New TV Ads
Well folks, we now have TV ads from both Matt Lohr and Lowell Fulk.
I am told by my family that Matt Lohr's ads talk about him being a sunday school teacher, local farmer and being opposed to tax increases. I hope to get a copy of that ad soon.
It sounds like a good ad, and should prove to be a good ad for him. It gives him name recognition and does a good job of pointing out his advantages.
Fulk's ad (which is linked in the last post) is both a name recognition and an attack ad.
He first tells how he is a farmer and how he helped save the Hinton poultry plant, then he goes on attack Matt Lohr for his absenteeism on the school board and planning commission, and also how Matt "raised his own pay". It ends with, "Matt Lohr is for more pay for less work".
My question is whether there will be backlash on Fulk for running an attack ad. My guess is it won't. I also question whether his attacks will reasonate with people. My guess again is that it will not.
I believe Lowell Fulk must run negative ads against Lohr if he has any chance of winning. At the same time, I don't think these negatives (or any of the ones Republitarian and others have pointed out) will make people vote in droves against Matt.
I still continue to believe Matt Lohr will win this race, but I still am not sure what the margin will be.
I am told by my family that Matt Lohr's ads talk about him being a sunday school teacher, local farmer and being opposed to tax increases. I hope to get a copy of that ad soon.
It sounds like a good ad, and should prove to be a good ad for him. It gives him name recognition and does a good job of pointing out his advantages.
Fulk's ad (which is linked in the last post) is both a name recognition and an attack ad.
He first tells how he is a farmer and how he helped save the Hinton poultry plant, then he goes on attack Matt Lohr for his absenteeism on the school board and planning commission, and also how Matt "raised his own pay". It ends with, "Matt Lohr is for more pay for less work".
My question is whether there will be backlash on Fulk for running an attack ad. My guess is it won't. I also question whether his attacks will reasonate with people. My guess again is that it will not.
I believe Lowell Fulk must run negative ads against Lohr if he has any chance of winning. At the same time, I don't think these negatives (or any of the ones Republitarian and others have pointed out) will make people vote in droves against Matt.
I still continue to believe Matt Lohr will win this race, but I still am not sure what the margin will be.
posted by GOPHokie @ 10:25 PM
9 Comments:
At 9/28/2005 4:55 AM,
Anonymous said…
I agree there won't be a backlash for it. It is really up to Lohr to respond. For instance,do we know what Fulk's absentee rate was on the school board? Did he exagerate his claim about saving that plant? I don't know the answer to this stuff, I'm just asking.
One thing is that the Valley is NOT used to this level of professionalism in ads or level of money in campaigns. If you ran that ad in NOVA or Loudon, nobody would even notice it. Here it will be a big deal [for better or worse] because nobody is accustomed to this level of campaigning.
At 9/28/2005 10:49 AM,
Anonymous said…
The DNR credited Fulk with being a major player in the drive to save the plant. I am not aware that Fulk missed any Board meetings, certainly not a signficant number.
Hokie, I think you underestimate the voters in this area. Don Litten, a longtime Republican who has been activelty involved in the party for years just wrote a letter to the editor supporting Fulk. Fulk doesn't have to turn the partisans who vote by party alone to win, he just needs to peel off those who are open to voting to a Democrat. When people like Don Litten support Fulk, you will see alot of other business persons and professionals support him. This combine with those who will be swayed by the negatives should prove enough to squeek out victory.
At 9/28/2005 12:14 PM,
GOPHokie said…
My point is, I don't think these negatives will be enough to convince usual Republican voters to change.
The worst thing for Matt would be the fact that he gave money to Fulk.
That would probably cost him more votes than anything.
At 9/28/2005 6:49 PM,
Anonymous said…
Litton's an over the hill windbag. If I didn't have a reason to vote for Lohr, I do now!!!
At 9/29/2005 6:46 AM,
Anonymous said…
Over-the-hill windbags help make this country great!
At 9/29/2005 8:48 AM,
GOPHokie said…
So is Lowell Fulk in that group as well?
At 9/29/2005 3:39 PM,
Anonymous said…
Oh, yeah...for certain.
At 9/29/2005 4:07 PM,
GOPHokie said…
Is he the over-the-hill windbag, or help make this country great?
Sorry for not qualifying my statement.
At 9/29/2005 5:48 PM,
Anonymous said…
I don't think Lowell is over-the-hill or a windbag, though he does go on and on sometimes about public policy. He's wonkish, not windbaggy. Now Matt -- he uses many words to say very little. Is that windbaggy? He's certainly not over-the-hill.
I do think Lowell helps make this country great. So does Matt. So do you. So do I.
I have no idea if Don Litten is an over-the-hill windbag or not. I do think he's right about Matt and Lowell.
The anonymous poster who brought up over-the-hill windbags? Hard to tell if he/she helps make America great or just sits around name-calling.
The thing that will cost Matt the most votes is that he's not Lowell Fulk, that he's plain and simple the weaker candidate.
Post a Comment
<< Home