I’ve been staying out of this up until now, but... can you be THAT clueless about McCaskill’s ads?? Do you understand nothing about psychology and how it relates to political persuasion?
Being close to MO, all those *** McCaskill ads were on, here, 24/7. I don’t have to review them, I saw them probably hundreds of times. (I almost think there were more of them toward the end than the candidates own ads, with the possible exception of the Palin for Steelman ad.)
At first, being busy, I didn’t pay close attention, and the McCaskill ads “against” Akin just seemed odd. Why would McCaskill point out Akin’s “Pro Family Agenda”? Wouldn’t that be a positive in a Republican primary in Missouri? That and other phrases certainly appealed to ME as a conservative. Not really having a dog in the 3-way primary fight, though, any of the 3 (Akin, Steelman, or Brunner) were acceptable to me, as long as they could beat McCaskill.
Later, it seemed to me that Brunner was the most independent, that is, the least of a politician, of the trio. So I liked him, but he also worried me, as such candidates tend to make more political mistakes. “Tend”.
Then one night when I wasn’t busy working or engaged with my family, I found myself watching the McCaskill ads more carefully, and the purpose of the “anti-Akin” ads became VERY clear: To drive conservatives toward Akin, while at the same time setting up “the middle” for further attacks in the general election of “He’s too conservative for Missouri”. McCaskill’s ads against Steelman and Brunner did not seem to employ this sort of double intent. “Hmmm... she must think Akin is the easiest to beat. Being closer, she probably knows a lot about him that I don’t.”
Later I had my (quite conservative Catholic) wife watch one of the “anti-Akin” commercials closely too. She watched, and said, puzzled, “why does his opponent attack him and then say good things about him in the next sentence?” I said to her “Look at the small print at the end, hon’ - this is a McCaskill ad.” You could just see the light bulb come on: “Ohhhhh...”
There may have even been a triple intent of the entire McCaskill ad campaign: Having watched the whole thing play out, I’m of the opinion that McCaskill’s ads may have “nastied up” this primary beyond what would have occurred otherwise.
This was going on while the candidates legitimate ads were all trying to outdo each other in claiming the conservative ground / vote. It was not hard to see, and the candidates certainly did, that “the middle” was a relative non-factor in this Republican primary. The general election, of course, will be a different story.
In summary, McCaskill’s ads were hardly Machavellian; it’s really quite simple: McCaskill did what she could with her ads to push votes to the weakest candidate she could run against, and away from Brunner and Steelman. I’d be willing to bet a Chic-fil-a sandwich that exit polling of Akin voters would show large numbers voted for him at least in part because “he seemed the most conservative”. Aided in their impression by Claire McCaskill.
Being the most conservative or as she said "Todd Akin is a true conservative, too conservative for Missouri" is not considered a compliment by liberals. Perhaps she believes, like most liberals, that social conservatives are the easiest to beat. Her ads went out to everyone conservatives and liberals alike. The fact that she put out ads on all three indicates to me that she was covering her bases for the general election. I just think it is a bit of a stretch that she had a strategy that would drive voters towards Akin because he was the most conservative. Akin received 36% of the vote and the other two 29% each. It was pretty well split between all three candidates.
I looked at the ads and didn't see too many good things being said about Akin. He was painted as a radical, right wing nut job. Some points made in the ads:
Akin wants to privatize SS risking their benefits for seniors, abolish the minimum wage and comparing federal student loans to stage 3 cancer.
He would eliminate Depts of Energy and Education AND outlaw many forms of contraception.
Now maybe we may agree with Akin on the issues, but these ads were not meant to help him either in the primary or in the general with Dems or independents. The Daily Kos summed it up this way;
The same quote, same scene and no, it doesn't promote Akin. McCaskill spent money against all three of her primary opponents, these are the ads against Todd Akin. Somehow the NYT spins this idea that by telling the truth about Todd Akin, Claire McCaskill selected her adversary in the November election."
Did McCaskill exploit Todd Akin for who he is and what he says? Why shouldn't she? She's running for U.S. Senate. Outside groups have run millions in attack ads against her since last October. Claire McCaskill told the truth and called Todd Akin for what he is a true conservative, too conservative.
Did Claire McCaskill's campaign do a Romney like cost/benefit analysis on how to best use her campaign finances? I would hope so, but I think the media is trying to scare up a story that doesn't really exist. Todd Akin is toxic. It's not like Claire McCaskill gave him a script.
Here's hoping that Missouri sends Akin home.
I don't agree with the Daily Kos on anything, but I tend to agree with their analysis that McCaskill was just telling the truth about Akin, not trying to help him in the primaries.