Although the 2016 presidential election captured most of the public's political attention this year, down-ballot races brought just as much intrigue. In fact, some of the best political ads of the season stemmed from congressional races, including a bold ad from Jason Kander on the topic of gun background checks. In the incredibly effective ad, Kander, a Democrat, goes far to prove to his audience that he cares about their Second Amendment rights--a stance many Democrats would be loath to so brazenly address.
Why did Kander feel the need to come out strong in support of gun rights while balancing his desire for strong background checks? Kander was running for Senate in Missouri, a deeply red state in which Second Amendment issues get attention. Kander had previously received an "F" from the NRA on defending pro-gun legislation, and clearly felt compelled to address this low rating, implying the NRA's significant influence in Missouri. This is a classic example of Weingast and Marshall's first assumption: congressmen represent interest groups powerful in their districts, and if they fail to faithfully represent, the group will report this failure and mobilize against them. In this case, the interest group--rather than the effective ad--won the day; Kander lost to his opponent on November 8, lending validity to W&M's first assumption.
*As a sidenote, while Kander's ad was well done, I don't know if anybody can beat this ad from Gerald Dougherty.
No comments:
Post a Comment