[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSxsY4_zIGQ] I love the design of this ad. It's really well executed, down to the thought bubbles on Mark Schauer and China. The issues in this ad are packaged well, so it's not the specifics that hit home, but rather the thought "What were you thinking...." That's a smart attack and the execution helps drive it home. Too often we get caught up in trying to hit each issue point rather than the message or conclusion the issues are supposed to be driving home. We forgot about winning the war, and focus on the battle. This ad is one of my favorites this year.
Compare it to this ad against Sharon Angle from Harry Reid. It feels like a bunch of individual items thrown together into an ad. There's no design, no frame except at the end of the ad. Unlike the NRCC in the ad above Reid actually has issues to hit Angle on, but the result of the attack is less than the sum of their parts because it feels like their is no coordination -- between the issues themselves, nor between the voice and the visuals or the design.
Which of these ads is more effective? Well, you run enough money behind the Reid ad, and it'll get through, eventually. But the Reid ad is exactly why people hate political ads. It's hitting them over the head because it has to, it's attrition warfare defined. The NRCC ad is clever, it engages, it frames, it breaks through much easier in my opinion, it sticks, it an example of maneuver warfare.
Given the choice, it's better to go around your enemy than through them.