Blake's Think Tank

I engaged in a fruitful and interesting dialogue with a political friend of mine earlier this week and we discussed myriad things, including the 2010 US Senate race. One of the points of discussion between me and my friend was whether it would behoove Sen. Blanche Lincoln to begin running television ads. After all, she has more $4 million in the bank, and her nearest challenger, an unknown, far-right state senator has $500,000 in the bank and a primary fight on his hands (albeit a minuscule one).

Our conversation took place before the Democratic poll showing Ms. Lincoln with a thirteen point advantage over Mr. Baker. The poll, as Max Brantley and Jason Tolbert note, may be untrustworthy. Not knowing much more than the final totals (Mr. Tolbert, the Magnum P.I. of the Arkansas blogosphere, has requested a complete copy), let’s just assume that the real numbers are somewhere in between that poll and the last poll conducted by a third-party polling group. That would put Ms. Lincoln somewhere between thirty-nine percent and fifty percent, or an average of forty-four and one-half percent. Mr. Baker stands somewhere between forty-seven percent and thirty-seven percent, or an average of forty-two percent. And, more importantly, let’s assume that the undecideds makes up the difference, thirteen and one-half percent, a number large enough to swing the election to either candidate.

Based on those numbers as well as the current political climate, is it advantageous to spend money on an ad buy? Let’s argue both sides.

What are the benefits of running television ads?

First, it would allow Ms. Lincoln to frame her candidacy on her terms. She could articulate to voters what’s important and where she stands. She could do this long before the negative assault, which is certain to be fierce, arrives.

Second, she could re-introduce herself to voters. In the six years since she was last on the ballot, the Arkansas population has changed. This would give her ample to establish her biography and her impact on Arkansas, while the Republican candidates – all six of them – spend precious resources trying to outflank each other on the right.

Third, it would generate movement in the polls. By way of example, Tom Daschle’s ultimately failed U.S. Senate campaign noted the impact an early ad-buy had on closing a double-digit gap with Rep. John Thune.

What are the drawbacks?

First, Republicans will jump all over it and claim it as evidence of the Lincoln campaign vulnerabilities. Assuch, it gives the RNC, RSCC and Republican candidates a talking point and a fundraising tactic currently unavailable to them.

Second, it’s a stupid use of campaign resources. No one pays attention to elections this far in advance. If getting rid of money is the desired goal, lighting it on fire would be more useful.

Third, it won’t cure what’s wrong with voters. Current polls reflect voter frustration with Washington, incumbents are suffering from that frustration. See also Republicans in Missouri, New Hampshire and Kentucky face formidable challenges. But the political climate six months from now will be very different. It just needs time to sort itself out. Because of the unknowns, see #2, above.

What’s the correct answer? Run the ads. Why? Because this election may end up having nothing to do with Mr. Baker. If current political trends continue, the 2010 midterms are going to be a referendum on Barack Obama and Democrats (particularly incumbents), and it will center of voters like or dislike of the current state of the American economy, more specifically Mr. Obama’s policies. If the negativity associated with these matters crystalize around Ms. Lincoln, a television campaign that begins four to six months from now won’t realize its intended effect.