10 Thoughts on “Jamison puts out ‘clever’ Ad

  1. It’s actually nothing more than a reinventing or redoing (Intellectual property issues here, anyone?) of Dusty Johnsons ad for the PUC from some six years ago…


    It was also obviously filmed in one of the two predominantly Republican precincts within District 12, which give Republican legislative candidates in that district a guaranteed win….. All the more reason to remember to vote “Yes” on Amendment T to stop partisan gerrymandering on November 8th….;-)

  2. Ironically, Jamison has his own Ad Agency, you almost wonder if Jamison came up with the Dusty ad, and then used it for himself.

  3. “Came up with” in 2010, or recalled in order to then use in 2016 hoping no one would remember?

  4. Reliable Voter on October 25, 2016 at 7:48 am said:

    Echols and Jamison Advertising were best known for their JD Byrider and Dan Nelson auto dealer ads.

  5. The D@ily Spin on October 25, 2016 at 8:04 am said:

    I’ve always had a good impression of Jamison. Unlike most political types, he’s not a criminal. He should be in state office but later serve as mayor. The Huether syndicate must be cleaned up with a one term bad ass. Then, Jamison can be the follow up honesty and integrity diplomat for 2 terms.

  6. RV, that’s an ad legacy to have, huh?

  7. clever isn’t the word i’d use. hackneyed better describes it.

  8. Kudos for Jamison for putting out an ad. I haven’t seen anything from other SF candidates besides picture slideshows. He actually stopped by my house the other day. Glad to see him out earning votes.

  9. Reliable Voter on October 26, 2016 at 10:47 am said:

    Formerly known:

    yes, the era of the young Republican Masters of the Universe.

    Dan Nelson convicted of fraud, Meta Bank colluding to commit fraud with Thune and Mark Michelson on the Board of Directors, Jamison doing the marketing.


  10. Les, Jamison is guaranteed a win because of gerrymandering. His campaigning is all fluff at best…

    RV, thanks for the history primer. Although, it’s water under the bridge now, it is still a reminder of why the Dems should have ran someone against Thune in ’10, too.

    Sure, a Dem in ’10 would have lost big, but had we ran someone in ’10, we could have experienced ’16 in ’10 and made ’16 naturally more competitive due incumbent fatigue leading to a defeat of Thune in ’22 with the help of the fourth term jinx….. But oh now, the “powers that be” within the Democratic Party always now best…..(???)

Post Navigation