Perdue Ad: Bringing Common Sense to Washington

Republican Senate candidate David Perdue is out with his first ad of the general election. The first half talks about Michelle Nunn, while the second talks about what Perdue hopes to do.

The script:

In her campaign plan, Michelle Nunn admits she’s too liberal, and her foundation gave money to organizations linked to terrorists. So Nunn needed to fool Georgians to win. She attacked David Perdue with ads that independent fact checkers called mostly false and a stretch.

David Perdue spent his career creating thousands of jobs. Perdue will grow this economy and bring common sense to Washington.

7 comments

    • dsean says:

      Yes. I’d expect this type of ad when a candidate is up, but not significantly up over the 50% threshold to avoid a runoff.

      As for skewed polls, that usually implies a disagreement with the likely voter screen. In the Perdue +6% poll, it looks like they’ve used a relatively even party split with slight independent bias (608D, 611R, 631I). My guess is that will overstate Democrat turnout, but certainly doesn’t seem unreasonable (that would be a better turnout for the Democrats than 2010).

  1. Three Jack says:

    Just as Nunn continues to falsely use the Pillowtex story, Perdue now runs with the discredited accusation about her organization donating to Hamas – http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2014/aug/08/ending-spending-action-fund/attack-ad-misfires-nonprofits-connection-terrorism/ – rated ‘Mostly False’ by Politifact.

    2 months out from the election and neither candidate has offered anything of substance that would encourage support from reform minded voters. Instead they both continue to lie about the other candidate despite knowing their accusations are blatantly false. I guess we will be left to decide if we want the gal who says she will work ‘across the aisle’ or the guy who claims he will bring ‘common sense’ to DC. Really original folks!

    • NoTeabagging says:

      This the basic campaign strategy for all candidates repeated for many, annoying years. Sure, it’s billable expenses for political consultants, but it an insulting annoyance to anyone channel surfing at the wrong time. I find many more friends and co workers claiming they don’t watch tv much. Who sees this dreck? And do negative ads really make a positive difference on voting day?
      Like you, I’m still waiting for substance, year after year. Lame tag lines just aren’t enough.

    • Will Durant says:

      Really bold to bring up the contributions to terrorists thing that Politifact found mostly false on the first slide, then cite Politifact on the next slide that they found points in her attack ads mostly false.

  2. seenbetrdayz says:

    Watching that makes me fairly glad I didn’t donate to the Perdue campaign last week. I’d consider that a waste of money, but then again, never underestimate the electoral power of the voter who steadfastly believes the first thing he sees/hears.

    The good news is, with as many political candidates across the nation promising to ‘grow the economy,’ well, this might be the year folks, this might be the year!

Comments are closed.