Still in the lead.

Brown is still in the lead against Whitman.

And although this whole time, I have been downtalking politics as a whole, and both recognizing the bad and good sides of each candidate, I can't say that I am mad about the fact that Brown is still taking it.

Whitman, just by hearing or seeing her ads on TV or radio, just initially rubbed me the wrong way. She was constantly in attack, she was the first one to play the blame game for a bumpy california history, and I didn't like that. I didn't want to know what kind of dirt she could find on her opponent, rather I wanted to know what would make me want to vote for her.

I know Brown also aired attack advertisements, but even his had a more visual influence on the way I saw Brown. Just the fact that his ads seemed to ridicule Whitman more recklessly, but a lot less than Whitman... thumbs up! He didn't spend so much of his time trying to rain on Whitman's parade. He let his experience do the talking.

I can't say that I am totally knowledgeable of each candidate, but I would not mind if Brown took this race.

Air time.

The time the ads air is a very crucial part of advertising, as it is in campaigning and fighting for votes. Because Brown and Whitman are truly fighting, I say this because of the politically aggressive tone in almost every advertisement.. Despite that, it's interesting to notice what times you usually see each candidate's campaign ads air. During the news, you can catch about an even number of Brown and Whitman, smart to convey their messages during that time frame because that's when they could catch the most viewers of their desired age group. Every middle-aged and older voter of California are most likely watching the news, both male and female. And in terms of gender, I noticed Whitman has more air time during shows such as the View and Dr Oz. And I was thinking, brilliant, I don't really think men are nearly as interested in that kind of content as much as women are! It's another advertising/campaigning tactic that Whitman takes the upper hand here. Now keep in mind that I am not for Meg Whitman, nor am I against her, however I have the TV turned on in the morning to these shows more so than other channels and I have noticed way more Whitman ads than Brown ads.

I'm sure if I were a male and I was tuned to CNN, maybe the stock market channel, other channels more geared to men, then I would expect to see more Brown advertisements than Whitman.

Being a female, tuning to Dr. Oz and the View, I would have assumed Whitman had the upper hand, based on how many advertisements I see in comparison.

It's all about the tone.

This week, I've noticed a few slight differences in attack ads by Whitman and Brown, but differences that matter, at least visually. Whitman has aired numerous attack ads against Brown from the very beginning of her campaigning. But recently, I can't say hers are as effective as the ads that Brown put through the media. Here's one:



It is dramatic. The letters are bold and big. Second, they are RED, implying danger, behind a watermark of Whitman's smiling face in the background. The music is intense and the voiceover is stern. And as I mentioned, Whitman is SMILING. That deserves to be emphasized. It's ridicules Whitman's claim/intent to do the best for the state when they assertively talk about all the wrong she's done, and slaps a smiling face on the TV screen.


And here we have this ad by Whitman attacking Brown:



The music is more light. The dialogue is more subtle and personal. This kind of attack ad in comparison to the one attacking Whitman doesn't resonate as an attack as well. It seems a little too bright. And I understand it's the personal-sense is supposed to bring a feeling to the audience that they can relate to Whitman, but I find it ridiculous. It sways the actual message meant to be conveyed, from seriously attacking Brown to a tranquil little ad. It doesn't seem as stern enough to convince. Assertion is key, bright and bubbly won't cut it.

Platitude Shmatitude.

Last week, I talked about how each of the gubernatorial candidates spent their air time attempting to rain on each other's parade.

This week, I couldn't help but notice all of the advertisements they put up to actually praise themselves. They were actually talking about themselves and their plans for the state! I FINALLY caught that! But that is when I realized, I'm starting to appreciate them bashing each other instead. To be completely honest, I don't usually follow up on politics, whether it's for the state or the nation. I know I probably should, and I couldn't really explain why until I started paying attention to Whitman and Brown. Politicians, of all elections, use platitudes and I can't stand that.

What do you hear Whitman say? I promise more jobs, better living, and better education.

That's cool.

Then what do you hear Brown say? I promise more jobs,... better living, and... better education?

Well wait a second, didn't I just hear that?


It's hard to give an opinion on cliche empty promises that politicians have no choice but to reiterate time and time again, simply because, well, they are politicians. There's nothing else they can really promise but the world. However, as an analysis? Neither of them are really setting out a successful message with the constant delivery of platitudes. At least not for me.

Whitman in Attack

Watching the news this morning for the whole 8am hour, I counted how many advertisements from Whitman and Brown came on TV. For every 1 advertisement funded by Brown's campaign, I saw 3 advertisements from Whitman. They were advertisements blatantly attacking Brown such as this one (that was just recently retracted from the media):

Whitman is (or was...) using Clinton's image, credibility, and familiarity to put a damper on Brown's vote count. This is smart... she is taking a man well-known to California, let alone the rest of the United States, and using his opinion to drive voters in her direction. SMART.

Initially I was thinking, this woman is nuts for spending 119 million of her own money just to convey a message against her opponent rather than praising herself. Isn't that arrogant? Isn't that just wasteful? And distasteful too? Then I thought, wait a second... that's 119 million of her OWN money, money in which she is not going to get reimbursed for by the government after all the campaigning is said and done. This isn't an arrogant tactic done with wasteful distaste. As a matter of fact, this is just a tactic, simple as that. An expensive tactic, yes. However, it is her own money, and is probably chump change for the woman.

And so what if this advertisement was retracted? Was it a complete waste of money, for whatever portion of that 119 million she spent on it? No. It aired for crying out loud. For all the times this ad was viewed on the morning news, or primetime television, or all over Youtube and Yahoo News, the message at hand was delivered by a credible man important to the US. Thus, it is absolutely inevitable that it provoked thought in any audience of the kind of man Brown was or was not to the place he took responsibility for. Who knows if it swayed a vote from here to there, Whitman is on a shameless roll for attacking Brown, on an hourly 3 to 1 ratio this fine morning.

And at this point, Brown's commercials have yet to resonate with me this week.