New Obama Ad Spending Numbers Out

CNN says Obama's ad spending is not just record breaking, but record shattering:

Barack Obama has spent a record breaking $60 million to run more than 100,000 political television ads in pursuit of the Democratic presidential nomination, a new analysis conducted for CNN shows.

In contrast, John Kerry ran a little more than 19,000 TV ads four years ago in his successful bid for the Democratic nomination, according to TNS Media Intelligence/CMAG, CNN’s consultant on political television advertising spending.

Clinton, who trails Obama in fundraising by about $60 million, has run just over 60,000 TV ads in her bid for the White House.

In Pennsylvania, NC and Indiana...[More...]

In Pennsylvania, Obama has spent more than $3.6 million, while pouring another $600,000 into North Carolina and $800,000 into Indiana for TV ads, according to CMAG. So far, Clinton has spent $1.4 million in Pennsylvania, just under $200,000 in North Carolina and just recently went on the air in Indiana.

Questions I don't have an answer to: Do ads convince voters? Does blanketing the airwaves and internet with ads lend a sense of inevitability to his nomination? Will it get out the vote? Could it turn voters off?

Will some see it as an attempt to buy the election with dollars -- and in that sense, is it reminiscent of his trotting out Oprah to benefit from her unparalleled popularity? (On that note, while he got a big Oprah bounce, Oprah, it was recently revealed, has taken a big popularity beating. If Obama is elected, I suspect that will change and she'll be viewed as prescient.)

< How To Look At Polls | Clinton Campaign Press Call on Obama's Oil Ad >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Boycott (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Step Beyond on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:04:42 PM EST
    I have to say, that as a Floridian, I really enjoyed the boycott by the Dems in that I saw no ads from them. I can't stand watching political ads over and over again. Even the most clever ad starts to grate over time.

    Now I need to figure out a way to get the Repubs to boycott us also. Then my tv can concentrate on telling me I smell and need a new car instead of who is the most patriotic and wonderful person EVER.

    LOL! (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:27:40 PM EST
    You forgot about the TV telling you how fat you are. Mine does that on a regular basis. ;-)

    Tis' the season! (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:40:56 PM EST
    They just started ramping up the weight loss ads here. The ones that deal with bathing suits, not New Years Resolutions  :-P

    Florida also (none / 0) (#42)
    by MichaelGale on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 02:15:22 PM EST
    I thought it was the best election ever.

    I thought I would miss the excitement; the tons of mail, calls, signs and tv.

    Didn't miss it at all. In fact, I thought people were a bit happier voting.It was so civilized.


    I live in a rural county, and don't watch (none / 0) (#96)
    by FlaDemFem on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 09:41:45 PM EST
    news or network TV, well, very little and no news shows. I read newspapers, etc. online. I don't get political types stopping by my farm, except for the local candidates. I have had a visit from every single Democratic candidate for local office. None of the Republicans, if there are any running, have shown up. I love living in the country. Heh.

    This Is Why (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by BDB on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:06:38 PM EST
    Obama needs to win Pennsylvania and Indiana.  He's had plenty of time and plenty of money to convince voters he's the better choice.  If he still can't do that, it should send a cold chill up every Super Delegate spine.

    Obama (none / 0) (#83)
    by sas on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 04:45:22 PM EST
    is not going to win PA .  Take it to the bank.  If he is within 10 it'll be a surprise., regardless of what the polls say.

    I live in Pa, and Hillary is much more liked.


    Ohio, PA and FL (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:08:39 PM EST
    are what the Democrats need in November. While NY and CA will go for whichever Dem gets the nomination, those three may not. It's hard to see how we win in November without those states.

    He'll redraw the electoral map (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by dianem on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:13:18 PM EST
    Haven't you heard? Obama is going to win in states we haven't won in decades. He's going to have to, because he's not going to win in many of the states we HAVE won in the last few years.

    Obama's New Map (5.00 / 6) (#14)
    by Athena on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:21:31 PM EST
    The map is redrawn, all right - has only 48 states.

    Yes, and I am sure (none / 0) (#16)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:26:26 PM EST
    that the SD's don't want to give up on those two states in the GE.

    If we could win FL, that would be a huge coup for the Party.


    But if our FL Gov. is chosen as Sen. McCain's VP (none / 0) (#31)
    by FLVoter on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:44:46 PM EST
    Florida will go Republican.  Eventhough our Gov. has not remedied any of the the problems he said he would (insurance, taxes), he is still mysteriously popular.

    Let's hope he does as Grover Norquist (none / 0) (#33)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:47:01 PM EST
    suggests, and puts Condi Rice on the ticket.

    I can't imagine that FL voters like her any better than the rest of the nation does.


    You got that right! (none / 0) (#34)
    by FLVoter on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:51:04 PM EST
    Otay! (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Fredster on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 04:21:09 PM EST
    Let's hear it for:  Alabama, Mississippi, the Carolinas, Montana, and the Dakotas.  The sure way to Electoral College victory!

    He's going to be counting on new (none / 0) (#10)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:16:25 PM EST
    voters and AA's to do that. Read an article on Politico where the campaign discussed the strategy. Sign up even more new voters leading up to the GE. Can't remember if they talked about wooing Clinton's voters. If they did, it didn't stick with me . . .

    It could be interesting (none / 0) (#15)
    by Lil on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:24:50 PM EST
    to actually live in a so called red state after having  been in a blue state for most of my life. I guess I won't mind so long as a Dem is president, but after being pigeon holed for so long, it seems weird.

    This is the deal breaker for Obama... (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:59:02 PM EST
    There is no reasonable scenario for either Hillary or Obama winning the presidency without winning at least one of those three (OH, FL, or PA).  Hillary has a good chance to win all three, while Obama is a long shot to win any.  

    He's now been 10 pts ahead... (none / 0) (#11)
    by jor on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:17:54 PM EST
    .. of hillary in gallup's tracking poll for almost a couple weeks. The electability gambit, is hillary's last line of defense, and the gallup numbers, just don't jive with it.

    Makes no difference (5.00 / 6) (#27)
    by badger on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:38:53 PM EST
    if he leads Gallup's national poll by 90 points. It's the matchups in the states that matter (because of electroal votes).

    In some of the large states he needs to win Hillary beats McCain and Obama doesn't according to current polling.

    It's also quite possible for people to prefer Obama to Hillary, and still think Hillary is a better choice for President than Obama when it comes to voting.


    Almost 2 weeks? (5.00 / 0) (#48)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 02:46:02 PM EST
    Try since April 6.  That would be 3 days, not 2 weeks.

    Pa is crucial (none / 0) (#46)
    by MKS on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 02:40:22 PM EST
    Ohio would be nice; Florida is Democratic foolsgold.

    Only Penn is a must-win.  If Obama wins the Gore and Kerry states, all he needs is Nevada for a tie in the electoral college and the House would give it to the Dem.

    Hillary is very, very weak west of the Mississippi.  She has consistently polled behind McCain in Oregon and Iowa and others....She does poorly against McCain in California, only up on him by 3 in a recent poll....

    Hillary could very easily lose every single state west of the Mississippi except California.  Her base is the Northeast....Even if she wins Ohio, she could lose so many other states that that win would be irrelevant.

    Obama has a good chance of winning the Gore and Kerry states plus Nevada--Kerry lost it only by two--and Colorado....I think he would get a surprising number of votes from younger couples in Colorado Springs....He would make McCain spend time in Virginia and Missouri....  


    Well (none / 0) (#82)
    by nell on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 04:43:20 PM EST
    Obama could have a serious problem out west if he does not do better with Hispanic voters, and this is a block that he has had particular trouble with. Also remember that if Hillary took the Kerry states, plus Arkansas, which is VERY doable, then she would win the general election. And if you want to talk about polling within 3 percent, fine, let's talk about how poorly Obama polls in Massachusetts. He is dead even with McCain, even with the backing of Kennedy, Kerry, and Patrick.

    Hispanics seem to prefer Obama to McCain (none / 0) (#87)
    by rebrane on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 04:51:38 PM EST
    At least, that's what I take from this Gallup tracking poll data from March I was just noodling over. They find that Obama gets 54% of the Hispanic vote to McCain's 37%, while Clinton gets 57% to McCain's 36%. Moderate and conservative white Democrats are the real problem area, where Clinton outperforms Obama significantly.

    Latinos will (none / 0) (#89)
    by MKS on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 04:57:31 PM EST
    vote for Obama.  There are recent SurveyUSA polls that match McCain against Obama and Hillary in various states.  Obama polls at least 60% of the Latino vote....

    That Hillary got a greater share of the Latino vote in the primaries is not a good predictor of how that vote will go in the general.

    Obama will win in Massachusetts.  Even Teddy at one time was behind Mitt for his Senate seat.  There is no way Mass. will vote for any Republican. Hillary's weakness in the West is in every state and shown by almost every poll.....

    Hillary is now behind McCain in Arkansas....That is according to Rasmussen.  He got every state right that he polled in 2004.


    Obama (none / 0) (#86)
    by sas on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 04:50:39 PM EST
    will not win Ohio, PA, or Florida, where she will most likely win.

    He will not win Michigan or New Jersay.  She will take New Jersey, possibly Michigan.

    He may take the Pacific Northwest (Wash, Ore), where she might not.  He might take Nevada.

    Obama might take Colorado, she will take Arkansas and West Virginia.

    Those are the differences I see.



    Hillary's next ad (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by blogtopus on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:09:30 PM EST
    Should be something like:

    "I don't rely on how much you hear my message; I rely on you knowing what is best for our country."


    "Having a louder bullhorn doesn't change the message."

    I have wondered how much behind the (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by athyrio on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:09:59 PM EST
    scenes she is with Obama, and also wondered why she isn't still on the campaign trail with him...As far as the ads are concerned, they usually turn me off if too many....Kinda like buying votes....they annoy...

    Hate to say it (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by CognitiveDissonance on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:33:28 PM EST
    but throwing a lot of money around didn't help Mitt Romney one bit. No one was buying him, no matter how much he tried to cram himself down their throat. I suspect the same dynamic will be at play in PA. At this point in the election, if they are watching TV news at all, Barrack Obama has already been shoved down their throats ad nauseum by Tweety and the media boyz 24/7. He hasn't started advertising in my state yet (Oregon), but I'm already sick of seeing his face on TV constantly and on every news show. I'm tired of all the drama about every little thing. Putting up non-stop ads on top of that is just asking for people to not buy what you're selling.

    One bit? (none / 0) (#77)
    by rebrane on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 04:32:32 PM EST
    throwing a lot of money around didn't help Mitt Romney one bit

    I daresay it did help him more than a bit. Just because he still lost doesn't mean it didn't help -- it means that ads only work on the margins and if you're behind by too much, you're not going to be able to get there no matter how many ads you run.


    Low Information Voters (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Faust on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:38:19 PM EST
    I know that this has become one of those phrases that ellicits derision but such voters do indeed exist. I have a few friends that are almost completely ignorant about politics and prefer to remain so. One of them didn't even know who Nancy Pelosi was. (facepalm).

    I'm pretty sure that one of the principal goals of blitz advertising is to reach such voters while they channel surf so that on the off chance they wind up at the polls when they are in the booth they pick the candidate they've seen the most recently.

    Same thing that all advertising seeks to achieve. Bathing the consciousness of the recipient until it become just background noise that influences subliminally.

    I do think there is backlash potential, but the benefit outweighs the negative.

    As one analyst I saw mentioned it also forces Clinton to spend more money in PA so that she can't spend it elsewhere. In this sense it's just a leveraging of a resource advantage.

    Nobody has spent more... (5.00 / 7) (#32)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:45:46 PM EST
    ...with less of a result than Obama. When he loses Pennsylvania, he will have not have won any of the top ten democratic states, other than his home state. Not one. And he has carried only a handful of the primary states that do not have a large African American population.

    Plus when you add in all the free media that Obama has gotten -- including all the negative coverage -- these conditions he is running in are as good as it gets for Obama.  In the general election, when his negatives are really defined, his electability will dip down even lower than it is right now.

    I don't like Obama's ads (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by kayla on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 02:51:21 PM EST
    Or Clinton's ads.  

    I remember looking at his commercials, when they came to the DC area and feeling alienated by them.  Like there was something BIG going on and you just haven't heard about it yet, and we're coming into your little town to share the joy with you, with him smiling down on the big crowds and shaking hands, and cheers, and chants...   Another problem I have with Obama's ads is that they speak little on how he's going to change our country for the good, but that he's just going to change it... because he's revolutionary.  That can have either a positive or a negative effect.  I guess it depends on who you are.

    Clinton's ads are just goofy and corny to me and don't really connect emotionally.  I haven't bothered looking at their newer ads.

    At some point, I think the law of (4.80 / 5) (#12)
    by Anne on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:17:57 PM EST
    diminshing returns begins to rear its ugly head.

    After Ohio, I was listening to Major Garrett (yes, from Fox News) talking with Rebecca Roberts on XM Radio's POTUS 08, and he was saying that when he traveled Ohio before the primary there, Barack Obama was everywhere - radio, TV, billboards - he had saturated the market with ads.  And yet, he lost.  Did the saturation mitigate the loss that would otherwise have been much greater?  Who knows?

    Speaking only for me, after I have seen an ad once, I don't want or need to see it ever again.  Keep showing it at every commercial break, on every channel, and it starts to annoy me.  Call me over and over and I stop answering the phone.  A couple of nights of that, and I am a little insulted that the candidate thinks I must have severe short-term memory problems.  Trust me - people will remember the candidate after an ad or two, but when there is no escape, people tend to think of him or her less fondly.

    Does it move the undecideds?  I have no idea.  All I can say is that the more someone is in my face wanting me to make a decision, the less favorably I look upon them.  I don't like being pestered by salespeople, and I don't like being pestered by political candidates, either.

    But that's me.

    As a high-information voter (none / 0) (#20)
    by rebrane on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:32:19 PM EST
    who actively seeks out political news, you're not the target audience for ads. As amazing as it may seem to those of us who are mainlining pure, uncut campaign coverage, there are a lot of people who don't even know who Barack Obama is. According to this post-Super Tuesday poll of Pennsylvania, 27% of voters didn't know enough about Obama to have an opinion, compared to 16% for Hillary. His goal with the advertising blitz is to achieve a positive impression among the surprisingly large number of voters who don't have any impression yet.

    High or low information doesn't matter (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by tree on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 02:19:14 PM EST
    she still has a point about diminishing returns. Seeing too many ads way too many times can be extremely off-putting, even if they're from a candidate or on an issue you accept. If their not, it can be downright infuriating.

    I (none / 0) (#88)
    by sas on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 04:54:02 PM EST
    hope Obama keeps spending money like water here in PA.

    It's not going to do him a damn bit of good.  The Hillary voters here tune him right out.

    If we are to believe the SUSA poll and analysis, we see that her support is rock solid among whites, older voters and women.  Men move a little toward or away from him.

    C'mon Barack - spend, spend, spend.  It's over for you here, hon.


    Why pay 60 million... (3.66 / 3) (#6)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:11:38 PM EST
    to get your mug plastered on the tv 24/7 when it is already plastered on the tv 24/7?  I really don't get it.

    Obama must have a lot of palms to grease on Madison Ave. or something....

    Fairly Disgusting (1.00 / 1) (#37)
    by AlSmith on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 02:05:04 PM EST

    I really dont like the idea of getting these under $200 from poor gullible people who can't really afford to finance these mostly pointless media buys.

    I wish Hill would flip the script and call on Obama to stop taking these small donations because they are as exploitative as the FreeCreditReports and the pay day loan people.

    Is everyone so addicted to cash that they cant see that poor are being exploited for rich pols ego gratification?

    What is disgusting is your condecending attitude (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by fuzzyone on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 02:55:24 PM EST
    As someone who can only afford to make a small donation I really appreciate your clearing up for me how gullible I am.  Yes, anyone who can only afford to make a small donation must just be stupid.  All those smart rich people know better and support Clinton, although I think she has some stupid people who make small donations, just not as many.

    In fact I actually stopped sending money to Obama because I was sick of this fight and wanted to save my money for the general, whoever won.  (I even did a diary on DailyKos arguing that we should stop donating to the primary campaigns.)  But I'm not conceited enough to think that those who continue to donate are gullible rubes.


    fuzzyone, I think you're right (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by lookoverthere on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 03:37:55 PM EST
    AlSmith, that was condescending and crappy.

    People can spend their money the way they want. They're not spending yours.

    I think it's great. More people in the process, the better.


    Neither (none / 0) (#101)
    by AlSmith on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:24:52 PM EST

    Its neither crappy nor condescending, just realistic. And my policy would be the same regardless of who the candidate is. I am not saying that people shouldn't be able to give their own money- I am saying that would be better if candidate didnt chase after people spamming them to give more and more money. How is this much different than payday loan targeting the poor?

    I'd advise the poor not to smoke, play the lottery or give to national political candidates. If they have a charity budget, they should direct it to their local food bank- rather than some candidate's media buy.

    If a rich guy gets nothing for his $2300 I could care less and it probably wont make a difference to him either. A struggling family could really use the $200 bucks that they are giving because they are swept up in false exuberation.

    Is it crass to recommend that a candidate for the highest office at least have a campaign policy that considers the poor?


    Perhaps "the poor" (none / 0) (#102)
    by eleanora on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 01:28:30 AM EST
    would like to choose how to spend what money they have without waiting for your approval. And maybe Senators Obama and Clinton respect their donors enough to ask for money when they need it and trust people to decide for themselves what they can afford to give.

    Amen. (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by eleanora on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 04:12:47 PM EST
    I'm a small donation Clinton supporter who signed up for a monthly amount because I couldn't afford a big chunk all at once. Small donors to any candidate or cause aren't not gullible, just determined to help in the fight as much as we can. And we'll help in the GE too, no matter who the nominee turns out to be.

    Here is what I dont like (1.00 / 1) (#56)
    by AlSmith on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 03:33:33 PM EST

    In an entirely glowing Times article about how great it is to have these small donors the only example is this guy Matt Lane who is 38 and barely lives above the poverty level and has been bleed by Obama for $100 I am guessing he cant afford.

    Does he have a 401K? health insurance? And yet Obama keeps spamming him and he keeps giving.

    Small donations add up for Obama
    The campaign sent out an e-mail message from Obama to donors the morning after the New Hampshire defeat.

    "I know you just made a donation, but we are about to enter the most decisive period of the campaign," he said, signing his name at the end, "Thank you, Barack."

    In Birmingham, Alabama, Matthew Lane, 38, logged into his e-mail and received that message. Although he earns less than $20,000 a year as a storyteller in public libraries and as a freelance writer, he decided to give $25 on top of a few small contributions he had made dating to March 2007.

    the way things are, I'm not going to vote (1.00 / 1) (#78)
    by thereyougo on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 04:35:33 PM EST
    for a rockstar. I'm the demographic that won't be moved by glitz and Oprah.

    I'm not even going to renew my O mag.

    I like hearing Elizabeth Edwards saying she'll endorse Hillary health care plan over Obama's. Thats worth more to me than his folksy ads.

    Lots and lots of young people are paying attention to THAT.  Trust me, this issue is huge.

    Obamas spending reminds me of Arianna Huffington's 'ex husband, a millionaire who outspent Diane Feinstein for a senate seat and LOST.

    GWB outspent Al Gore, and really lost but the rest is history. So I'm not convinced that saturation of your face even for 30 sec ads are going to deliver unless they've got some subliminal message.

    Hmmm.... (none / 0) (#7)
    by ajain on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:12:06 PM EST
    I just think that this is pretty big gamble. What if he loses Penn big? I dont think he will, but I hope he does. If that happens what are people going to say.

    He is the big money candidate.

    I viewed the ads from both (none / 0) (#8)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:12:43 PM EST
    campaigns. I don't think his will have the impact he would like, especially now that hers are running.

    I think some will see it as an attempt to buy the election based on his lack of experience. Others won't because it's not his personal fortune and it's all 'grassroots' money {wink}.

    I also think all his spending may bite him in the behind. If he is spending that much and can't beat her in a blue state . . .

    It's the Giuliani lesson. (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:19:06 PM EST
    48,000,000 for one delegate.

    Money ain't everything.


    Oh yeah, not watching the spending (none / 0) (#17)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:27:08 PM EST
    I didn't think it was right that GW had so much to spend and I was not impressed that Hillary started out that way also. And Obama, I am not happy about either. I would like to see a cap so they would just spend more wisely but I know that there will always be a loophole to get around it. So, unless no loopholes, a cap is useless.

    As for the ads here in Penna, they are the usual, but the one last night for Hillary was really nice. I mentioned it in open thread last night and someone else saw it and thought it was wonderful. It was personal, it was warm, and Hillary told of her early childhood in NE PENNA. I understand that Dan Abrams thought it frivolous but we in Penna thought it was worth a hug.


    Her hispanic ad is also very warm (none / 0) (#30)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:44:42 PM EST
    Her ads hit the targets. Even the 2 she's not in. I like the Rendell one. He looks like he has a twinkle in his eye as he talks about her.

    Yes (none / 0) (#95)
    by nell on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 09:16:21 PM EST
    Baby Hill is adorable =) I really liked the ad they are using to target Scranton, it left me smiling.

    It seems that too many ads (none / 0) (#19)
    by Lil on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:27:55 PM EST
    would be a turn off. If it is 4 to 1 like I've read, it could come off as bullying or something like that. Also, after awhile ads start to aggravate me. It must be effective though, because candidates keep doing them. I do believe there is a point past efficacy, but I don't know what that point would be.

    You should warn Coca-Cola (none / 0) (#21)
    by rebrane on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:33:09 PM EST
    They seem to think that when it comes to advertising, more is better.

    They seem more subtle (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Lil on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:36:11 PM EST
    like background noise. Political ads are a lot more intense, and given a lot of people's attitudes about pols, I think it is fair to say that people get aggravated with campaign ads in a way they are not likely to with a product ad.

    Background noise is subjective (none / 0) (#76)
    by rebrane on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 04:31:22 PM EST
    To a lot of people, politics is background noise.

    yes, of course (none / 0) (#93)
    by Lil on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 07:30:47 PM EST
    politics may be background noise, but I suspect those folks still hate the politician and thus have a particular aversion to political ads. Speaking in generalities of course.

    Coca-Cola (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by cmugirl on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:38:22 PM EST
    is not mentioned on the front page and op-ed pages of the newspapers, is not every banner on every website, and is not part of half the newscasts and all the pundit shows every night.

    Besides Coke (and the beer companies) actually have ads I like to watch - they're creative and funny.


    Notice they don't advertise on the pundit shows? (none / 0) (#80)
    by rebrane on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 04:39:18 PM EST
    It's because of what I said -- it does the campaigns no good to show 30-second ads to people who are actually seeking out coverage of politics.

    They don't advertise on the pundit shows (none / 0) (#99)
    by FlaDemFem on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:15:25 PM EST
    because Coca Cola is supposed to be about fun and tasty refreshment, and if you have a bad taste in your mouth from the pundit and an ad for Coke comes on, you will associate that taste with Coke. That's bad marketing, really bad marketing.

    Hmmmm... (none / 0) (#23)
    by nell on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:34:44 PM EST
    I knew he was spending a lot, but I did not realize how unprecedented his spending is. Personally, I don't find political ads that appealing in general and I have never seen one that convinced me to vote for someone. For example, I remember liking the one Bill Richardson did for the job interview, and while it made me laugh, it never convinced me to take a second look at him.

    I think ads are only helpful if they get someone to think about an issue in a different way or reframe the conversation. This is why I think the 3am ad was so effective,  though it was not especially creative. It reframed the debate around national security, which I believe is a debate that Democrats MUST have if we are going to win the general election.

    What I heard from some in Ohio is that they were sick of seeing his face plastered all over their televisions...but that was mostly from Clinton supporters, so it makes sense that they would be sick of him....my guess is that it does help in terms of shoring up his base of support and possibly getting people out to the polls, but it doesn't really help people that weren't convinced anyways.

    This is exactly how I feel. (none / 0) (#28)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:40:38 PM EST
    I think ads are only helpful if they get someone to think about an issue in a different way or reframe the conversation. This is why I think the 3am ad was so effective,  though it was not especially creative. It reframed the debate around national security, which I believe is a debate that Democrats MUST have if we are going to win the general election.

    People make fun of that ad, but the "3 am phone call" has now entered the political conversation. It did what it was supposed to do.

    I don't know what Obama's ads are doing, since I live in NY and he knew he was never going to get this state. ;-)


    Needs to target local flavor (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by nell on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:56:12 PM EST
    One interesting thing I heard from a friend in Ohio was that they were really turned off by some of the Obama advertisements that were focused on him and how popular he is, such as the one with the big rallies and the thunderous applause. She mentioned specifically the one where a Harvard law professor talks about how great Barack is for doing community organizing instead of going to work for a corporation. Something about it just rubbed her the wrong way. What average, working class person can relate to that? So his teacher says he is smart! Big whoop! So, I think it is really important to have advertisements that fit the local flavor. While the aforementioned ad might be great in San Fransico, it probably doesn't work in Ohio, or even Pennsylvania.

    If Clinton had the money she would do the same (none / 0) (#38)
    by fuzzyone on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 02:07:34 PM EST
    But she does not.  She does not because she has tapped out her big donors and does not have the huge small donor base that Obama has.  To try and somehow make that a plus for her and a minus for him is just turning reality on its head.  It reflects the grassroots campaign he has run.  You can not like him or his message but you can not deny that he has run a very effective campaign.  Think about how much better known Clinton was than Obama 18 months ago.  He had to spend more money.  The amazing thing is that he was able to raise so much.

    "He had to spend more money" (4.25 / 4) (#43)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 02:15:54 PM EST
    is a concern.  How much can he raise -- so how much can he spend -- in the general election?  How much will it cost?  He has to outspend Clinton by far even to lose significant states.  How much will it cost to win with him as the nominee?  Can the Dems come up with that much in a worsening economy?

    If his campaign is so effective (none / 0) (#39)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 02:11:36 PM EST
    why can't he break into her demographics? It is effective in reaching his select demographics, but I don't see it as a game changer or he would be done with her by now.

    Why can't she break into his? (none / 0) (#47)
    by fuzzyone on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 02:44:35 PM EST
    It's an argument that gets you nowhere, especially since she is the one who is losing, despite all of her early advantages.

    To the extent he is a gamechanger its in the general because he has more crossover appeal.


    She'll get his (none / 0) (#51)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 03:12:10 PM EST
    Dems in the GE because she's running as a Dem. He isn't. He has said his plan for the GE is to register more new young voters and AA's to change the maps. Nice talk, but she holds the Dem base vote. He kinda needs that to win in the GE. WHY do you think she's still in the race and hasn't been blown out? Looking at polls, her youth numbers aren't bad and she'll PU more AA's in the GE. She doesn't need to break into his demos as much as he does hers. Hispanics, Women, Older voters, Blue Collar/Working Class. She also has crossover appeal against McCain as much as some folks don't want to admit it. She can get the votes of those worried about the economy etc. Obama has trouble talking to the demo graphics he needs to break into against her or McCain. McCain can get some of the 'everyman/woman' vote against Obama, it will be harder for him against Clinton.

    Without the AA vote she is toast, (none / 0) (#54)
    by Seth90212 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 03:27:26 PM EST
    and I can assure you she wouldn't get it in Novemeber, given the kind of campaign she's run. The other demographics you cited don't vote in blocks like the AA demo does. Threatning Obama with women or blue collar voters or older voters are all empty threats. Those are not block votes. Women, for example, would go 50/50 between McCain and Hillary.

    I think you are both wrong (none / 0) (#55)
    by fuzzyone on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 03:32:32 PM EST
    I think the dems come home to the nominee.  Once the GE campaign gets underway and the reality of the choice sinks in I think either one of them beats McCain.

    Not really (none / 0) (#61)
    by Seth90212 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 03:44:23 PM EST
    You can only threaten someone with a block vote. Hillary's demographics do not fall in line and vote dem every time. Neither do Obama's, except for the AA vote. That is the only national block vote. Even the vaunted Latino vote, which supposedly loves Hillary, will go either Repub or Dem or split between the two. Women will never vote as a block for any dem. Around half of the women vote will always vote Repub. Same goes for every other component of Hillary's coalition.

    National daily tracking polls (none / 0) (#62)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 03:46:49 PM EST
    Have Obama +1.6 and Clinton -1.8 on average vs McCain.  Not a big difference.  Either of those will get a significant bump once there is one Dem. candidate.

    Threatening?! (none / 0) (#65)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 03:55:23 PM EST
    I assure you I wasn't threatening Obama.

    There was a recent poll of her getting back a small majority of the AA vote. Of her voters, many may migrate to McCain, experience and all that. She can retain her demographics, but can Obama get hers WHERE IT COUNTS? Can Obama flip red NYS? She's made  a strong base outside of NYC (in fact, we rarely hear from her!), and there's a lot of red out there. Same with CA. There's that big ol' valley running between SF and LA. She 'knows' those folks. Obama, not so much. They could go McCain.

    BTW, Obama did the race baiting, not her. So if you want to talk about how campaigns are run . . .


    I live in that big ol' Valley (none / 0) (#73)
    by Seth90212 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 04:22:31 PM EST
    and they ain't voting McCain.

    This is a legal site (none / 0) (#74)
    by Seth90212 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 04:24:11 PM EST
    You provide evidence of Obama race-baiting and I'll provide evidence of Clinton race-baiting. We'll send it to the jury. How's that?

    You will lose.


    Not true (none / 0) (#68)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 04:04:36 PM EST
    Actually polling shows the opposite.  African American supporters of Barack Obama are among the least likely to defect of any demographic group.

    And women would most certainly NOT go 50/50 - that hasn't happened in forever.  Democrats always pick up many more women.  Hence the gender gap.


    I have not researched thoroughly (none / 0) (#70)
    by Seth90212 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 04:20:33 PM EST
    how women vote, but if Dems enjoyed an overwhelming gender gap they would never lose. I said roughly half. There are a lot of conservative women who vote Repub.

    I'm willing to bet (none / 0) (#97)
    by angie on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 09:53:59 PM EST
    based on the over-generalizations in your posts on this topic, that you haven't researched thoroughly how AAs vote either.  

    They won't defect (none / 0) (#72)
    by Seth90212 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 04:21:26 PM EST
    They just won't care and won't show up.

    Women won't go 50/50 (none / 0) (#81)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 04:39:26 PM EST
    (Men don't go 50/50 either).

    And while you might have a feeling that African American voters will stay home, it would be nice to see actual numbers that bear that out.  I would add too, that defections among voters are worse than staying home because that's a gain for McCain coupled with a loss for Democrats rather than just a loss for Democrats.


    I know men don't go 50/50 (none / 0) (#85)
    by Seth90212 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 04:48:50 PM EST
    but there are more women than men. Neither group is going to give 80 to 90% of it's vote to any one party. Same goes for Latinos, gays, youngsters, elderly, etc. Only one group can make a credible threat against a Dem candidate. We all know which group that is.

    Well (none / 0) (#91)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 04:59:48 PM EST
    The actual numbers would not seem to bear you out, so unless you have others, I think it is unlikely that there will be a high number of defections.

    Not a serious comment (none / 0) (#53)
    by Seth90212 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 03:23:42 PM EST
    He is beating her. How quickly he beats her is irrelevent. He might have knocked her out by going excessively negative and dredging up her countless scandals, but he has not. Are you suggesting, for example, that Obama should call Hillary a liar over Tuzla in order to knock her out early?

    There are numerous articles propagating the notion that Obama has run a brilliant campaign and Hillary has run a very poor one. Superdelegates are now taking their respectivie management capabilities as one more metrics in deciding who to side with.


    Seth90212, he's winning so big (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by lookoverthere on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 03:42:26 PM EST
    that his supporters were screaming for her to quit. Until they got the memo that they better stop because it was backfiring.

    The contest isn't over. Nobody's won or lost until we have a nominee and that won't happen until the convention.

    How it ends is a lot more important than how it started, IMO.


    Let's be serious (none / 0) (#63)
    by Seth90212 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 03:47:56 PM EST
    hinting that she should quit is not a reflection of how well he is doing. In fact, you can argue the opposite of your proposition. Hillary's camp has not asked Obama to quit because they would look extremely foolish asking the likely nominee to quit. Obama's camp, however, has the confidence to ask Hillary to quit because he is winning and she is not.

    Hinting? Are you serial? (none / 0) (#75)
    by lookoverthere on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 04:31:12 PM EST
    That wasn't hinting. Calling it so is disingenuous.

    Yes, you could argue that Sen. Obama is doing so well that screaming for his opponent to quit is a sign of strength.

    You could also argue that somewhere in the forest a unicorn is crying and someone needs to bring it a handkerchief.snark

    The contest is not over and it will not be over until the convention.

    Why not let it run to the end?

    This is great. People are engaged. If Sen. Obama or Sen. Clinton screw up, better now than in October.


    lol!~ He shouldn't have to go negative to win (none / 0) (#67)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 03:59:36 PM EST
    after all, he's a new kinda politician. I was talking about him spending more, big rallies, saturating the markets, plenty of time for the voters to get to know him . . .  and still, she's too close for comfort. And winning where it counts. With dems.

    And his campaign HAS been calling her a liar among other things since, well, day one.


    Are you serious about this? (none / 0) (#98)
    by ChrisO on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:12:37 PM EST
    "Are you suggesting, for example, that Obama should call Hillary a liar over Tuzla in order to knock her out early?"

    The Obama campaign has been calling her a liar and untrustworthy, a d talkiong about a credibility gap, but I guess to you that acceptable, because he only goes negative when Hillary makes him do it.


    So maybe we should (none / 0) (#40)
    by tree on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 02:12:03 PM EST
    make him Fundraiser in Chief. He seems much more qualified for that then for President.

    Americathon 2008!


    Frak! (none / 0) (#41)
    by tree on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 02:14:49 PM EST
     Would you believe I'm a great speller, but a lousy typist? "...more qualified for that THAN..."

    i think you have it on (none / 0) (#44)
    by cpinva on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 02:16:30 PM EST
    the nose faust: seeing something a gazillion times doesn't necessarily make you more knowledgable, but it most certainly makes it more recognizable.

    if you think about it, from a strictly economic standpoint, there has to be a huge ego return on investment, since the dollar return on investment is so pitiful.

    the president is the CEO of USA, Inc., the world's largest corporation, with trillions in annual revenues, millions of employees and operations all over the globe. it has a hand in every single industry there is, from construction to high tech.

    the president deals with a board of directors (congress) who are pretty powerful in their own right, is on call 24/7/365 and is charged with making life and death decisions, possibly affecting billions of people world-wide.

    for all this, the president makes a paltry couple of hundred thousand dollars a year, what exxon spends a year on their CEO's insurance policies.

    granted, they get some nice perks, probably worth another couple of hundred grand a year, and he doesn't have to worry about finding a parking space at work (ever tried parking in downtown DC during the day?), so that's nice.

    still in all though, it pales by comparison to what the CEO of the #500 company on the fortune 500 list makes a year, not too mention there's no stock options included.

    It's obscene (none / 0) (#52)
    by stillife on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 03:22:33 PM EST
    to spend that kind of money on a campaign.  Isn't the mere fact that he spent $60 million on ads going to turn off a lot of voters, especially considering the state of the economy?  It sure goes against the "new kind of candidate" meme, unless "new" means "awash in filthy lucre".

    Also, I wonder about the DVR factor.  I record everything and almost never watch ads.  What percentage of people use DVRs these days?  

    Advertising works by repetition (none / 0) (#57)
    by lookoverthere on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 03:36:01 PM EST
    I think the point is to make the product (Sen. Obama) feel familiar to potential primary voters.

    For example, the Head On campaign. Annoying as he11, but you know the name of the product and that makes you significantly more likely to buy it. "Significantly more likely" does not mean 57% of us are going to run out and buy Head On. More like .0057%---but multiply that by 300 million and you have enough money to throw on the living room floor and roll around in.

    Right now, I'd bet that most PA primary voters are at the beginning of the buying cycle. The first task is to get people to a place where they recognize the product. Lots of ad buys suggest to me that his campaign is looking for basic name recognition. So when the voter goes into the booth, the name "Barack Obama" will not feel strange to them.

    Right now, that's what Sen. Obama has to do---seem familiar. Familiar is a lot more comfortable than unfamiliar.

    He has an uphill battle because Hillary Clinton's name is already very familiar. (Her battle is changing the way she's been defined as a puppy-kicking baby-eater, but that's a separate issue.)

    His target are those voters (Dem or not) who are not watching this primary stuff with baited breath. I dislike the term, "low information voter," because it assumes that people don't have high information about their own lives and needs. Of course they do. And usually (though, sadly, not always) that's how people make their election decisions.

    Anyway, familiarity makes people feel more comfortable about making a choice. For example, you're driving cross-country to a funeral. You need to eat. Your choice is McDonald's or Guggletweek's. You have twenty minutes and you're tired.

    Which one do you choose?

    The flipside is that while familiarity can breed comfort, it can also breed contempt. I think Sen. Obama has to be very careful about his messaging. As one person noted about an ad with a Harvard prof talking about how smart Sen. Obama is. That can backfire because it assumes people don't already think a pres. candidate is, or should be, smarter than the average bear.

    Such an ad can feel condescending, which, given the event that ended in the number 37, frames Sen. Obama as just another John Kerry. That would be difficult to recover from.

    He has to be careful about his staging of the ads, too. He has to look like a man of action, while also being thoughtful and presidential, without coming across as too young, too inexperienced, and a know-it-all. The challenge with that is that Sen. Obama is not an actor---it takes training to know how how to project that image confidently to camera.

    You can be a thing but not look it on TV. The camera definitely lies and not just about that extra ten pounds it adds.

    Anyway, that's just my take. And I don't discount the psychwarfare of such a media blitz and it's effect on voters, donors, and volunteers. I just don't have any expertise in that area.

    If he doesn't advertise how are (none / 0) (#60)
    by waldenpond on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 03:43:11 PM EST
    people supposed to get to know him?  He can't be every place at one time.....

    "Every place is Barack Obama country once Barack Obama's been there."  -- Barack Obama, on Barack Obama

    "To know me is to love me," said Obama when asked by the AP's Nedra Pickler about how he will overcome Sen. Hillary Clinton's, D-N.Y., advantage in national public-opinion polls.

    Media is actually mentioning he is trying to knock her out and the record spending.  They conveniently leave out the analysis of what it might mean.

    Tree - I cleaned it up (none / 0) (#79)
    by PlayInPeoria on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 04:38:58 PM EST
    for you...

    "Obama's camp" has confidence but

    not quite enough confidence to shut the f#$k up about Clinton quitting.

    But style points for best spin of the day here. Kudos. Seriously

    Use symbols to change the words.

    But you did give me a good laugh.

    I thought (none / 0) (#84)
    by PlayInPeoria on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 04:48:42 PM EST
    Crawford had a good articleabout the number of ads. Link (bottom of page)

    Watching the tube in Pennsylvania these days might as well be called watching OBAMA TV. I've seen my share of saturation advertising buys during campaigns, but this is unprecedented. In a five-hour session of watching one network I counted 14 ads sponsored by Barack Obama, compared to a total of three ads for Hillary Rodham Clinton.

    He also comments on the truth of the ad...

    Long ago the media watchdogs, such as Politifact.com, determined that at best it is only half true for Obama to claim that he takes no money from federal lobbyists. He takes plenty of money and advice from those who work for lobbyists, such as former Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle.

    I do not always agree with Craig Crawford... but sometimes he shows some unbiased thoughts.

    I beleive I would get aggitated by that many ads. Head-on ads drive me nuts!! I beleive I would need some of the stuff with that kind of Obama advertising.

    bears repeating Obama (none / 0) (#90)
    by thereyougo on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 04:59:40 PM EST
    and his quixotic online supporters have turned the race into a frenzied quest some calling it a 'movement', but not necessarily the type that has gotten him VOTES otherwise, it would have been game over. He hasn't reached the magic number and won't reach it and he should have with the internet fully and overwhelming behind him. Its crazy.

    So, game is STILL ON, shouting Hillary out has brought people forward and her base stronger.

    I'll tell you what, I am still smarting from the Gen Xers and Yners calling Hillary awful names and it strengthens my resolve to keep sending small donations to her and when the GE comes around I'll volunteer AND send her some more $.

    question pardon the O/T (none / 0) (#92)
    by athyrio on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 05:00:58 PM EST
    Is it legal for the Democratic Party to openly organize and promote just one candidate??

    That is tacky-poo! (none / 0) (#94)
    by zyx on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 08:17:08 PM EST

    I actually have mixed feelings (none / 0) (#100)
    by ChrisO on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:17:15 PM EST
    about Obama's fundraising. It's hard to argue that it's a plus to raise a lot of money from small donors. Unfortunately, Obama's supporters have now conflated that to mean that the candidate with the most money is by definition superior. The obsession I see with Hillary's campoaign finances among Obama supporters is really aannoying. It reminds me of the kids at school who had an air of superiority because their father had a lot of money.