This one is too good. Roger Wicker is now up with radio ads featuring black voters who say they will vote for Obama and Wicker. Here’s a partial transcript:
“I’m supporting Barack Obama for president and Roger Wicker for US Senate,” an African-American woman says in the ad. “In the debate. [Musgrove] wouldn’t even say Barack Obama’s name. He’s disrespecting us and taking our vote for granted,” she says.
Another African American says of Wicker: “He represents us and he doesn’t take our vote for granted. He’s asking for our vote. Ronnie Musgrove refuses to say he supports Barack Obama.
This is astonishing, and it says a great deal about the state of the race, at least in the Wicker campaign’s eyes. Wicker sees the same numbers we do. The latest R2K poll had Musgrove winning a quarter of the white vote, and on pace to win 94 percent of the black vote if undecideds break like decided voters. He knows he can’t win if that happens, especially with high black turnout.
With Musgrove garnering 23-to-26 percent of the white vote all year (at least according to R2K), maybe Wicker figured that chipping away five percent of the black vote was more doable considering Musgrove’s white base has held. So, he is trying to anger black voters by arguing that Musgrove has distanced himself from Obama (even though Musgrove has said he will vote for Obama, and Wicker has bashed him!).
Still, it’s amazing that in Mississippi the GOP candidate is trying to latch onto Obama. Wicker knows that if R2K’s numbers (and assuredly others) are right, Musgrove is currently poised to win.
What do you guys think? Bold move by Wicker and likely to win him more black support, or pure desperation that African American voters will see through?
In his second run against John Street for mayor of Philly in 2003, Sam Katz ran an ad featuring a black woman who said something like “the brother I’m voting for is Sam Katz.” (Katz is white and Street is black)
It’s the kind of ad that I suspect reflects seriously bad numbers for Wicker. Still, it’s a well done spot IMO.
Haven’t seen them around.
In 2000, W won MS comfortably (57%-41%) by taking 82% of the white vote and 9% of the black vote. Since then, MS has gotten a bit more black in its population (now a national high 37%) and Wicker is running behind in both the white vote (74% vs. 82%) and the black vote (6% vs. 9%). That’s a losing hand for Wicker.
Fortunately, Wicker may be entering an “Iron City Beer” connundrum. Iron City was the cheap local beer in Pittsburgh. It decided to help marketing to local blacks back in the Steelers’ Iron Curtain heyday by running ads featuring black Steelers. Iron City lost market share in the local white community. Then it pulled the ad and replaced it with one featuring white Steelers. Iron City lost market share in the black community and now everubody was pissed after another round of this, the company and its brand was endangered. Go another round Wicker. Drag them both down.
On the one hand, Wicker is at five percent of the black vote, and has actually been falling in the last few months (if the R2K cross-tabs are any indication). He claimed early on that he was working to make inroads in the state’s black communities, and whether or not that was true, it clearly has not worked. With 12 days left, it is probably too late.
On the other hand, I give Wicker credit for being so ballsy. He isn’t trying to woo black voters so much as turn some off to Musgrove. Naturally, he does not mention that Musgrove has said he will vote for Obama, while Wicker has bashed Obama. The whole key for him is just trying to turn off five percent, which would be enough for him to squeeze in. That being said, I would be SHOCKED if he ever put this ad on television.