Ok, I'm repeating myself, I know, but I can't decide which side of the line this goes on: [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AlvW-T4ZS4]
On one hand, I appreciate trying a different ad, and I've talked about the power of metaphor before. This one is pretty good on those fronts.
On the other hand, it's kinda goofy, and the production values are not great. Why does that matter? Well, people react to all sorts of things, often without knowing what they're reacting too.
I think the production values of an ad matter in so far as they present the quality and character of a campaign. A cheap looking ad may work if it's part of the charm (like this classic ad from Paul Wellstone -- done by the same consultant as the Daggett ad) or message of the campaign.
A challenger's ads that look crisp and great say that candidate is ready for the big leagues. (On the other hand, I always felt the Gore for President ads looked too nice and polished -- for a guy with a truth problem, whether deserved or not, I thought the ads needed to look grittier and more real.) The form of the ad, has to follow the function.
Here I'm not sure the form is helping Daggett. He needs to make people think he's a real candidate with a real chance, this feels a more like a college film school project than a real production. No matter what the message is, that can't help Daggett or his campaign.