LG Ad Spending

As of today, the LG ad campaigns have all begun. We also pretty much know how much each plans to spend on TV ads. Here's the breakdown, in order of magnitude:

1. Deb Goldberg: well, we actually do not know exactly how much she plans to spend on TV advertising, because I believe her campaign has not said so. However, given that at the end of July she had 1.9+ million on hand, we can guess that she will spend approximately $2 million on ads, give or take a couple of hundred thousand.

2. Andrea Silbert: $530,000. According to a press release received today from the Silbert campaign, they

will air two new television ads today. The ads, which are Silbert's first of the campaign and were created by noted media specialist Tad Devine, are entitled "Andrea Silbert: The Jobs Candidate," and "14,000 Jobs." They will air today and take a hiatus for the Labor Day holiday. They will return to the airwaves on Tuesday, September 5^th through the September 19^th primary. The ads are part of an approximately $530,000 media buy designed to ensure that Silbert's message reaches Democratic and unenrolled primary voters.

3. Tim Murray: $400,000

According to an article in today's T&G,

So the mayor’s campaign, which had $391,234 in the bank at the end of the most recent reporting period, Aug. 16, was able to plunk down about $400,000 for “media” for a longer run than the mayor’s advisers had anticipated. Besides the network booking fees, the campaign paid Mr. Patton-Spruill, the director, about $20,000.

After incurring those costs plus other fees for the services of media buyer Tobe Berkovitz, a Boston University professor, the campaign has only about $80,000 left, Mr. Ferson said.

Another interesting piece from the article:

In one of the two versions of the ad, a group of elementary school pupils behind a beaming Mr. Murray chant: “Hurry, hurry, vote for Murray.”

In the other version, the candidate declares: “I’m in a hurry to get Massachusetts working again. I hope you’ll give me the chance.”

Hoss Analysis: remember that with all of these amounts, a portion goes to the consultants, so each of their amounts that is actually spent on tv ads is less than the total amount put out there.

That said, this is overall an impressive bunch of media buys for a downballot race, particularly Silbert's buy and, to a lesser extent, Murray's.

Regarding Silbert, the following are especially impressive:

A) Her ability to spend more money on TV than either 2002 LG candidates Pines or Slattery, even though they were both much more established politicians at the time. She's also buying more time than any of the Treasurer candidates did in 2002. Again, impressive, given that that group had both established politicians (Cahill, Cahill and Murphy) and a guy that was an ultimate insider and kicked in 100K+ of his own dough (Segel).

B) Her ability to have conserved enough resources to be able to spend this much.

Regarding Murray, it's impressive that he's been able to pull together a larger media buy than Pines or Slattery, but it's surprising overall that he didn't raise more given his position as an elected official. I know he's allegedly putting together a field operation, but as I've said constantly, I'll believe it when I see it. I also know that some say "he got into the race late." Baloney. He's known he was running for years, and for him not to have stocked up more funds prior to getting in the race was foolish. Or, if it was not foolish, then his failure to raise more since he did get in isn't impressive - and yes, I know he's "raised more since he got in than anyone else."

Also, it appears that Murray's people have bought into the "remember a rhyme" school of political ads a la Tim Cahill. But "Hurry Hurry Vote for Murray"? Uhhh...

Lastly, I'll say this: usually the candidate that accumulates and spends the most wins. In this race, Deb Goldberg's inherited wealth positions her as the leading candidate to do that now. However, given that she has not gotten a ton of attention, and given that her ads are not particularly memorable, she is less of a favorite than she could have been. Silbert and Murray are still in this thing, and as we all know in politics, anything can happen.

Andrea Silbert: A Voice for the Middle Class

Eileen McNamara has a column in today's Globe that better sums up why Andrea Silbert is the best candidate for Lieutenant Governor than anything I or any other junior varsity blogger could.

Key paragraphs include:

In the last decade, she says, the center's training and fund-raising efforts have helped 10,000 people, most with low incomes and limited education, launch small businesses in more than 200 communities in Massachusetts and Rhode Island. What began as a center in Roxbury has expanded to include state-subsidized centers in Worcester and Providence. It is little wonder, then, that economic development is the centerpiece of Silbert's pitch, a mix of results-oriented pragmatism and socially conscious idealism. Expanding commuter rail is not just environmentally responsible, she argues, it is a practical response to housing costs and traffic gridlock. Ending homelessness is not just a moral imperative, it is an economic investment. Preserving open space is not just aesthetically pleasing, it is a key to asset management.

``We can't leave politics to the rich and to professional politicians," Silbert says of Goldberg, heir to the Stop & Shop fortune, and Murray, the 37-year-old three-term mayor in Worcester. ``I have the political skills to identify a problem and to raise money from the public and private sectors to fix it. We have had to overcome more than one veto in the last few years at the center, but we have done it. I want to take what we have learned and apply it statewide."

It is her biography, as much as her resume, that Silbert hopes will connect with ordinary voters. She lives on Cape Cod not just because it is beautiful but also because she and her husband, a self-employed graphic designer and artist, could not afford housing prices closer to Boston. They buy their own health insurance, a solution that costs too much and provides too little coverage. Their children will go to public schools. ``We are living the life of so many middle-class families in Massachusetts," she says. ``We ought to have a voice at the State House."

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Thoughts on WBUR LG Story

So I finally was able to listen to the WBUR story on the LG race and it was pretty good.

Two things struck me: first, calling Tim the "frontrunner" was an inaccuracy, but an understandable perception from the reporter.

Second, I'd like to put this out there: Andrea Silbert has more endorsements than any other candidate: the 10,000 people she and her team helped while she was at the Center for Women and Enterprise.

I know that sounds like a stretch, but when, as Prof. Berry said in the BUR story, you're talking about "name recognition", I contend that come primary day, those 10,000 people are going to play an important role in a Silbert victory because when they begin to focus on the race in the closing days, they'll be part of the viral marketing/buzz building that helps the Silibert campaign get over the hump.

LG Poll Analysis

Couple quick thoughts on the Suffolk poll showing Murray with 11%, Goldberg with 6% and Silbert with 5%.

First, this poll means nothing, nada, zip, zilch, zero. We would know just as much about the state of the race today as we did before the poll came out.

Second, let's look at history: where was the LG race and Treasurer's race in 2002?

On August 29th, a Suffolk poll comes out with the following numbers:

LG:

Gabrieli - 30%
Slattery - 23%
Pines - 16%

That's sort of relevant, but the Treasurer's numbers are more relevant because none of them had advertised at the time of the poll:

Steve Murphy - 17%
Mike Cahill - 14%
Jim Segel - 12%
Tim Cahill - 11%

Who won? Tim Cahill. Murphy? Came in 3rd.

So to those Murray folks getting their hopes up, go for it, your hopes are as likely to come to true as not.

LG July Money

Well, it was an interesting month on the LG money front.

Tim Murray's people fudged his June numbers;
Deb Goldberg fudged her fundraising numbers;
Deb Goldberg threw in another million for the heckuvit; and
Andrea Silbert continued to lead the non-self-funding money race.

As anyone who has been around this state knows, it takes a significant ad presence on the airwaves to win a downballot primary. Deb Goldberg has positioned herself well to take that victory home with her to Brookline. It's not guaranteed, but any objective observer would have to say that at this point, her largesse gives her the upper hand as we head into "ad" season.

That said, unlike in 2002 when Chris Gabrieli spent nearly $2 million on ads and faced an ad campaign of $270K from Lois Pines and $165K from John Slattery, the ad presence of the well-heeled candidate's opponents will be significantly greater than that year where the order of finish was:

Gabrieli- 306,043 (46%)
Pines- 205,208 (31%)
Slattery- 150,313 (25%)

What do people think the results will look like this year when Goldberg spends $2 (or 3 or 4) million on TV, Silbert spends $600K and Murray spends $400K? With $1 million in non-Goldberg ads and 2, 3 or 4 million in Goldberg ads, it would seem there is a better chance for an "upset" this year than in previous years. Plus, with turnout supposedly down this year (continuing the trend in primaries), who does that help? Murray with his field operation? Silbert with the clearest message? Deb with most money?

Finally, last month I wondered why Murray fudged his June tally and whether he was holding checks. This month's performance shows that he was not. This month's spending also shows that the Murray campaign is not stockpiling money like it should be. A very rought look at the 2006 numbers indicate that Murray has raised 500K his year, spent 320K, and is up 170K from his Feb. 1 number. Silbert has raised 440K, spent 215K and is up 155K from her Feb. 1 number. Murray has spent more than 60% of what he's taken in this year, whereas Silbert has spent just under half. Granted, some of that may be going into a field operation, but will that pay off? Perhaps, but Silbert's and Goldberg's field effort will not be significantly less than Murray's given the vacuum created by the governor's race. Maybe I'll be proven wrong this time around, both on the impact of a ground game and the importance of winning the ad war.

As you stew over all that, here are the numbers.

1. Deb Goldberg

Starting Balance: $1,057,124.84
Receipts: $1,023,417.34
Expenditures: $98,199.63
Ending Balance: $1,982,342.55

2. Andrea Silbert

Starting Balance: $475.517.32
Receipts: $68,851.00
Expenditures: $19,040.25
Ending Balance: $525,328.07

3. Tim Murray

Starting Balance: $386,166.26
Receipts: $61,743.95
Expenditures: $52,013.16
Ending Balance: $395,897.04

Netroots Rise Up: Donate to Silbert & Counter Deb's Millions

Well, it appears that Deb Goldberg has given herself another million dollars

If you are a fan of Andrea Silbert's (as I know many of you are) and you haven't donated to her campaign yet, NOW IS THE TIME TO ACT. Please donate here.

Andrea is a fabulous candidate and, absent Deb's millions, would be in a great position to win as she'd be able to spend more on TV than any downballot candidate since 1998, except for Gabrieli. More than Cahill or Segel in 02, more than Pines or Slattery in 02. Make no mistake: Andrea has done something that no candidate has ever done before in a downballot campaign. BUT SHE NEEDS OUR SUPPORT NOW MORE THAN EVER TO PUT HER OVER THE TOP.

If each of us donates something, it will make a difference. I'm starting with $100, and if each of us do that, it will make a huge difference. If each of us gave $200, I can't even tell you how much of an impact it would have.

You know, there's really no "netroots" candidate out there other than Deval. But there can be, and now is the time.

Please join me and donate to Andrea's campaign here.