Grim day for Tedisco campaign

The Jim Tedisco campaign scored a little coup yesterday when it won the endorsement of The Chronicle, a high-quality weekly newspaper in Glens Falls, where Democratic candidate Scott Murphy lives. But there's a sentence in that endorsement which nails what has gone so badly wrong with the Tedisco campaign. Chronicle Editor Mark Frost wrote: "When I sat down to interview Mr. Tedisco last Friday, frankly I expected him to be stupid, like many of the TV commercials that have run on his behalf." Frost discovered his error, and wound up writing a persuasive endorsement. But Tedisco and the Republican Party, from the NRCC on down, have only themselves to blame for Frost's initial perception, because they have run a stupid campaign seemingly based on the premise that voters are stupid.

The first Siena Research Institute poll of this race showed Tedisco up by 12 points. Then, on March 12, a Siena poll showed him up by four. Today, for the first time, Siena shows Murphy in the lead, by four points. Today's poll, like the March 12 one, proves in its crosstabs that Tedisco's commercials have been driving voters away, causing them to vote for Murphy. It has been clear to me since March 4  that the attack on Murphy for investing in India was a losing strategy, and it should have been clear to everyone by March 12. That day, Tedisco was quoted as criticizing the NRCC's negative ads and vowing to take control of his campaign. But the next day, when I pressed him on it, he declined to say explicitly that the NRCC should pull the negative ads, and even tried to defend the jobs-in-India line of attack. Tedisco isn't stupid but he is stubborn, and in this case it's hard to tell the difference. While most of the emphasis has gone elsewhere, the India theme has continued to resurface in the campaign. And unbelievably, the NRCC has continued to use the lame line at the end of its India ad, about how Murphy "just doesn't get it," as the tag line on its more recent attack ads (which are the only kind it's run). Do they really think the rubes of upstate New York do not groan like anyone else when a grating cliche like that is exhumed? Today, the NRCC released a video attacking Murphy on the death penalty. Have these guys had an idea about anything since 1932?

The Tedisco camp denies complicity in the successful legal effort to knock Libertarian Eric Sundwall off the ballot, but the objectors to the Sundwall petitions appeared to be ideological allies of Tedisco, prompting Sundwall today to endorse Murphy.

So after this string of disasters, is there any hope left for Tedisco? It wouldn't hurt if he stopped issuing statements that seem to be exercises in denial, and admitted where the campaign has gone wrong. The Siena poll does show areas where he should have a good chance to do better, i.e. among Republicans and in the northern part of the district (where Murphy is way ahead). Anti-abortion radio ads being run by the Right-to-Life Committee will likely help shore up the base, and it's not too late for Tedisco to stress some local issues that could be of particular benefit up north. Then, if he can keep it close, it will come down to turnout and each side's get-out-the vote operation. 

Comments

[ind_voter]

Mr. Sundwall, I strongly suggest you collect the money the Murphy people promised you before the election. If Murphy loses, chances are good you will never collect.

[Bob Conner]

TypePad
Hey ind voter, this comes pretty close to getting deleted, it being an unsubstantiated charge. But apart from that, do you really think insulting Sundwall is the best way for Tedisco supporters to appeal to Libertarian voters, or are you really a Murphy supporter in disguise? Anyway, this is an example of the negative politics that turns voters off.

[ind_voter]

this would actually be a good argument except you didn't think twice about publishing unsubstantiated allegations against Jim. Do you think it is OK that the media continue to support Sundwall and his supporters in their unproven accusations against Jim.

The conservative party does not listen to what Jim tedisco has to say, they make their own decisions. And yet, Jim continues to be pounded by Sundwall and Murphy supporters - not fair.

[Bob Conner]

TypePad
Well now you have leveled against me the unsubstantiated allegation that I have published unsubstantiated allegations against Jim. Can you actually cite any, or is this just more blather?

[ind_voter]

Bob, I wouldn't never insinuate that you proclaimed this, you are too good of a reporter. But, I am saying that you have allowed others to put forth those accusations, that I know to be false, on your blog. So why then are you protesting my accusation when I probably have more evidence of this they they do?

If my blog entry offends your ethics of reporting then by all means, delete it - no hard feelings. But, in my eyes, so too should the entries claiming that Jim had anything to do with Sundwall's petition challenges.