Dark Lord Karl Rove and RCP’s Jay Cost both look at Barack Obama’s bold general election ad campaign. Rove questions the whether spending nearly $20 million in early TV advertising is prudent. Cost argues that the buy is more about framing Obama’s campaign in an aggressive posture than the actual expectations of the campaign.
Obama campaign manager David Plouffe’s PowerPoint presentation to fundraisers tends to support Cost’s argument, as it suggested that Obama is more serious about targeting a much smaller group of states than the early ad buy encompasses.
Rove’s skepticism is more debatable, particularly as he also notes that “Obama’s ads show he’s aware of his vulnerability on two fronts: his liberal values and his meager achievements.” Obama is almost certainly aware that a politician rarely gets a second chance to make a first impression with the general electorate. Thus, it is probably no coincidence that Obama’s biographical ad (and a quick follow-up ad on welfare reform) was accompanied by a week of campaigning devoted to the themes of “patriotism, faith and service.” Rove’s skepticism is based on part on the much larger role free media plays in a general election campaign, but Obama seems to have sought a synergy of paid and free media that will position him in the mainstream on character issues at the same time that he is flip-flopping his way toward the center on policy issues.
Rove does highlight (as ABC News and others have noticed) that Obama’s ads portray him as having supported welfare reform when in truth he was against the 1996 law, even calling it “disturbing.” If John McCain had not decided to go to Columbia the week before Independence Day and his campaign was not going through a major shake-up (noted here yesterday and by the New York Times and others today), perhaps he could have seized on this misrepresentation to paint Obama as not only out of the mainstream on welfare but also dishonest about his record. But I digress.
Cost writes that the ad buy also reinforces his general impression of Obama’s candidacy:
I see him going in one of two directions. He could be electoral dynamite, exploding the old categories and forging a voting coalition that we have never seen before. However, he could fail to do this, and underperform in a year when the macro conditions unequivocally favor his party.
He implies that there is a warning sign (albeit a predictable one) in the fact that Obama is not advertising in states Clinton won in 1996 (Kentucky, Louisiana, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Arkansas), preferring longer shots (North Dakota, Alaska, Montana, Indiana, and Georgia). A similar sign can be seen in RCP’s own averages. The current head-to-head match-up has Obama leading McCain by 5.4% (an average that still includes the likely outlier from the L.A. Times). Meanwhile, the current generic Congressional ballot has the unnamed Democrat leading by 11.5% — more than twice that of the Obama margin. That gap is the most likely explanation for Obama’s decision to spend $20 million on ads this early and to spend a week campaigning on “patriotism, faith and service.”
What we might learn? That Obama will zig, then zag, then say he never moved at all.
Baracky doesn’t want us to trade with those hispanic peoples. I’m glad McCain made a trip to let them know not all of us think they’re dirty and unworthy. Baracky makes us all look like bigots, and that’s bad for America.
Obambi surrounds himself with bigots of the absolute worse kind. Should not surprise when some rubs off.
HF,
Not only bigoted, but stupid, stupid, stupid.
Those hostages being resuced from Colombia while McCain was there was pretty cool. Clearly a set up and a conspiracy, organized by the military industrial complex.
Absolutely, JD. Rupert Murdoch and Karl Rove orchestrated the whole thing, the Evil Wingnut Overlords that they are.
He is lame for flip-flopping on his free-trade stance (or being nuanced, as he would put it). But bigoted? That is weak as hell, Happy. They are not stupid (shockingly enough, South Americans are quite aware of labor pressures, unions, and protectionism!).
And that those enumerated special interests are in driven by bigotry, right Lisa?
Lisa,
Happy did not call the South Americans “stupid”. He called the stupid Obama cadre stupid. I’m guessing because they’re stupid.
Lisa – Actually, this zig zag is nothing new. He did the same on NAFTA while campaigning in Ohio, while that campaign spokesman that does not speak for Baracky and was not the campaign spokesman that Baracky knew was telling Canada that Baracky did not mean what he was saying out on the campaign trail. Or, maybe it was just inartful, like that last sentence.
“…exploding the old catagories…”
Ha. The wish is father to the bullshit. Yeah, those ‘old catagories’ were never anything to begin with, just arbitrary and contingent projections on a screen.
I for one am happy that Obama doesn’t limit himself to only one position on any issue. It’s important for every person and group to feel that he shares their opinion so that they may feel better about supporting him. Besides, shouldn’t the future most powerful man in the world be able to have as many positions on an issue as he wants? He “flip-flops” because he cares about you.
I agree Education Guy. That is all part of the Hope and Change thing. When I don’t like his position on something, I can just Hope and eventually he will Change it.
Fucking awesome.
Obama ’08
Woot woot!
Since my “I’m Scott McClellan, and I’m gellin'” commercial was such a hit, I wonder if you wouldn’t indulge me and sample my latest John McCain commercial (in response to Obama’s Welfare Reform claim)
Hi. I’m John McCain. And since Barack Obama has pointed out that he was responsible for welfare reform, I thought I’d better start telling you good people about some of my accomplishments.
Remember when John Wilkes Booth shot one of our greatest American presidents? (That was Lincoln for you Obama supporters.) Well, I was the one who tackled him after he jumped out of the balcony. Oh, and remember when Madame Curie invented that new-fangled drug. I got the first shot. Ouch! My ass still hurts. I helped the midwife deliver Joe Leiberman. I performed the briss as well. “Little Joe” I call him and I’m not talking Bonanza either where, incidentally, I did a guest spot in the episode, “Grain Bags and Blondes” – RAUCUS!
I’m John McCain and I approve this message.
lol Alpuccino. He is being far too modest. Everyone KNOWS he helped Francis Scott Key write “that song”.
Former Attorney General Key stole that song and changed the lyrics, the prick, and now were stuck with it. –John McCain
Hey, I have a bunch of meetings to
sleep throughattend, then I will be outdrinkingvisiting friends this weekend, if I don’t see you all – have a very, very happy Independence Day!! Be careful with your bootleg fireworks, don’t get too drunk while grilling that side of beef, and enjoy enjoy enjoy!1 1/2 inch thick bone-in ribeyes for this rube. No need for bootleg fireworks, since they are now legal here in the heartland. Plus, I found a place with 4 inch mortar shells, and the biggest M150’s and M1000’s that I have ever seen. I should be able to avoid getting on the local news, if I am a little careful.
The McCain campaign looks like Bush 41 in 1992 and Dole 1996. Unfocused and a candidate who does not appear to his heart in the game. Just clueless.
When are you ‘Thuglican Constitution shredders going to get it? Obama doesn’t need no steekin’ positions! Just feel the essence of his Hope and Change. Policy ideals are for losers.
O! (yeah burp)
Forget all those Reagan parallels ..
Passage form the 1980 acceptance speech by Ronald Reagan, with my present day amendment.
Rove is touting the GOPper line in hopes of giving courage to the Republican faithful. His predictive abilities were revealed as flawed in the 2006 elections. Rove’s current election analysis is less direct than the Delphi Oracle. Obama may win, Obama may lose, McCain should be stalwart, ad nauseum. Rove’s equivocation will allow him to say he was correct no matter who wins the election.
You neglected to mention the free pass McCain is getting from his buddies in the corporate media.
Oh, proggie! You mean like the evil reichwing NYT?
Those pesky, pesky facts.
[…] protein wisdom, Think Progress, Commentary, Blogs of War, Dean’s World and LewRockwell.com […]
#23 ProggParanoid
Oh good lord, you got spanked on the previous thread for that canard so you’re going to drag it here?
Darleen: Of course it will. It thinks no one remembers what was written on previous threads.
I wonder how much all this will help Obama. I read something at Big Lizards that I thought was interesting:
I emphatically believe that every campaign in every election generates a campaign saturation point (CSP), beyond which further campaigning — ads on TV and radio, appearances on talk shows, billboards, posters, signs, rallies, debates, GOTV, and door-knocking electioneering — diminish, rather that augment a candidate’s electoral performance. This factor should be measured in campaign density, not duration: You don’t want to stop campaigning two months before the election, but you might want to throttle back on your campaigning to avoid oversaturating the market (inundating voters).
Past that point, no amount of money a campaign has on hand will help… and it can hurt a candidate badly, since there is an almost irresistable impulse for a campaign to burn through every penny it raises… even if doing so hurts rather than helps. Thus, Obama’s “advantage” over McCain in campaign cash won’t be as big as the raw figures naively indicate… and may not exist at all, depending where Obama’s CSP lands.
CSP is a very hard factor to measure, not least because the CSP depends upon several variables, including (a non-exhaustive list):
* The intelligence of the campaign: A smart campaign has a higher CSP than a stupid one;
* The importance of the underlying issues: If the contested issues impact the lives of ordinary voters, they will have a greater tolerance for the candidates campaigning on those issues;
* The likability of the candidate himself: Voters will be more tolerant of a candidate they like than one they dislike;
* Competing interests: If there are many other stories competing for voters’ interests, they will be less tolerant of a candidate campaigning.
But no matter how smart a campaign is, how important the issues, how likeable the candidate, and how little else may be on TV or in the news, there is still a CSP beyond which more campaign intensity is counterproductive.
The concept of CSP is homologous to a similar phenomenon I learned about anent reconstruction money in areas devastated by war or natural disaster: You can only pump so much money into reconstruction, an amount determined by the available infrastructure: Beyond that, money is simply flushed away. In Iraq, for example, there are only so many people available at any one time, based on skill and security, to rebuild an electrical grid or sewer lines; even if you have more money in your pocket, it won’t do any good to throw it around.
This point is easy to understand by a time-honored logical technique, reductio ad absurdum. (This is probably the most abused argument in the rhetorical lexicon; but I am a trained professional, so you can trust me to use it correctly, with aplomb.)
Progg:
Considering the number of billionares who are pandering to Obama I think I would let that line of argument go. The Democrats are becoming the party of the rich, the elites, the gulf stream liberals, the coviar socialists, the Corporate donors, the rich and pampered who want to throw crumbs to the little people and keep them in line with a slightly larger welfare check. etc.
– Well surprise, surprise, and Progglet should really get off on this….
– Apparently the CandyMan has made his move concerning his “get out of dodge” stance hes carried throughout this campaign, taking it to new heights of “I can surrender faster than you can”, or “My white flag is bigger than yours”, in his debates with Hillery.
– From the very beginning of this presidential election cycle clear up until this morning Obama’s intention to cut and run from Iraq has been literally engraved in granet. That schedule was always intended to get all America troops out completely in the next 16 months, a solid commitment he had vowed to achieve, without fail, on a number of occasions practically beating Hillery over the head with it like a coal shovel. No, abso-fucking-lutely no doubt in his mind, nada, cast in concrete, take it to the bank, cross my heart and hopey changey to die!
– Weeeeeelllll naybe not.
This morning Mr Hopey Changiness let the following little gem slip put around throat clearing and various swipes at McCain:
Today in a news conference Oscama said he would have to “consider his original plan of a battalion a month withdrawal timetable pending his trip to Iraq”.
– Ok. did everybody get that boys and girls. Seems now after hundreds of hard nosed absolute statements he suddenly has to “consider”.
– Apparently some of the people in his camp didn’t miss it either, maybe to the point of threatening to rebel, or worried the feckless nutroots heads would all explode when they heard that.
– At any rate a few minutes later the pantheon of Leftyness made a 2nd appearance in front of reporters and said “[he] wanted to be absolutely clear that he still intended as early withdrawal from Iraq, and in spite of what he said, that hadn’t changed.” – unquote.
– So then, what. At some point we’re all going to be issued decoder rings so we can follow along with his speeches, or what?
– this guy is the biggest bobber and weaver that ever got pucked out the South side of Chicago.
– I wonder what the Libtards are going to think when they hear this.
– Oh, and the cracks in the Obama facade are already starting to show around the edges. DKos is calling him an outright liar for his 180 on FISA, and said “Its one thing to move to the center, and its another to stabe loyal supporters in the back”. Et ti brute’? (Apparently MarKous was thinking more along the lines of center of the extreme Left.)
– At FDL Janey baby was posting at length questioning Obama’s character, in view of all the rightward changiness. Must not be the Obama she knew.
One of the things I dread about an Obama presidency is that it would bring the distillation of progressive fantasy theory doctrine smacking up against reality, with all the friction and disaster it would entail for our individual freedoms and financial interests.
Then I remember that he’s got until November to try to hide the fact that he’s got nothing but Carter redux laying there on the tray PLUS he’s got pretend his base will stay quietly under the bus.
Nobody is going to be voting for McCain. But they’ll vote their interests, like they always do, and then Obama can go back with his racist, terrorist, hack Chicago friends and spend the rest of his life moaning about the racism that kept him down in 2008. Oh, he’ll hang around the Senate long enough for a pension, but the fun will have been gone long before he cashes out.
Becoming?
There are two reasons they still have the union vote: the public-sector unions and corrupt union bosses. The rank-and-file union members are generally not staunch Democrats in ideology.
Rob:
I was talking to someone the other day whose Dad ran a bar in a Democratic district. He was bragging how no Republicans got elected from that district because his Dad used to hand out whiskey for votes. Now that is not exactly high class, but it worked. For awhile.