Apr

Did the ad help or hurt?

Allow me to add a single thought to the post-election spin across the blogosphere (Fraley, Garvey, Charlie, Plaisted, Folkbum, Esenberg).

The Madison Capital Times editorial board believes they know why Justice Butler lost yesterday:

The fact that the first Wisconsin Supreme Court justice to be defeated in more than 40 years — and only the second incumbent justice to lose in the state’s history — was also the first African-American to sit on the court ought to give everyone pause….
So why did Butler lose? Those attack ads by the Gableman campaign distorted the incumbent’s record and flashed images of an African-American justice next to those of an African-American child molester. There was no subtlety to the Gableman campaign. It was explicitly racial in its messaging.

This is, I believe, not true. In fact, I would posit to you that the campaign’s ad cost them 1 to 2 percentage points yesterday. Neither of us can prove our theory, but here’s my argument:

The editorial boards ripped Gableman apart universally for running that ad, both when the ad went up and in their endorsements. There was significant negative news coverage of the ad itself, 34 judges and the DA endorsement drop. GWC and Butler’s campaign went up with ads highlighting the condemnation. The ad was railed upon in several debates between the two. Even conservatives were unenthusiastic about the ad, the only ad that Gableman’s campaign ran all race.

Contrary to the Capital Times’ assertion, I do not believe that the Gableman ad helped it by appealing to and winning over some huge number of racist Wisconsin voters who would not have supported Gableman otherwise. Rather, I believe it cost the campaign votes from moderate and independent voters who intended to vote and were turned off to Gableman by the negative news coverage in the wake of the the ad going up.

Last 5 posts by Daniel