Super Tuesday Ad Buys

by: Chris Bowers

Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 15:19


Coupled with their campaign stops, the following information on Super Tuesday ad buys provides further insight to campaign strategy on Super Tuesday:

Mr. Obama, of Illinois, has run advertisements in 21 of the 22 states that will hold Democratic primaries or caucuses. Mrs. Clinton, of New York, has run advertisements in 16 of those states. His campaign has aimed advertisements on different issues at particular cities in an effort to tailor his message to the concerns of voters.(...)

Mr. Obama has spent $10.9 million on advertisements in the states voting on Tuesday; his first expenditure was Jan. 12, according to officials from both campaigns. Mrs. Clinton has spent about $8 million, starting on Jan. 17 in California. Between them, Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton have spent at least $1.3 million a day for the last week on television advertising in the states voting on Tuesday, said Evan Tracey, chief operating officer of the Campaign Media Analysis Group, which tracks political advertising.

Most of this money has been expended in just two weeks. By comparison, all the presidential candidates spent a total of $43 million in Iowa and $32 million in New Hampshire, according to a report from the Wisconsin Advertising Project. In those states, advertising ran for months before the votes.

Illinois, Mr. Obama's home state, is the one place where neither Mrs. Clinton nor Mr. Obama is advertising. Of the five other states where Mrs. Clinton is not advertising, four - Alaska, Colorado, Kansas and Minnesota - have caucuses, the kind of competition that aides to both candidates believe gives an edge to Mr. Obama. In the fifth state, Georgia, Mr. Obama is looking to do well, in part because of the state's large black population.

Mr. Romney and Mr. McCain began their television effort on Friday; there were no specific figures available on their spending, though it appeared to be about $2 million for Mr. Romney and about $1 million for Mr. McCain. Mr. Romney, again reaching into his own pockets, bought television advertisements across California and on national cable television, a venue rarely used in a primary campaign.

This is interesting on several levels:

  • First, I'm pretty sure that Clinton and Obama are combining for a larger ad buy than Kerry had heading into the final week of the 2004 campaign. Then again, I suppose that isn't too remarkable, since Super Tuesday presents a larger playing field than the swing states did in 2004, and because they are two campaigns instead of one.

  • Second, it indicates that Clinton has ceded both Kansas and Georgia to Obama, since she is neither campaigning nor advertising in either state, while Obama is campaigning and advertising in both. So, along with Illinois, that makes for three safe Obama states, instead of just two.

  • Third, Obama is clearly targeting a delegate strategy at this point, as indicated by his advertising even in places like Arkansas, New York, and Oklahoma. The only rationale I can think of for advertising in states that he is certain to lose is to pick up as many delegates in those states as possible. This is further emphasized by an earlier passage in the article that indicates Obama is targeting select media markets in many states, clearly trying to win a congressional district here and there even if he does not win the entire state.

  • Fourth, Romney apparently has decided to give it a go in California, seemingly hoping that he can win a couple dozen congressional districts there and call it a draw of sorts.

  • Firth, it is interesting that both Romney and Obama are now heavily counting on low turnout caucuses to wage a delegate count strategy, and deny their opponents a quick coronation. An analogy to socioeconomic classes is useful in understanding this. In the delegate system, super delegate endorsements are akin to aristocrats, caucuses are like the bourgeois, and primaries are like the working class. In the Democratic Party, Obama has a strong edge among our "bourgeois," high-information voters and grassroots activists, while Clinton has an edge among the aristocracy and the working class. Romney seems to have an edge among the aristocracy and the bourgeois but, at least according to the Gallup poll, is getting crushed among the rank and file working class of the Republican Party.

Polling, itineraries, and now advertising: the Super Tuesday picture is starting to come into focus. Last year, I had suspected that Super Tuesday would be nearly impossible to follow, but enough information seems to be trickling in that has made it much easier than expected.  

Chris Bowers :: Super Tuesday Ad Buys

Tags: , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Not Being A Heavy TV Watcher, I've Only Seen Mittster Once Here In SoCal (0.00 / 0)
He's running hard on his experience running things.  He's a businessman.  He's a governor. He's a foot-racer.

Hey, wait a second! Doesn't that resume sound disturbingly familiar???

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


praise to DNC (4.00 / 2)
So for all the self-serving complaints from Florida and Michigan, what we see is that the 4 early states featured a great race, with Latinos, African-Americans, unions, and other base voters playing a big role.

Now we have two candidates running positive ads in states that probably haven't seen a Presidential ad in years, national cable ads everywhere, and organizing and get-out-the-vote drives in two dozen states.  I think it's great for the party, and a big plus for the system the DNC set up.  Some of it is luck, but some is design.

And who knows, the later states may get a big voice too, if Tuesday is close enough.

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.


NY ads (0.00 / 0)
Arkansas and Oklahoma ads I can see as delegate strategies. You have to advertise in the NY media market for NJ and CT.

Yeah, but Obama's campaign has made it clear they intend to win some congressional districts in NYC. (0.00 / 0)
Plus, they might be advertising upstate too.  Given the way Obama performs in white semi-rural areas (Iowa, upstate Nevada, outstate NH), they'd be fools not to be trying to poach some congressional districts in upstate New York.

Of course, they have more detailed polling info than I do, and maybe a week just isnt enough to close the gap on Senator Clinton in those areas.  But I would hardly be shocked if they were making a play for white upstate, as well as NYC.

Obama's fundamental enemy is Democratic machine cities, especially non-black machine cities.  That's what killed him in NH and Nevada, where he won the whole state but was beat in Clark County.  His worst nightmare would be a campaign that ends in Pennsylvania, where Ed Rendell and co would mobilize the Pittsburgh and Philly machines on him.  Lucky for him Nutter is mayor.

There are several archetypes of a good Obama state, but one of them is clearly a largely white, largely rural state with no big Democratic cities, at least not of the type that are hospitable to the building of machines.  North Dakota, Colorado, Utah, Idaho, Alaska are gonna be sweeps for Obama.    Iowa and north Nevada were too.

Southern states with large black electorate are another archetype: Georgia, SC, Alabama.

And then MoveOn country: places like NorCal, that have large white liberal populations, especially when they exist alongside large black progressive populations.  SF+Oakland, or Brooklyn+Harlem, that kind of thing.  Colorado has some elements of this: Boulder+Denver+ruraloutstate.  Connecticut does too.

The worst-case scenarios for him are places like SoCal, or New Jersey.  Ironically enough, Chicago is actually the best example.  Anywhere there's a machine that can deliver votes to the establishment, Obama is in a tough situation.  Massachusetts will be interesting cause big chunks of the machine took his side.

Places like Arizona, Missouri, Washington, Ohio, and Texas are the real swing states here: states evenly balanced between her advantages and his.  

This should be interesting.  I wish I knew where to find much more detailed information on ad buys and campaign activity.


[ Parent ]
Not So Lucky Re: Nutter (0.00 / 0)
Nutter's endorsed Clinton, and I'll be stunned if party boss Bob Brady doesn't get the machine out for her. Plus David Axelrod advised one of Nutter's opponents in the mayoral race.

Still, given the Philly suburbs and the heavy black vote in Philly, I think Obama could still do pretty well here in PA. Hopefully we'll see.

I've definitely come around to the idea that, whoever wins, I hope the contest goes through March and even April. Spend a couple of months with both Obama and Clinton beating up McCain and building their organizations. And it'll be hard to say that whoever wins the nomination didn't deserve it after going through the whole country.


[ Parent ]
Ugh, PA's a nightmare then. (0.00 / 0)
I hope the campaign ends on March 4th, when Ohio and Texas and Vermont and Rhode Island vote.  Mostly because after that, it's seven friggin weeks until the next major primary, PA, on April 22nd.  Those seven weeks would be hell.

I went and double checked, and yup, the only primaries in those seven weeks are Wyoming and Mississippi, not long after the 4th.  So attention would go straight to Pennsylvania.

The schedule after that, incidentally, is NC and Indiana in the first week of May, WV in the second, and KY and Oregon in the third.  I'd guess that all but Oregon lean Clinton.

February and March lean Obama, but April and May lean Clinton, so that's alarming to me.  If Obama doesn't dominate February, he'll lose the whole thing.

I think a seven week campaign in PA would be really ugly.  Iowa rewards only clean campaigning, PA I expect would be a different matter.  Sort of our own version of South Carolina for the GOP -- deeply partisan turf where dirty campaigning is not just rewarded, but probably required to win.

The upside is that seven weeks is a hell of a long time -- almost enough to run the campaign over again.  It would give "swing liberals" one last chance to exert leverage over the two players, force them to give us more to earn our votes.  Problem is, I don't think "swing liberals" would be the only or even the major route to winning that state.


[ Parent ]
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox