Today in Pennsylvania Senate news, Arlen Specter has gone on the air with an ad featuring President Obama:
The deciding vote, eh? This ad reminds me of the ones that Specter ran six years ago. Rick Santorum also liked Arlen Specter, when he cast the deciding vote on the Bush tax cuts:
And, Specter ran an ad nearly identical to the one he is now running with Obama, featuring George W. Bush:
The Pennsylvania primary is an interesting test case that will help provide answers to many political questions:
Can the powers that be can hoist any candidate they want onto their constituents? Really, its pretty impressive to get the entire political establishment of both parties to try and defend you from your own constituents. It is doubtful that there is any current member of the U.S. Senate that the institutional status quo loves more, and has done more to support, than Arlen Specter.
Do voters actually like bipartisanship or not? Over the final week, Specter will simultaneously be featured in ads showing him with Bush and with Obama.
How much sway does Obama really have in Democrtic primaries? If Obama really can move votes among Democrats, Specter's ad today really should be a sort of trump card that wins him the primary. But, if Sestak is able to pull it out, don't expect fear of the White House to sway many prospective primary challengers anymore.
Yesterday, the Maine Attorney General herself smacked down the argument that changing Maine law will force children to learn about marriage equality in public schools. This follows up on the Maine Department of Education stating the same thing.
Maine Attorney General Janet Mills says Maine's new gay marriage law is not related to the state's public school curricula. Mills examined language in LD 1020 at the request of Maine Education Commissioner Susan Gendron, who said parents were questioning public school superintendents about how the law might affect what's taught in public schools. [...] Mills says local school boards in Maine have the final say on what material is allowed to be used in local schools, and the law won't change that.
"I have scoured Maine laws relating to the education of its children for any references to marriage in the public school curricula. I have found none," Mills says today in a letter to Gendron.
Despite this, we just got this new Yes on 1 ad sent to us here in Portland.
Incredibly, their ads keep getting worse and worse (this actress looks like she learned to act by watching J-Lo in Gigli) with too many words, too much to listen to. So, we lucked out on that part.
But as Bill in Portland Maine wrote this morning (rec on DailyKos if you have a sec), the AG's statement will appear above the fold in newspaper's across the state. Maybe they forgot to pull their ads. But if Yes On 1 wants to burn their money on bad ads that contradict legal opinions, that's okay by us.
Update: Just to pile on the point that this is being debunked, 61% of Maine likely voters in the Pan Atlantic poll released this past Tuesday said they didn't believe the "school indoctrination" line that Yes On 1 is pushing.
The latest TV ad from the Corzine campaign is out, and it's below. I spent part of the afternoon looking through all of the video the Corzine team has put together so far, and noticed a serious problem, and an opportunity.
Take a look at the ad below.
I think Corzine's handling of the economy is one of his strongest points and messages, but this is just too many words, and really weird music. And "But Chris Christie's soooo partisan..." is just a dumb line.
Now, check out the campaign's previous negative ad, and two negative web videos:
Same problem, right? Weird music (the last one awkwardly flipping to positive music for the Corzine campaign logo, kind of ruining the effect) grainy images, too many words on screen. And generally just the same old classic negative ads.
Some thoughts on these, and a change in approach, in the extended entry.
Republicans hammered Barack Obama over his connection to ACORN during last year's election, but now ACORN is taking a swing at some Democrats - with the help of liberal activists at MoveOn.org.
The role reversal arises out of the groups' anger at moderate House Democrats who opposed a housing bill that has more generous bankruptcy rules for people facing foreclosure.
Next week this coalition will begin airing TV ads criticizing House Democrats who voted against the measure, which would for the first time give judges the authority to restructure home mortgages - a procedure known as a cramdown.
Hmmm... where did I hear about this before? Oh yeah:
An Ad To Run Against Dems Who Vote Against Cramdown
I am starting a series of blog posts today on what I think are the most effective ads, mailings, and other forms of communications with voters are in this late month of the campaign. I wanted to do this because outside organizational ads rarely get the attention that campaign ads do, but frequently have a huge effect because of the credibility an independent voice can bring to an issue.
Via sb in quick hits, the Wisconsin Advertising Project takes a look at the tone of television advertising in both 2008 and 2004:
During the week of September 28-October 4, nearly 100 percent of the McCain campaign's advertisements were negative. During the same period, 34 percent of the Obama campaign's ads were negative. Comparing this presidential election to 2004, we see that both the McCain and Obama campaigns have aired more negative advertisements than did their counterparts. In all of 2004, 64 percent of the Bush campaign's ads were negative, while to date, 73 percent of 3 McCain's ads have been negative. Similarly, 34 percent of all Kerry ads were negative while 61 percent of Obama's have been. In 2004, the DNC aired a significant number of negative ads, while this year the DNC has been largely silent in the presidential race.
So, McCain has gone 100% negative, but Obama has pulled back his negative advertising and is now taking a more positive tone. However, when one looks at it from a net perspective instead of a gross perspective, there hasn't been as much of a change as it might appear:
Ads on McCain, entire campaign: 27% positive, 61% negative. Net -34%
Ads on McCain last week: 0% positive, 34% negative: Net -34%
Ads on Obama, last week: 100% negative, 66% positive: Net -34%
So, while Obama has pulled back the negative a bit, when it comes to ads that discuss John McCain, the ratio was as negative as ever last week. Obama has responded to McCain's negative turn by running more positive ads, probably in an attempt to maintain his positive image under a new wave of assault.
The overall effect of this shift is that the campaign is now more focused on Obama than it has ever been before. Hard for me to imagine that this strategy will work for McCain, since this isn't a political environment where Democrats can be disqualified in the eyes of the national electorate. Republicans, by contrast, start out disqualified, and must prove otherwise. That is a task McCain has abandoned, as he has turned 100% negative on Obama.
On several instances recently, the Obama campaign has referred to McCain attacks as "lies." They even ran a television ad to that effect:
Today, the Obama campaign it continuing a different line of attack on McCain. By using McCain's absurd statement that "the fundamentals of our economy are strong," they are pushing the "out of touch," narrative that connects to McCain not knowing how many houses he owns, to being in Washington for 26 years, and to McCain himself saying that he is out of touch.
More on the new line of attack in the extended entry.
The progressive blogosphere spends a lot of time discussing campaign strategy. Every day, thousands of times over, we critique campaign messaging, debate the quality of ads, muse about targeting strategies, and suggest new lines of attack. The problem is, as Matt has often pointed out, the only help the Obama campaign wants comes in the form of campaign donations and volunteers to work on field operations. So, no one is really listening to our suggestions. We are not making a difference on messaging.
There isn't anything wrong with donating to the Obama campaign, or in volunteering to do voter registration, phonebanking, or other forms of field work. Those are important things to do, and there is real pride and dignity to being a political volunteer. The problem is, if you feel like I do, that it just isn't enough. For one thing, the Obama campaign has been consistently losing ground for the past two plus months, so it doesn't feel like what it is doing is working. Second, not everyone's best political skills lay in field organizing, especially if, like me, you are introverted (I've done some real field work, but it has been painful). Third, donating to a campaign is often a one-off endeavor, and lacks of satisfaction of continued engagement. Besides, maybe the money won't be spent effectively, anyway. Finally, if the netroots are just taking orders from large Democratic institutions, then we really just don't seem like a very interesting movement to me. Whatever happened to taking on the system and changing it with people power?
Taking the solid advice of Open Left commenter Will, rather than just complaining about this state of affairs, I decided to start running my own ads. Instead of feeling disempowered by narratives I can't do much to change and messaging that doesn't speak for me, now I have my own anti-McCain ads. The two ads will appear across the entire state of Pennsylvania, on about three-dozen different Google keyword searches for John McCain and Sarah Palin. It feels really good, too. Here are the ads:
It is my money, my message, my targeting. Based on the keywords and cost-per-click rate that I chose, Google estimated that my ads will result in 25 click-thrus a day, costing me a little under $10 a day. However, the ads will be viewed by exponentially more people and, because of the keywords I chose, only by people looking for information on the campaign. Further, as I learn what messages work and which ones don't, if I want to fit daily talking points or the latest scandal, I can easily change the ad. Also, I can change the locations where I am targeting on a moment's notice.
You can do this too. In fact, you should do this too. In the extended entry, I explain why and how.
McCain has a new, stupid, false ad out about Obama where he claims that Obama has passed a law to mandate sex education for kindergarten. However, just because it is stupid and false doesn't mean it won't be effective. In fact, it might demonstrate a truism about contemporary American politics: if you are explaining, then you are losing.
Personal business unavoidably kept me away from the Internet this afternoon. Now that I am online, I wanted to take a moment to compliment this new Obama ad (tremayne already blogged on this earlier today):
Transcript:
I'm not up on the economy
Don't know much about industry.
Really can't explain the price of gas,
Or what has happened to the middle class.
But I know that one and one is two.
And if I could be just like you
What a wonderful world this would be.
This is a solid ad, for several reasons. First and foremost, it breaks away from the five-paragraph essay format of ads that Obama was stuck in for much of the last couple of months. Instead of making a thesis statement and then backing it up with three or four supporting points, the ad moves into satire of John McCain's own words. This is important, because for a long time Democratic ads suffered from a dryness that reinforced our image as an uptight party of no-fun nerds (read: Gore and Kerry). The satire in the ad also does a lot to help drive home the connection between McCain and Bush, and also simply to make McCain look inept and pathetic on economic issues.
One problem I do have with the ad is that it feels like it is out there in isolation. Perhaps I just haven't been paying close enough attention, but Obama hasn't really been calling McCain a third Bush term in a couple of months. Is this ad a sign that they intend on reviving this line of attack? If so, I am all for it. However, right now, this ad does have a bit of a feel of throwing something against the wall to see what sticks. I'm not sensing that this is part of the overall story Obama has been trying to tell of late.
Something strange happened to me last night. All of this talk about McCain and Obama advertisements must have sunk into my subconscious, and I actually came up with an idea for an attack ad on McCain. The concept is an old-timey love affair between McCain and Bush::
Instead of a narrator or voice-over, the ad will feature music, specifically the chorus of the old-timey song "Getting to know you." It will be shot entirely in black and white which, along with the music, will set a motif of age. The visuals will show McCain hugging Bush, eating a cake with Bush the day Hurricane Katrina hit, shaking hands with Bush, etc. All about McCain loving Bush. McCain's own words will creep in over the music two or three times, all with sycophantic comments about his love of Bush. Possible ideas include McCain saying how proud he was that he did everything he could to elect Bush, the other saying that he has total confidence in Bush, and another saying how much he is like Bush.
That's my idea. Given that I have no real financial backing for any such ad, any successful 20-second spot would need to generate free media, and / or go viral over the Internet. I'm not sure this would do it, unless the photos and the quotes did a good job of making McCain and Bush look like they were having an affair. Perhaps a more overtly mocking tone, or even something borderline offensive, would be the right idea.
Anyway, if you cold produce an attack ad on John McCain, what would the ad look like? Surely, we can some up with better ideas than the five-paragraph essay format that seems to be all Obama can put out these days.
With three new attack ads in as many days, Obama is clearly hitting back. Whether he is hitting back effectively is another question entirely, but the tide does appear to be turning a bit. Obama gained a net of two points in the Rasmussen tracking poll today, to take a 1 point lead. Also, McCain generally feels on the defensive over the last twenty-four hours, with Obama on the attack. Here is the latest ad from Obama:
This ad follows the same pattern of the other two. It opens with a promising attack, this time using McCain's own words on how similar he is to Bush. However, instead of exploiting the attack and hammering it home, it turns into a litany of policy details. It reminds me of first year composition essays: thesis statement, plus three supporting details, and then a conclusion about who paid for the ad.
In the comments, Joel has been pushing the notion of dumping the details, and telling a story. I think that is a good approach. Tying McCain to Bush through his own words, pointing out his oil industry donations, and then pointing out that McCain has been in D.C. for 26 years, would actually juxtapose quite nicely if they were in the same ad. Together, they tell a story of McCain being part of the system that led to our current problems.
In short, I would like to see the first ten seconds of the three advertisements from this week tied together in a single ad. The policy details are nice if we were being graded, but this isn't a classroom. Paint a picture, tell a story, develop an arc. Through his connections to Bush, oil companies, and the long time he has spent in D.C., McCain is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Obama has released his second attack ad on McCain in two days. Like the first one, this is still probably inadequate when it comes to driving the debate and establishing the elite narrative. Unlike the first one, it has a promising new avenue that could do just that, if used more boldly:
The part I find intriguing is the very first line: "John McCain: he's been in Washington for 26 years." The rest of the piece is pretty much the same litany of small-bore policies listed over rising music that we have come to expect from Democratic campaign ads over the past decade or two. While the latter won't do anything to change the debate or the narrative, which is really what a successful attack does, the first bit has potential. Here's why:
It's not entirely rational: In order to grab pundit and media attention, sometimes the straightforward, deductive arguments need to be left behind in favor of something more vague, more emotional, and more identity-based. The "been in Washington for 26 years" line attacks McCain as a long-term Washington insider, and hints, but does not state, a wide range of other attacks. These include cynicism, connection to special interests, connection to Bush and the Republican Party, and even possibly to McCain's age.
It will probably piss McCain off: In order to change the narrative, you need to get your opponent to personally respond to your attack. Given that McCain has been itching for Obama to attack him based on age, this line of attack his probably implies that just enough, without actually saying anything, in order to get an age-based identity backlash from McCain. If played correctly, such a backlash has the potential to change the narrative by creating a discussion about whether McCain has been in Washington, D.C., too long in order to make any significant changes. And, as I noted above, having this debate would bring along implications about McCain's cynicism, connection to special interests, connection to Bush and Republicans, and even to his age.
It is specific to McCain: While the attack connects to long-standing Democratic attacks on Republicans, like connections to large corporations, it is also specific to McCain. He has been in Washington too long, he is too old, etc. This is why it is a superior attack to "they" will try to scare you about me. It connects to regular anti-Republican narratives, but it is specific to McCain's identity.
Overall, I don't think that this attack is exploited well enough in this ad, but it has potential. If used with the proper level of rhetoric, the "McCain has been in D.C." for too long, could change the narrative, and start directing the balance of attacks toward McCain. It is also probably something that Obama personally believes about McCain, so I imagine we will see more of it. It is better than the "McCain is a flip-flopper" attack, which doesn't make any sense if you want to tie McCain to Bush. It is better than "McCain is a rich dude with $500 shoes and eight homes" attack, which is basically a responsive attack to the charge that Obama is elitist and doesn't change the narrative. It is more in the vein of "McCain is too tied to large corporations" attack, but it takes a less rational, more emotional, more identity-based approach. And that is what you need to do if you want to change the narrative.
Cool information that puts this all in perspective. The numbers on the right indicate the amount of money that the Obama campaign is spending, relative to the McCain campaign, per every one hundred voters, in each state, on TV ads--Chris
When I read Chris' front-page post about the relative ad spending by McCain and Obama, I thought that it would be more useful if adjusted for the relative size of the states. So I did the math; my results and commentary are below.
STATE BLOGS
