Democrats are running the political ad (below) which I think is pretty great.
I seriously hope democrats get better at running ads like this and not, “I am a family man who is working for you!” ads. Gloves off, don’t pull the punches and have fun.
The actor playing the congresscritter was excellent. Creeeeeepy.
The only statewide measure that I can find for Ohio on August 8 is one that calls for a 60% vote requirement to approve constitutional amendments. This is for the state constitution, and the current requirement is 50% + 1 vote.
Without knowing the context, it’s difficult for me to see where the content of this ad intersects with that measure. Especially since he identifies himself as a “Congressman” which means a U.S. Representative. It appears, then, that this is, first, a generally anti-Republican ad, and second, a signal that Democrats (or any way non-Republicans) should favor the status quo on the above issue rather than the change.
So not a total win, as a strategy for political commercials, at least in my book. It would make more sense to dramatize a situation that is actually at stake, and this is something of a leap. Perhaps local context would help it make more sense to a non-Ohioan.
The idea is to stop voters from being able to legalize abortion.
Amusing (a little hot for TV). There’s an element of truth there, as Republicans in the U.S. Senate blocked the Right To Contraception Act, which would have established a federal right to forms of contraception including condoms. Can’t have the gummint making this the law of the land, in case some backwoods southern lawmakers* want to pass anti-contraception regulations on the local level.
*apologies to VIcki Lawrence.
I assumed he was an Ohio state congressman (state house, not federal house). Is that not a thing?
I think it works well in a more broad sense that republicans want to tell you what you are not allowed to do in your own bedroom with your partner. Helps sell the creep factor of what republicans are trying to do.
The actor playing the Congressman is evidently supposed to represent Steven Chabot, who is a member of the United States House of Representatives, representing Ohio’s first congressional district. He seems to be what is politely referred to as a piece of work.
An earlier version of the ad contained the text “KEEP STEVE CHABOT OUT OF YOUR BEDROOM. VOTE ON NOV. 8.” They later changed it to “KEEP REPUBLICANS OUT OF YOUR BEDROOM. VOTE NO ON AUG. 8.” Here’ a page about the ad from the PAC that funded the it, Progress Action Fund (PAF).
States don’t have “Congresses”, they have legislatures which in most cases includes a House of Representatives. So I would say no, not normally a thing.
Thanks for the context. Do you think Ohio voters would make that connection (between the ad and what they’re voting about on August 8th)?
I would.
We have one in Illinois where I live too.
Although in this case, as @bibliophage noted, this seems to be a referencing an Ohio member of the US House of Representatives so a moot point in this case.
Although that does seem weird because what would Steven Chabot have to do with this? It’s an Ohio state thing. Not a federal thing. Just using him as a convenient boogey man?
Definitely. There’s a referendum to legalize abortion on the November ballot. This special election is a deliberate attempt to undercut it, because support for legal abortion in Ohio is hovering in the mid-50s.
Confirming this, at least for my state (Washington) I’ve never heard the local legislature called “Congress”. It’s just “the legislature”. And I work in government so I hear it a lot. (Though I work for the executive branch, not the legislature.)
If I hear “Congress” that always refers to the US Congress. I’ve never heard it used in any other context before.
In Illinois it is the General Assembly.
My guess is that the message they’re trying to send is that a Republican is a Republican is a Republican, regardless whether running for dog-catcher, state representative, or President.
Surely this is a tragic “life imitates art” allusion to the episode of the SNL “We’re the Supreme Court!,” which - aside from the mercifully outdated reference to no women appointees - is horrifyingly relevant nearly half a century later.
It’s pretty sickening to think that a 1976 sketch is so relevant in 2023.
This ad was originally used in 2022 in the runup to the general election, so it’s likely referring to a generic US Congressman rather than a state legislator.