Mike Hatch's new TV ad and I guess it said something about him running for governor, but my attention was grabbed, instead by the three actors (or maybe they're not actors) portraying the students in college." /> Mike Hatch's new TV ad and I guess it said something about him running for governor, but my attention was grabbed, instead by the three actors (or maybe they're not actors) portraying the students in college." />
I was just watching Mike Hatch's new TV ad and I guess it said something about him running for governor, but my attention was grabbed, instead by the three actors (or maybe they're not actors) portraying the students in college.
It's been awhile since I've been on a public college campus (OK, it's been 30 years not including the Lyle Lovett concert I went to at Northrop once), but these don't look like a typical cross section of college students.
Of course, the ad isn't aimed at the college vote, it's aimed at the parents' vote, because they're the people who (a) vote (don't give me any sass, college kids, you made a lot of noise in 2004 but didn't turn out in very strong numbers), and (b) pay the tuition.
Or do they?
According to a 2005 story that Art Hughes wrote, "a survey released this year by the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities system found a full three-quarters of students say their parents don't help them with the cost of their education."
So it's hard to say who this ad will resonate with. If it's the kids, I think you might want to get a better cross-section, and lose the stuff about paying for it with a rollback of offshore corporate breaks. College kids don't care how you're going to do it, just do it.
To the ad itself, he says "tuition has gone up 50% in four years." True, although Art's story says the number is 75% at the U between 1995 and 2003.
Heck, Pawlenty could come back and say "I've slowed the increase in tuition" (pulling something out of the playbook that the Minneapolis cops used yesterday by noting the 26-percent increase in crime through August was still better than the 60-percent in January).
And, of course, much of that increase is due to a decline in federal college aid, something a governor has little control over.
But those are just details.
For the record, I happen to know almost all of the folks in this ad. They are all actual college students from a variety of different schools and backgrounds too I might add. No offense, but as you say, "It's been awhile since I've been on a public college campus...", so I'd stay away from commenting on things you really no nothing about.
And as to the young folks not turning out, that's crap. Young people turned out in greater numbers in '04 than they had in decades. The problem wasn't that they didn't turn out. It was that everyone else turned out in greater numbers too. The percentage of young people who voted was amazing. But their percentage of overall voters wasn't as high, because other groups turned out in increased numbers as well.
//you really no nothing about
Read it again. I said it didn't strike me as a good CROSS-section of college students. And perhaps the fact they had to cherry picked from, as you say, "a variety of different schools" would seem to uphold that.
Theoretically, one could've shot the ad on any campus and I would guess everyone wouldn't be so ...so... clean cut. Nothing against clean cut, mind you... but.... it ain't exactly Mayfield High School 1959 out there either. I acknowledge, however, this is a political ad and political ads are like fantasies.
As for your turnout comment about my comment being crap, well..they turned out 9-percent better than four years earlier ...all the way to 51.6%
That's not very good.
Yes, they are like fantasies. I mean, they're not going to pick your average college slacker for an ad to appeal to (the parents of) college students.
But, to be honest, I just graduated from the U, and you don't have to look hard at all to see people who look like this.
But you're right, it IS a fantasy. And it IS a campaign commercial.
It's a fantasy because they're carrying books in their hands rather than in a backpack and no one's wearing an iPod.
But just because they don't dress out of Kohl's catalog doesn't mean they're slackers. That's the point. The ad is clearly not aimed at the younger voter.
I don't know where you're getting your info, but the rise in tuition at public institutions has had little to do with federal college aid and a lot to do with state cuts and the higher ed price index.
That indicator of inflation-which more accurately reflects the basket of goods a college or university buys, which is heavy on people and therefore healthcare, as well as technology and high tech facilities--has left colleges and universities facing about twice the level of CPI inflation for at least the last five years. the fact that federal financial aid has not kept pace with tuition increases is an important but separate issue.
Some federal research funds were increasing sharply until about a year ago--now NIH is facing a slight cut and NSF a slight increase. NIH funding actually doubled between 1998 AND 2003 (I think).
Also, I would agree that these are pretty typical- looking college kids, at least at the U of M campus. There is surely a West Bank contingent sporting piercings and tatoos that they chose not to portray, but that's understandable. Why don't you ask the Hatch campaign if these were actors--I bet they used real students.