04.13.2018 04:21 PM

New Ontario Liberal ad: a Powerpoint presentation with a crappy voice-over

An effective attack ad shouldn’t merely repeat things voters already knew, and have already dismissed and discounted.

This is phoning it in. It isn’t going to change minds.

Oh, and the Ontario Liberals are reportedly paying their campaign “wizard” $70,000 a month for this.



12 Comments

  1. Terence Quinn says:

    You really do resent Hearle for what he and Martin did don’t you.

  2. Matt says:

    How long before we see an ad with the tag line:

    Doug Ford will put soldiers with guns…………on our streets…….in Ontario.

  3. Ronald O'Dowd says:

    Warren,

    Life’s too short. Remember that a higher power rendered judgment on the Martin led government. That wasn’t a coincidence. That power clearly did not like attempts at undermining Chrétien.

  4. Darren says:

    So I just played this ad on a computer with no speakers and therefore did not hear any audio, the way people will see this ad live in bars, restaurants, subways, storefronts, etc. (almost the only places where ads dont get skipped over by 75% of people because everything is pre-recorded by the time you watch it)

    If you didn’t already know what it was, you’d have no idea its an attack ad….

    $70,000/month well spent.

  5. Fred from BC says:

    Smacks of desperation, to me. His enemies will love it, his supporters will hate it and the undecided will mostly think it’s just mean-spirited and hyperbolic (not to mention very personally-motivated).

    People who stoop to this sort of thing also seek out the least-flattering pictures they can find (odd mouth position while pronouncing a word, half-closed eyelids while blinking, etc..) and selectively edit quotes as well. They have done exactly the same things to Gordon Campbell, Stephen Harper, Jean Chretien, Micheal Ignatieff and most recently Donald Trump. It’s a childish, vindictive and counter-productive tactic that really says more about the people who designed and issued it than it does about the intended target.

    Remember the New York Times triumphantly printing their two-page spread on Donald Trump’s various transgressions (real *and* imagined) right before the election, thinking that it would drive the final nail into his coffin? It’s like that.

    • Terence Quinn says:

      Only difference about the NYT and Trump’s victory is that he was dirtier than they could ever get. The race here is one to the bottom and who is the nastiest. The population never wins in these scenarios

      • Fred from BC says:

        Well, no…that’s the whole point: the NYT went too far. A hyper-partisan like yourself (based on your comments on this website) thinks that’s just fine, but your average person does not. Even people who don’t like Trump (myself included) can’t help but feel either sympathy for the man or anger at his attackers when they see obvious lies printed in an effort to destroy him.

        I know that every hardcore ‘progressive’ firmly believes that “the end justifies the means”, but it really doesn’t. That philosophy has been used by some of the worst tyrants in the world to excuse some of the worst atrocities ever committed, and thoughtful, rational people reject it outright.

  6. Steve T says:

    This is every NDP ad, in every province, and at the federal level, since at least 1990. And obviously the Liberals have decided to just photocopy it.

    I guess this is what you do when you have a limited campaign budget, and a gullible user base.

    People mock Trump supporters for buying into a simplistic message, but is this any different?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*