Oregon candidates for governor: Ads by Democrats.

TV ads don't tell us what candidates believe.

TV ads tell us how candidates hope to position themselves.

We get impressions from TV ads. There is nothing in a four-second statement saying, for example, "We need to fix the problem of homelessness" that tells us what an officeholder would do--if anything. It is political babble. No one will remember the comment because there is nothing to remember. A TV ad like this, however, would draw attention:

On the day I take office I will direct the state police to remove every tent and RV on public property in Oregon within ten days, using bulldozers if necessary. We will reclaim our sidewalks and parks. Some of the people we move out will finally go into treatment.  Good. We have treatment facilities available. Some will just complain and leave the state. Bye. We have indulged them too long.

 A Democratic candidate wouldn't run that ad, but it would get noticed. Many people would complain that it is too harsh, that living under tarps in parks is a human right, that people are too addled by drugs to move. There would be an uproar. People would remember the ad and the uproar.

Trump did something equivalent to this when he announced his campaign: "They don't send their best. They bring drugs. . . ." 

The ads of leading Democratic candidates for governor are inoffensive. They say mushy, anodyne things. If they have any impact at all it will be with the lingering impression they leave.

The intended message of Tobias Read's ad is that he is discontented with the status quo. He supports "real change" and Oregon can "do better," the narrator says. 

The ad is illustrated with sweet photos of Read looking casual and relaxed. There is typical Democratic narrative about community. Read supports lifting up Oregon families, whatever that means. He supports affordable child care, and universal pre-K. Nice. Read suggests he will clean up the homeless encampment problem because "we help the homeless get into stable housing" as if doing that were easy, or even possible. The ad essentially has no content beyond the fleeting impression that Read is an easy-going guy who favors change and the nice things Democrats wish we could afford. It is pie-in-the-sky, but it is change. Or would be, if pie were free.

The Tina Kotek ad leaves a different impression. She isn’t taking my unsolicited advice. I had suggested to her that she position herself as a change agent. Instead, her ad proudly takes credit for Oregon government. "Just look at what she's done as Speaker of the House," the voice-over says. The ad says those good, progressive things are because she is so tough and effective. Kotek says to the camera, "It's one thing to talk about the problems. It's another to make the tough calls to actually get things done."

I had shared my opinion with Kotek that casual voters might conflate Kotek and the current governor, Kate Brown. They are both Portland women in late middle age, neither are heterosexual, and both are unabashedly progressive. They have about the same policy positions, as far as any voter knows. Kotek's ad has a progressive feminist vibe, with women making straight-to-the-camera endorsements. It leaves an implication and impression of women in leadership: “If you like Kate Brown, you will love Tina Kotek.” 

Am I trivializing these ads? I suspect the two campaigns would think so. After all, I am saying the denoted content of the ads flies by unnoticed. But each ad leaves an impression. For better or worse, here is what sticks:

Tobias Read: Nice easy-going guy, says he will change things. No real answers.

Tina Kotek: Another feminist from Portland with a progressive agenda. Same as now, but more and tougher. 

[Note: I have contributed approximately similar amounts to both campaigns.]