Finally, two weeks ago, the DeVos-backed Michigan Families United put $400,000 into a TV buy centered in Grand Rapids and Detroit, giving GOP gubernatorial nominee Tudor DIXON some signs of life in her impoverished campaign.The money marks the first time anyone has spent anything on Dixon since the primary Meanwhile, the Democratic Governors Association spent $4 million on behalf of incumbent Gov. Gretchen WHITMER in August alone, bashing Dixon relentlessly in the process. Dixon’s first TV buy was too little, too late — the money should have been spent in August.

TV advertising, both network and cable, isn’t Dixon’s only option. With the advent of streaming services, the Republican nominee has other options. Political advertising has come a long way since running an ad during the 6 p.m. local news and reaching everyone. Online streaming services are  overtaking other methods like broadcast and cable, and they allow campaigns to craft messages that reach exact demographics and tailor messages to that specific group. Campaign money creates and buys those ads.

Could Dixon make up for her inability to afford high-volume TV advertising by investing heavily in targeted Internet ads?

ANSWER 2): Dixon can’t afford the sheer volume of Internet advertising she needs to make a dent in her cash deficiency to Whitmer. Dixon has been outspent 15-1 by the governor.  Dixon came out of her primary with no money to spare, which has put her permanently behind on the advertising stage. Former Gov. John Engler told MIRS newsletter that a candidate should hold off advertising until they have enough money to sustain the campaign and not blip in and out of the space. “In this sense, it reminds me of my own campaign (in 1990, against incumbent Gov. James Blanchard),” he says. “We didn’t have a lot of money -– a lot less money than is being spent now -– so we had to hold off, but when we got started, we stayed on and we won the race.”

Maybe Democratic U.S. Senator Debbie Stabenow is an even better example of the Engler strategy. Then a U.S. Representative in 2000, Stabenow had been outspent and was running behind in the polls to incumbent Republican Spencer Abraham. But she hoarded whatever cash she could muster until almost the bitter end, then unleashed a barrage of TV ads in the closing two weeks and upset Abraham on election day. “We’ll be running advertisements at the appropriate time,” Dixon has said. If so, she can only hope they’re as effective as Stabenow’s were in 2000, but there is little chance of that because Dixon’s campaign cash deficit is so much greater than Stabenow’s was 22 years go. Engler says the ad buy message for Dixon should be strong on public safety, the economy, and education issues. “I think those are home run issues, because a lot of people remember the shutdowns here (in 2020) and the damage that was done, the loss of small business, deficit learning, and the kids who should have been in schools,” he said.

Another aspect of the ad war debate to ponder: Advertising works best for the person who is not the incumbent, because that candidate, such as Dixon, is essentially a blank slate. That can work the other way around, too, as Whitmer has used Dixon’s low name ID against her with TV ads ‘defining’ Dixon in a decidedly negative way. Bottom line: The idea of advertising isn’t for voters to be presented with a clear-cut picture of what the candidates will or will not do if elected. Nor is it to present the issues spun to the positive or the negative. No, it’s to stamp a candidate with a negative or positive image, which has more staying power with viewers than minutiae. One c0nsolation for Dixon: Because of some very hard negative survey numbers voiced to pollsters by those who don’t like Whitmer, the governor hasn’t been able to clear 50% in support among the broad electorate despite her massive spending, just as Abraham wasn’t in 2000. That could make her ripe for an unpleasant surprise on 11/8 if Dixon can pull a Stabenow or an Engler.

***********************************************************

Question 3) Did the Michigan GOP lose its last and best chance to win this year’s gubernatorial election when self-funding multi-millionaire Perry JOHNSON failed to get enough valid signatures to qualify for the Aug. 2 Republican primary ballot?

Answer 3): Probably the only thing that could have rescued Michigan Republicans from their pre-primary filing debacle was if somehow, miraculously, Dixon had been able to win the nomination and picked Perry Johnson as her running mate for Lieutenant Governor. She has the right image, discipline, and gender to combat Whitmer, and Johnson had the cash, if he would have been able to figure out a way to spend it on the Dixon-Johnson ticket, and had been willing to do it.  Still, by himself, Johnson was never the panacea for what was, and seemingly still is, ailing the Michigan Republican Party. Some observers, like John Sellek of Harbor Strategic Public Affairs, agrees —“No, Johnson wasn’t the GOP’s last, best chance, because money, message and personality all go hand-in-hand. Just ask Kevin RINKE,” Sellek told MIRS. Besides, even if Johnson had been able to make the ballot, the embarrassment of having his petition signatures challenged meant that the self-described ‘Mr. Quality’ had already made himself irrelevant when he didn’t even quality-check his own petitions. Johnson would have had more money, but he’d still have the wrong message. Johnson presented himself as an election-denying, anti-abortion, anti-vaccine, anti-science extremist. And those views are not going to win over moderate Republicans and independents in Michigan.