-out in piece: watching the news and not dreading the commercial breaks. 

To reach Associated Editor Cynthia Balderas, click here. Follow her on Twitter @CVBalderas. 

Sign up for Neon Tommy's weekly e-mail newsletter.