Clinton’s basket of deplorable TV ads

The sun rose this morning, and that means the Clinton campaign has produced another negative television ad attacking GOP nominee Donald Trump, rather than telling voters why how their lives would improve by electing Hillary Clinton as president.

If Democratic nominee Clinton acts during the upcoming presidential debates the way her campaign has acted by producing almost entirely negative TV ads, Trump may be enjoying “Hail to the Chief” next January.

{mosads}Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), previously running for the Democratic nomination, led Trump by 10 to 20 percentage points in most polling for many months. Recently, Clinton mused out loud, asking why she isn’t beating Trump by 50 points. The answer is revealed again today in her latest negative attack television ad against Trump. This new anti-Trump Clinton ad repeats quotes from Trump insulting women while women look into a mirror.

Memo to the Clinton campaign: The American people are not hungering for more negative attacks against Trump from Clinton, or more negative attacks against Clinton from Trump. They are hungering to learn how their lives will be made better by our next president.

Why doesn’t Clinton run millions of dollars of television ads seeking votes from women because more than 100 million American women voters will have a fighter for women’s pay equity, working like hell, from her first day in office, to lift their wages, incomes and family finances?

Almost any campaign consultant, including the well-paid campaign consultants producing a deluge of negative television ads, knows that when a candidate with high negative ratings runs a campaign that is highly negative, her negative ratings will climb, and enthusiasm for her candidacy will stay low.

I am not offering a brilliant political insight here. This is Politics 101.

What has more appeal to American women: a campaign that says ad nauseam that her opponent sucks, or a campaign that says that she seeks a mandate to increase wages and incomes for them?

I deplored that Clinton said “you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables.” It would have been fine to attack Trump for running a bigoted campaign that plays on racism and hate. It would have been fine to attack white supremacists who support Trump.

But to lump half of Trump voters together into a “basket of deplorables” and attack voters who support Trump as a class was morally wrong, factually inaccurate and politically stupid. It does not matter whether she meant 50 percent of Trump supporters, or a lower percent. A candidate should not be attacking voters who support her opponent, except for the small number of white supremacists.

This deluge of negative Clinton television ads — which I consider a basket of deplorable television ads — has been continuing for many months. It is not enough for a candidate to perpetually attack an opponent without making a clear, compelling and persuasive case about why voters support the candidate who launches the attack.

Clinton towers above Trump in qualifications for the presidency, experience on the global stage, knowledge about the complex issues of our times and policies that would bring more prosperity to our people. She should be running television ads and giving major speeches taking her message to the voters about why the Bill Clinton presidency created tens of millions of jobs and how a Hillary Clinton presidency would do the same.

Countless Americans are hurting, angry and anxious about the corruptions of our political system and a financial system that is rigged against them. As I wrote in my column in The Hill this week, she should be appealing to them and making the case that she will be fighting on their side to make their lives better.

Americans are well aware of the imperfections of Donald Trump. A basket of deplorable television ads that merely attack Trump does no service to the voters or to Clinton’s prospects to achieve the presidency. She is not ahead of Trump by 50 points, or by 10 points, because she has not given enough voters a reason to believe they would be better off with her as president.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is deplorable.

Budowsky was an aide to former Sen. Lloyd Bentsen (D-Texas) and former Chief Deputy Majority Whip Bill Alexander (D-Ark.). He holds an LL.M. degree in international financial law from the London School of Economics. Contact him at brentbbi@webtv.net.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the views of The Hill.