Overall, I think it works.
From a content perspective, I wonder, though, whether too much emphasis is given to what Ted Strickland says about Kasich. I know this is a rebuttal to the accusations that Kasich benefited by working at what came to be one of the most hated companies in America. And it is said that not refuting charges allows them to fester.
However, the argument that answering allegations gives them artificial weight is a strong one, too. Especially if, as is said, a substantial portion of Ohio voters are not that familiar with Kasich. Why add to the misinformation your opponent is spreading about you in your own ad?
A little is lost in transition (no fades, etc.), but here is another way to tackle it. (If there is a better way to place a PowerPoint on a WordPress blog, please let me know in the comments section.)
It may not be the right thing to do politically, but I would also love to hear/see budget specifics. Perhaps the 30-second commercial is not the place. But as people keep hearing and seeing reporting that the candidates have no direct answers to how they would balance the budget, my guess is Kasich is hurt more than Strickland because Strickland can say he has done it and is working on the next budget which, conveniently, just isn’t done yet. There are a lot of reasons why those answers are flawed. But I think Kasich’s argument that he will do a better job falls short without saying exactly (even close to exactly would be good) how. From an audio/visual perspective, I thought it was a little choppy. The cuts from John to other scenes looked too abrupt. Kasich looking into the camera talking is good and convincing. Perhaps not such a tight shot so we can see his gestures. Or go the other way, a bit tighter so we’re not really aware of his motioning. But these are minor quibbles and the overall look is good. Besides, I’m sure we will be seeing more ads with different approaches as the campaign nears its conclusion.
