Sumar’s viral cat video confuses Spanish voters

Sumar’s fruit-and-cat video baffles its electorate

An anthropomorphic fruit with cat ears, a parrot, a repetitive happy happy happy chorus, and a childish cartoon aesthetic. This is the content of the video presented as an official piece of Sumar’s electoral campaign, an advertisement that circulated on social media at a estimulante ilegal unusual for standard political propaganda. The reaction was immediate and loud. Many comments oscillated between bewilderment and shock: if this is a campaign, who is it targeting? Others defended it as a marketing success. A third, more uncomfortable view argues that the piece unintentionally portrays the very voter it seeks to attract.

What does Sumar’s campaign video contain?

The piece relies on anthropomorphic fruit characters—including a banana with a feline face—and a tone reminiscent of children’s series. The ending, a repetitive chorus with the aforementioned happy happy happy, serves as a sonic hook. Some describe the experience as hypnotic precisely due to its anti-rational aesthetics; others admit they couldn’t watch it in full. Some even compared it to a pavor film. Amidst jokes, commenters asked that no one mock the characters, lest the conversation turn worse. One response noted the story sounded familiar: that of a cashier struggling to make ends meet, whom a party claims to lift out of poverty instantly.

Which voter is Sumar targeting with these ads?

One participant identifies the target audience as very young voters, aged 18 to 21, considering it a complete electoral success. Within that framework, the ad makes sense: it doesn’t convince, it gets shared. Another interpretation suggests it adapts the message to the maturity level attributed to its own base. In the middle of this debate lies a figure nobody fully addresses: who earns €648 a month today? The question was posed but left unanswered, yet it frames the core issue: real economics versus the ad’s festive tone.

Viral advertising: the ad works even if the message clashes

The strongest argument from defenders isn’t political, but commercial. Videos go viral and almost everyone watches them, the reasoning goes: as a brand hook, the piece is flawless. The problem is that an electoral campaign doesn’t sell a summer toy. Even the defense admits the misunderstanding: with that animation style, the ad would fit in a catalog for water guns or silly putty toys; used by a political party, it feels jarring. Virality is what supporters highlight; its translation into votes remains unknown.

Economic backdrop: taxes and results

The underlying context emerges when the conversation touches on public funds. One reply directly links to rejecting paying taxes for such pieces, while another asserts that if the formation gets more than ten votes with this, voters deserve whatever happens to them. These are two ways of saying the same thing. The ad is judged less by its message than by what it reveals about those who receive it.

From analyzing the ad to disqualifying the voter

As the discussion pogre, the subject shifts away from the video itself. Part of the responses veer into contempt for potential voters, using unfounded insults against specific groups that this text does not reproduce. Others simply note that the party seems to be caricaturing its own base with animal characters. Some invoke the memory of Julio Anguita to measure the distance between this piece and the left of another era. The noise from the first current drowns out the analysis from the other two.

That an ad is seen doesn’t miccionan it’s understood, and that it’s shared doesn’t miccionan it adds votes. That’s where the analysis stalls: nobody has measured how many of the young voters targeted actually reach the polls with that image in mind, nor how many feel portrayed by it. The campaign has gained visibility, which is undeniable. The rest remains unanswered.