Whoa, This Republican Ad Was Super RACIST

Summary of Whoa, This Republican Ad Was Super RACIST

by Crooked Media

20m•October 26, 2026
Listen to Episode

Overview of Whoa, This Republican Ad Was Super RACIST

Dan Pfeiffer and Jon Lovett break down a handful of high-stakes campaign ads airing in the final stretch before the election. The conversation focuses on how political ads try to manipulate identity, turnout, and fear—especially in tightly contested Senate races. Their biggest takeaway: many of these ads feel stale, overly consultant-driven, and aimed at a vanishingly small slice of voters.

Ads Reviewed

1) National Republican ad during a football game

  • The ad tries to convince a vaguely apolitical male viewer that he should “vote Republican” because “Michael won’t quit on his team or his country.”
  • Dan and Lovett think the ad is confused and contradictory:
    • It starts by telling the viewer he’s not a MAGA-type, then ends by framing voting as team loyalty.
    • It seems to want both to distance the viewer from MAGA and pull him into MAGA-style identity politics.
  • They argue the messaging is old, awkward, and built around anti-woke tropes that no longer have the same traction.

2) Future Forward Democratic turnout ad

  • This ad uses social pressure by reminding people that their voting history is public.
  • The goal is to pressure disengaged or persuadable young men into voting.
  • Their critique:
    • Democrats often misread these voters as already belonging to their “team.”
    • The ad tries to make voting feel socially relevant, but it may not fully match how these voters see themselves.

3) Mike Rogers attack ad against Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan

  • Rogers attacks El-Sayed as a threat to national security, claiming he is backed by Hamas financiers and tied to the Muslim Brotherhood.
  • Dan and Lovett call it:
    • A very old-school, post-9/11 style Republican attack ad.
    • Highly dishonest and racist in tone.
  • They note that Rogers appears on camera making the case himself, which may signal he’s behind and needs to own the attack directly.
  • They also point out that El-Sayed has already built a strong counter-narrative in his own ads and speeches, emphasizing his family story, love of America, and respect for the Constitution.

4) James Tallarico contrast ad against Ken Paxton

  • The ad mixes contrast and persuasion: it attacks Paxton while pitching Tallarico as a more responsible alternative.
  • Lovett especially likes the visual style:
    • Tallarico standing in front of giant 3D letters
    • A clean, one-take, visually memorable format
  • Strategically, they think the ad is less about changing minds than about nudging people who dislike Paxton but might stay home or vote third-party.

Main Takeaways

  • Most political ads are fighting over a tiny group of undecided voters.
    • They estimate the entire ad war is aimed at only a few percent of voters in a handful of states.
  • A lot of the messaging feels outdated.
    • Anti-woke attacks, Bush-era national security framing, and “team” language feel stale to them.
  • The real goal is often turnout, not persuasion.
    • Ads are used to frighten opponents, motivate partisans, and push soft voters to show up.
  • Bad-faith attacks can still work, but only to a point.
    • They think the Rogers ad may already have reached the people most likely to believe it.
  • Democrats may be missing a broader cultural “permission structure.”
    • Unlike 2024’s pro-Trump vibe shift, they don’t see the same all-out cultural momentum pushing people toward Democrats.
    • Candidates like Tallarico and Ossoff are trying to create that energy with specific, identity-based persuasion.

Broader Commentary

The “vibe” problem in 2024 and beyond

  • Dan and Lovett discuss how Trump’s side once benefited from a cultural feeling of “we’re all just doing this.”
  • They don’t think Democrats currently have an equivalent, broadly shared cultural push.
  • They argue that even if Democrats improve electorally, the party shouldn’t interpret that as a full endorsement of itself—just a rejection of the other side.

What the conversation suggests about campaign ads

  • Political ads are increasingly expensive, repetitive, and narrowly targeted.
  • The hosts question whether TV ads are still worth the money given how few voters they may actually influence.
  • Still, they acknowledge that in close races, campaigns will keep spending because they have no better option.

Notable Observations

  • Lovett repeatedly jokes that he loves “giant 3D letters” in ads because they immediately catch the eye.
  • Both hosts think El-Sayed’s response strategy is smarter than the attack itself: keep showing who you are rather than getting trapped by the smear.
  • They see Tallarico’s ad as a model of effective modern political branding: visually clean, simple, and easy to understand even with the sound off.

Bottom Line

The episode is less about any one ad and more about what modern political advertising has become: expensive, hyper-targeted, often stale, and mostly designed to move a tiny sliver of voters through fear, identity, or turnout pressure. Dan Pfeiffer and Jon Lovett think some of these ads may still be strategically useful—but many also reveal how formulaic and disconnected campaign messaging has become.