Two New Obama Ads: Which is Better?

by: tremayne

Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 23:03



Let's do some message testing. Watch these two ads and tell us which is better. You can vote in the poll and give your reasoning in the comments.

Try to evaluate the ads from the point of view of a lower information voter rather than the high-information voter you probably are.

tremayne :: Two New Obama Ads: Which is Better?
Poll
Which ad will be more effective?
First ad (Taxes)
Second ad (Abramoff)

Results

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Two New Obama Ads: Which is Better? | 110 comments
First ad by a nose (4.00 / 3)
They're both pretty good but not great.

Actually the AFL-CIO mailer targeting McCain's lifestyle and how that dovetails with his support for privatization of social security kicks both their asses. That ad is personal both as an attack on McCain (he's a wealthy asshole who would be fine if his social security was taken away, also subtly hints that he's old enough to be on social security) and as something that effects the voter personally (that wealthy asshole is going to take away your social security).

That messaging is golden. And it's memorable. These two are good, but I don't think their memorable and the message in the first gets a little muddled because it's another laundry list of items while the second one is a little hard to follow because they spend most of the ad reminding you who Abramhoff and Ralph Reed are (I know it's easier to remember who Reed is since this was airing in Georgia). The social security mailer has two very basic very clear points. McCain = Rich Asshole and McCain = privatize social security.

So my advice would be to get those union guys on the message team for Obama.

John McCain is afraid of Canada!

Here's a link to that mailer (4.00 / 1)
LINK.

John McCain is afraid of Canada!
[ Parent ]
And the second part of the mailer (4.00 / 1)
talking about privatizing social security.

LINK.

John McCain is afraid of Canada!

[ Parent ]
YES! That shit is great. (4.00 / 4)
McCain is rich.
McCain is old.
McCain wants to privatize your social security.
Or, McCain wants to put your social security fund into the stock market (good line now that it's going down and not up).

It's hard to have a good excuse to mention those first two, but Social Security provides it.  This is a great frickin attack.

[ Parent ]
First one (0.00 / 0)
The kind of thing that can saturate the airwaves and reinforce what people think of Republicans.

I think Obama's 'detail" (I keep hearing people want 'detail', but they don't want to go looking for it) issues should be taxes and health care. The Five Million Dollar Man's health savings acounts are a sick joke.

The second one is good, too. That oughta play in DC markets. See if it can't penetrate the marble skulls of McCains base at NBC, Washington Post, etc.

Compare that to Bob Schaffer's health care plan (0.00 / 0)
I call it "Every Man for Himself."

Oddly, however, people don't seem to want to talk about healthcare in Colorado. Consistently, the top issues are gas prices and the economy, followed by the war and then illegal immigration, healthcare, and terrorism tied far below.

[ Parent ]
First Ad (4.00 / 4)
The second one is too inside baseball.  Low info voters don't know Ralph Reed and Jack Abramoff.  Remember the Congressional numbers didn't really start moving hard in 2006 until Mark Foley.  That was long after Reed and Abramoff broke.  

The first ad is good but the major problem with it is that they don't show McCain with Bush.  Every attack ad show should end with McCain and Bush together in the Rose Garden.  We need to make people understand McCain is Bush's third term.  That's how we win.

Well (4.00 / 1)
"Remember the Congressional numbers didn't really start moving hard in 2006 until Mark Foley."

Actually that's not true. Democrats had a huge lead in the generic ballot throughout most of 2006. Foley just sealed the deal in some more iffy swing districts (and Foley's district obviously).

John McCain is afraid of Canada!

[ Parent ]
Okay (4.00 / 2)
I'll give you that on generic ballot question but people understood the Foley scandal and it was the brick that broke the camel's back.  Without Foley I'd bet money our margins in the House would have been smaller and I wonder if we would have taken the Senate.  

The Abramoff/Reed stuff was too complicated which is why I would stay away from it now.  Plus low info voters think all politicians are all crooks so unless they are indicted they just don't care.

[ Parent ]
Not just Foley (0.00 / 0)
Ted Haggard, et. al. played a big role in Republican vote suppression at the last minute. But their whole cast of characters was deeply flawed and so many of them were tainted by Abramoff that it was easy pickings.

That being said, I agree that the taxes ad is much better for the average swing voter. People have short memory spans. Abramoff will become an issue again because he's due to be sentenced next month and will be in the news a lot again, so the Abramoff ad might sink in later. But for now I vote for the tax ad.

[ Parent ]
Well (4.00 / 3)
Second ad is running only in Georgia, where Ralph Reed was defeated in the Republican primary for the nomination for the Lt. Gov. race due to exactly this issue.

It makes sense in Georgia to run this ad, and it accurately and forcefully attacks McCain's shady character in the process.

[ Parent ]
It May Work (0.00 / 0)
as a targeted ad but not a national one.  The other can run anywhere which, in my mind, makes it stronger.
[ Parent ]
I agree (0.00 / 0)
but still think it's a little too muddled.

John McCain is afraid of Canada!
[ Parent ]
Not message... (4.00 / 1)
But the style of the second ad.  The first ad is BORING BOILERPLATE POLITICAL ADS...  and they really suck.  He needs something different
[ Parent ]
I like it (0.00 / 0)
because it goes after McCain's perceived "strength," which is that he is a "Man of Honor." It says he is not a man of honor but simply another crooked pol.

It may be a commercial that plays best in the South for exactly that reason.

Actually I liked both ads but voted for this one because it felt more personal. It goes after McCain's character (unchangeable) instead of just his ideas and plans (changeable.)

If you liked Bush, you'll love McCain

[ Parent ]
I'm not sure I agree with that.... (0.00 / 0)
I was shocked both times W won, but there must be something people like about him.  I think it would be more effective to select aspects of W's presidency that are particularly unpopular and emphasize those qualities, rather than letting McCain also be associated with whatever people have seen as good in W.
[ Parent ]
Second ad is much better. (4.00 / 6)
As George Lakoff says, Democrats should NEVER use the phrases "tax relief" nor "tax burden."  This reinforces the taxes = bad meme which makes people then go vote Republican (irrationally, but there you have it.  Also, typical of Democratic ads, it throws some numbers up there (I'm a math teacher--most people don't "get" numbers.), and fails to tell a story.

The second ad is better is that, unlike throwing some numbers up there, it tells a story.  A story of standard but revolting insider corruption, and John McCain being part of that  corruption.  This is a very effective attack:  it makes McCain less of a unique "maverick" and more like part of the same old crap.

But but but... (0.00 / 0)
OK, so either NO ONE should mention taxes ever, or Democrats are so badly framed that whenever they mention taxes it's bad for them, whenever Republicans mention taxes it's bad for Democrats. IF this is true: a) the American electorate is so stupid that the shit we're in is inextricable, OR; b) Democrats need to reclaim the framing high ground.

I would never use the word "never" in relation to political discourse. It's also assuming that the people I'm talking to, Democrats in this case, are also too stupid to make reasoned judgments.  

[ Parent ]
that's not what s/he was saying (4.00 / 5)
It's not that Dems can't talk about taxes, it's they shouldn't use the "relief/burden" term which activate the conservative frame of "I shouldn't have to pay my goddam taxes to an amoral/illegitimate government run by hippies".

I'd like to see progressives take the tax meme and merge it with frames for patriotism, service, pulling together, community, apple pie... etc. Shouldn't be that hard, but it's not being done in this ad.

John McCain John McCain John McCain

[ Parent ]
In my dreams, the fifth act of a new (4.00 / 2)
Democratic administration basically removes the word 'tax' from the government altogether, and replaces it with 'homeland support payment' or 'community contribution'.


McCain is against children's health insurance.
[ Parent ]
second (4.00 / 3)
The first one is just constructed strangely, starting off with the question "Can we afford more of the same?" which presumes the low info voter has already made the connection between Bush and McCain. A lot of them haven't. I agree that the line about corporate tax breaks is bad messaging - the ad literally reads:

John McCain's tax plan. For big corporations, 200 billion in tax breaks.

It assumes that the viewer has an aversion to big corporations, which is true for many progressives but not for a lot of our friends and relatives. I bet if you test that line by itself in Detroit or Cleveland or any non-college town for that matter, the viewers will say "yes I agree that those tax breaks are good for the economy". It isn't until the next couple sentences that we're clued in that we're talking about tax breaks for oil companies and corporations that outsource. Then the line about giveaways, which is a better term to use, and a line about Americans getting no break at all. The whole first half of that ad is bass-ackwards. It might work better if it was constructed better.

But the second one is more powerful. As Cat says,it has a better story, does a good job painting McCain as a typical Washington insider. From there you can go to old/elitist/out of touch in a follow-up ad.  

John McCain John McCain John McCain

[ Parent ]
"yes I agree that those tax breaks are good for the economy". (4.00 / 1)
No. Voters do not hold large corporations in high regard.  

John McCain is afraid of Canada!
[ Parent ]
I liked the 2nd ad too but I strongly disagree about framing (4.00 / 2)
Dems have the tax stance that benefits the majority of Americans -- higher (but not crazy Sweden high) taxes for the rich, lower taxes for everybody else. I still think the first ad is too wordy and not visceral enough. It would be better if it were more negative.

"John McCain claims to be a maverick but is really just a billionaire who thinks 5 million a year is a middle-class salary. While millions of Americans are struggling to survive the housing crisis and deal with debt, the McCain's own 7 (?) estates and put everything on the card. He's promising his millionaire buddies a big tax cut while X number of people will get nothing... Sound familiar? John McCain -- the wrong man to solve your problems."

Play the 5 million clip in the middle and show him hugging Bush at the end.

[ Parent ]
I'm no tsaying that we shouldn't talk about taxes. (4.00 / 1)
I AM saying that it should be done in an ad like yours, and not just throwing a bunch of numbers at the viewer while taking about "tax relief."
[ Parent ]
Gotcha. Good point. n/t (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
exactly (0.00 / 0)
first is all sorts of numbers bla bla bla - new taxes, tax breaks, big breaks, middle class breaks, more of the same, change, wha? its such a jumble - waaaaaaay too much technical information, not a clear side by side comparison either.

the second has drama, the figures are dark and wearing trechcoats - like im watching wise guys. very simple message: McCain == Corruption. you dont even need to know who the bad guys are.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]
No Contest, #1 (4.00 / 2)
It's the economy, stupid.  

The second ad is all inside baseball.  We're not electing a boyscout den leader, we're electing someone to fix the mess of the last 8 years.  We need someone with a plan who will not do more of the same and won't tilt their economic policies to the wealthy.  Voters don't care about Ralph Reed.  

Second Ad is More Focused--One Theme---No confusion! (4.00 / 7)
The second add is more focused. The first one has too much for a low information voter to take in. This is bad, this is good. Which candidate did they say had the good plan? Which one had the bad plan? I remember hearing them say someone would raise my taxes (that's what I remember from the first part of the ad) and I remember seeing Obama smiling at the end. Yep, that's it, the ad must have said Obama would raise my taxes...yep that makes sense, he's a democratic...yep, I thought so!  

Demockracy.com

[ Parent ]
good point on focus (0.00 / 0)


John McCain or Barack Obama?
[ Parent ]
You nailed it when you said the ad "told a story" because (4.00 / 3)
in a story....there's always another chapter coming and chapters allow a story to build around a theme and in that 2nd ad I saw a couple of themes emerging:

  • McSame's age( longevity in office was mentioned)

    AND

  • ties to lobbyists which can lead to corruption

    It packed a punch in a short amount of time and promises more

    • [ Parent ]
    I forgot to ad that just like the 'celebrity' of McSame's the 2nd ad had (4.00 / 2)
    subliminal messages in it: it forces the viewer to try to reconcile "maverick" McSame with corrupt lobbyists and if a voter is looking for more information about McSame this ad allows a voter to come at McSam from a different angle just as the celebrity ad against Obama sort of jarred people when he was put on the same level as Paris and Britney.

    I want to see more ads like this because once Obama engages Mcsame on this level and it's McSame who gets knocked around a few times the focus may shift to an issues discussion, then McSame is really toast.

    Obama has to take on McSame's credibility andif he can tarnish it( get rid of the maverick, straight talking express guy) then no issue ad coming from McSame will have the same impact.

    2nd ad hands down over the first ad.....at this point

    It's all about strategy

    [ Parent ]
    yeah but it's way way too subliminal (0.00 / 0)
    The celeb ad hits you in the second.

    Abramoff doesn't have the star power that Paris and Brittany have so that's not going to be much of a jarring issue even if you are pairing a criminal with the so-called blessed maverick.

    That need to do better than this. It's fine for Atlanta, but no where else.

    John McCain is afraid of Canada!

    [ Parent ]
    How about this to undercut McCain's Maverick Image? (0.00 / 0)
    This is issues-based, so it might be a little risky, but I think that argument is strong:

    Opens under band playing Presidential march

    Voice: John McCain earned a reputation in the senate standing up to George Bush's doomed financial policies...

    (band becomes discordant and eventually stops)

    Voice: but now he wants to keep these policies, which send our jobs overseas and let millionaires profit from middle-class sweat without giving back a fair share.

    (band strikes up again, slightly out of tune)

    McCain led a failed bi-partisan push for non-skilled guest-worker visas

    (becomes increasingly dischordant and eventually peters out)

    but after billions of dollars in food has been lost, rotting on the vines without harvest labor, and while grocery prices skyrocket, McCain thinks it's more important to spend tens of billions to build a fence and keep those workers out.

    (no background music black screen)

    McCain is flip-flopping to get you on his bandwagon, only he doesn't understand our economy.  We can't afford a president like this.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, that does address the maverick meme but I'd be more forceful (0.00 / 0)
    about it at the end.

    But the right idea

    [ Parent ]
    The difficulty is that... (0.00 / 0)
    It would be more forceful to state McCain's name in closing, but if one ends with "we can't afford a president McCain"-- there is effectively an association of "McCain" with "president" which it would be best to avoid.

    What if we tie McCain to Bush's failed foreign policy?  Bush doesn't deal forthrightly with the international community 1) bending intelligence to wrongly demonstrate Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and 2) stepping on Canada's toes in violating a hundred-year-old border treaty (among other things).  This second point is not well-known (I heard it on NPR), so it wouldn't make a good soundbite, but there must be something else...?

    McCain's disingenuous dealing with the above issues suggests he might similarly tarnish our reputation abroad (which could hurt our economy?  ...or could undercut his edge in being seen as more internationally savvy?  ...This may not be any good.  Republicans make no sense to me, so I'm not sure how to convince them of anything).

    [ Parent ]
    Are these thoughts _really_ what you thought when you saw the ad? (0.00 / 0)
    I can't imagine how any political practice based on the idea that you are smarter than the people you're trying to work with is progressive.

    I have a colleague who works with poor people in India and Vietnam. He started today's conversation saying, "See, there are all these poor people, and they're smarter than the other guys who are trying to help them..."

    It just seems to me that you're applying a framework for analysis that isn't related to your own real experience, but that draws on the hypothetical "experience" of another.

    [ Parent ]
    Content is better in the first (4.00 / 1)
    Style is better in the second. Agree with other posters that Ralph Reed isn't going pull any votes.
    It might in and around Georgia (4.00 / 1)
    But obviously that's not the point.  However, it can be more general.  Anyway, I don't think it's Ralph Reed that's going to pull the votes, it's building a case that he's surrounded by lobbyists, an example at a time.
    [ Parent ]
    honestly (4.00 / 4)
    I don't think lobbyists is a moving issue at this point.
    I think you hammer home that McCain is a rich bastard who wants to steal your social security and ship your job to China.

    That gets at two core groups that Obama needs help with, old people, and white blue collar workers.

    The lobbyist thing I think gets two complicated because you have to build a case that he's connected to them in some nefarious way and that the lobbyist did something wrong, and this affects me how by the way?

    Kills jobs. Kills Social Security. Rich (old) Asshole. Very simple. Throw in the some crap about oil companies too if you want too. But those first three I think are killers.

    John McCain is afraid of Canada!

    [ Parent ]
    Agree 100% (4.00 / 2)
    Nobody cares about lobbyists and campaign contributions unless you are indicted over it.  

    Hammer that McCain is Bush's third term on the economy and Iraq.

    [ Parent ]
    Hammer the fact that Bush gave tax breaks to corporations and that McCain will too (0.00 / 0)
    We know taxes are important, are buzz-important to voters. ("Where does he stand on taxes?" Up or down?") Bush has over time tied himself to corporatism, tying McCain to the same corporate tax breaks is brilliant.
    [ Parent ]
    Rich might be iffy... (0.00 / 0)
    I agree that McCain is effete, much moreso than Obama, but Obama's also earning millions from his book sales.  I think if we complain that McCain is rich, he could easily dismiss it with "...well, so is he."
    [ Parent ]
    Number 2 (4.00 / 2)
    It may be the economy stupid, but I think it's really dumb for Democrats to talk about tax cuts.  They should talk about things that Democrats do well, like health care.

    "Barack Obama has a plan to make the health care congressman get available to all Americans.  John McCain has a plan to make it harder for your employer to give you health care.  John McCain thinks the problem with health care is that people don't pay enough of their health care costs.  John McCain, health care is for whiners."

    I like the second one because it hits McCain in his strengths, while emphasizing Obama's: he wants to change government, McCain likes the way it is run.  Obama can hopefully tie the themes I discussed above with this.  "John McCain supports oil and drug lobbyists stopping reform.  Barack Obama wants to change the system to get you better health care, and a new energy plan."

    So, 2 it is for me.  

    Why isn't the "I'm not an expert" quote going to be used? (4.00 / 2)
    I don't get it... isn't that the perfect quote?

    Didn't he also say something else to that effect in a debate when they were talking about the economy, and he said something like "Oh, I like foreign policy better" or something to that effect... Can't remember exactly what it was.

    Second ad... (0.00 / 0)
    I think taxes are sort of a loser overall... people don't understand them, as they're just kind of complicated overall.
    Second (4.00 / 1)
    It is a  mess, but the second is better. The first is about how dem policies are better. Noone will punch the Obama chad because of that. The second tells us McCain is a corrupt politician. The message has to be about McCain, the person (or Obabama, the person.) Its still a bad ad though, its like a game of Clue or something.  
    Think of me as an independent voter... (0.00 / 0)
    I actually don't care if McCain is corrupt. At this point, I assume that they're all corrupt or corruptible. I care about taxes. I don't care about Abramoff, I don't care about Indian casinos in the slightest (except there's one I can drive to), I certainly don't care about Ralph Reed. If McCain is corrupt but he's on my side, well, I'll vote for him. If Obama is or isn't corrupt, but he's on my side, well, I'll vote for him.
    [ Parent ]
    you actually hit on Dukakis's late charging campaign theme (0.00 / 0)
    he's on your side.

    Was too late to make up for Willie Horton and the Kitty Dukakis question in the debate though.

    John McCain is afraid of Canada!

    [ Parent ]
    Then you're not the one the second ad (0.00 / 0)
    is aimed at.

    Again, this may be a cultural thing, but a lot of McCain's support is based on nothing more than this visceral equation of war hero = integrity. That's why he talks about his war experience 24/7, he knows how his people think.

    Puncture that, show that McCain does not have integrity and he's got nothing.

    If you liked Bush, you'll love McCain

    [ Parent ]
    the second ad COULD have been more effective, but the first one is better (4.00 / 2)
    the second one is too convoluted to make the connection between McCain and corruption. They need to hit the point faster, and then spend the rest of the ad just reinforcing the main point.

    The tax one is painfully easy to understand. That earns it big points.

    Second ad. Not even a contest. (4.00 / 4)
    The first ad is about boring policy and numbers stuff (the only part which actually grabbed my attention, emotionally or otherwise, was the empty factory/hangar), and it's in this apologetic, forced-polite "it's so disappointing..." tone I find pretty offputting. If you're going to attack McCain, don't be apologetic about it. I don't know if this even counts as an attack; on the technicalities, it probably is, but it feels more like a whine.

    The second ad is pretty decent. The music is well-chosen, and there's a sense of suspense and intrigue, of "you're getting new information here", that maybe this McCain guy isn't exactly what he seems.

    this is my sense as well (0.00 / 0)
    but the first ad is ahead so far

    John McCain or Barack Obama?
    [ Parent ]
    both have problems (4.00 / 2)
    but I think that the new nefarious info about McCain from the second ad, "ooooh he didn't hold hearings" is a little weak.

    Need to be more forceful but I agree that you need to drive home a narrative that McCain isn't exactly what he seems. Like instead of being a maverick he's actually just some rich bastard who's going to take away your social security (which if he denies it then he'll be labeled as a flip-flopper) and ship your job off to China (which if he denies it, will also be labeled a flip flopper since he's an ardent free-trader).

    Painting McCain as an arrogant ass who doesn't give two shits about you is I think a better "gut-level" case to make than that he failed to live up to his oversight duties while in Congress.

    John McCain is afraid of Canada!

    [ Parent ]
    I too would have liked stronger, (0.00 / 0)
    more direct language in the second. It's a good story, why are they afraid to tell it?

    Better than "didn't hold hearings" would be "let him off scot-free." Instead of saying McCain didn't so something he should have (passive), say he did do something he should have (active).

    If you liked Bush, you'll love McCain

    [ Parent ]
    First Ad Shouldn't (4.00 / 3)
    have switched to Obama's stands.  It should have hammered McCain a few more times and shown him and Bush together.  That is my major problem with it.

    I just don't think voters care about lobbyists and campaign contributions unless the candidate is indicted like Ted Stevens.  That's my problem with the second one.

    [ Parent ]
    Keeping positive and negative messages in separate ads (0.00 / 0)
    to avoid muddling the message seems like an interesting idea.
    [ Parent ]
    1st is boring, 2nd ties mccain to bush and corruption, which is perfect (4.00 / 2)
    I agree completely.  The argument about taxes is hard to follow, and probably actually just reinforces the already existing Republican message (cutting taxes is good!).  The second ad is too specific, focusing on Abramoff and Reed.  But the basic idea of tying McCain to everything that's tarnished about the Republican brand is exactly right.  Obama's "More of the Same" slogan is right on a number of different levels: it reinforces his basic change theme, but also ties McCain to Bush.  That's what is key.  I love the final shot in the second ad of the Bush/McCain hug.  

    Both ads are flawed but the second is much closer to where we should be.  I'm really hoping these ads are a good sign of Obama's message testing and that once we get past the conventions, Obama can unleash the ideas he's tested here in full fury.  If not, we have problems.  

    [ Parent ]
    First ad (4.00 / 1)
    If I'm a low-info voter (and even if I'm not), I'm going to care a lot more about my finances than whether McCain was involved in some scandal which I've heard almost nothing about.  Don't get me wrong, I think the second ad is useful as a start, but I feel no personal connection to it.

    I also like the ads diaried here:

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

    Neither touched the emotional radar (4.00 / 7)
    The Political Brain by Drew Westen, make it required reading for all of Obama's ad guys.
    As a low info voter maybe the first one hits a little better, but its faint if at all.
    totally agree about the emotional radar (0.00 / 0)


    John McCain is afraid of Canada!
    [ Parent ]
    emotional radar (0.00 / 0)
    That's the key for me, too.  Neither ad grabs you in the gut.

    I'd like to see ads that highlight McCain's words during the Michigan primary:  More Wars, Less Jobs.

    Let's hang it around McCain's neck

    [ Parent ]
    I love the first ad (0.00 / 0)
    The first ad is a bit shocking, because it hits the Republicans in their own tender talking points. The first ad is ALSO pitched right at the financial tightening that Americans feel around their throats and it contrasts that tightening with the free ride that we know (in our guts) is being given to the corporate elite.

    The second ad, it's fine, it's damning, but how much do most people care about Abramoff. When you jump for the lifeboats, the guys who clubs somebody as he claws his way past you is, well, rational.

    ---

    THE FIRST AD needs to include  "... in tax breaks" to the numbers presenting McCain's tax plan. "$400 million" could be positive (new taxes?) or negative (tax breaks). We don't know how--if we're tuned to the visual--to think about those numbers.  

    Terminology (0.00 / 0)
    Since the Republican argument is that cutting corporate taxes will improve the economy, whether or not people buy in to that argument, it might hit a little harder to say "McCain would add tax loopholes for his rich corporate buddies" or something, since "loopholes" are worse than "tax cuts."  
    [ Parent ]
    lose the expression "low information voters" (4.00 / 3)
    as Will Rogers put it, we are all ignorant, just in different subjects. "Low information voter" is the expression of hubris.

    In many respects political junkies are the easiest to manipulate, because they believe what they want to believe, at least in my view.

    so just put that expression away, it just gets in the way of understanding voters.

    Too polite. (4.00 / 1)
    Frak.

    Pretend you aren't  a republican and have to work all day and take care of kids and don't have time to sound all important on the innernets.

    Pretend you have been subjected to American media constantly and unrelentingly. Pretend your schools were underfunded a generation ago and have been little more than holding tanks for twenty years. Pretend your grandfather doesn't make jokes  anymore, because he's on shift as a greeter at WalMart China(tm), and he's not allowed.


    Obama 2008 Hope and Change


    The best plan for an "Anti Bailout"

    [ Parent ]
    neither (4.00 / 7)
    both are still too cerebral rather than an easy to underestand emotional punch. they re too literal rather than picking out some easy to remembeer phrase on concept. he needs to be taunting mccain.
    I would love to see some taunting. (0.00 / 0)
    Damn but that would do my heart good.

    If you liked Bush, you'll love McCain
    [ Parent ]
    Mute the sound, tell me what message you get (4.00 / 10)
    Mute the sound on both of them and tell me what message you get. I get nothing. Which means they're both pointless money-wasting crap.

    Ads need to have both visual and audible impact, and one must be discernable without the other, because you're not going to reach everyone with just visuals or just audio.

    Simple. Visual. Make it sticky.

    Obama has no good ads. None. The liberal elite supposedly control Hollywood, and Obama can't get Spielberg (or even a talented college student) in for a commercial. It's all the same old DC consultant-style crap. WTF?

    OK, you win (4.00 / 1)
    Storyboard some visuals for one of these two ads. Please.
    [ Parent ]
    see bruhrabbit below for a fine start (0.00 / 0)

    [ Parent ]
    forgot, Obama does have a lot of excellent YouTube vids (0.00 / 0)
    None of which were done by the Obama campaign.
    [ Parent ]
    you know it's funny (0.00 / 0)
    wasn't Axelrod supposed to be this narrative-crafting genius? Or is he only good at crafting narratives for his own guy but not negative narratives for the opponent?

    John McCain is afraid of Canada!
    [ Parent ]
    I can't speak to his political acumen, but his narrative skill is crap (4.00 / 2)
    I can say that much if he's behind these ads. I am just running through ads right now that have worked for me in other media- the Gossip Girl ads come to mine. I hate the show, and yet hte ad campaign are these great one liners that are just memorable. Taking quotes that are meant to put the show down,a nd turning them into something that makes you want to see what you know is a crappy show. Here is another great ad from another medium- film - for the movie little Children

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt04...

    What does this have to do with Obama- well, let's remember this:

    They all have the same thing in common with the Daisy Ad:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

    [ Parent ]
    How is this so hard? (4.00 / 3)
    What's the scariest thing about John McCain?

    It's not that he calls his wife a cunt. It's not that he's got eight houses and $520 shoes. It's not that he wants to give another frillion dollars to Big Oil.

    The day that I see a Democratic ad that doesn't feature a single 'stark fact' is the day I believe we're winning.

    ***

    Oh, but here's a neat 'stark fact': you can judge immediately how effective an ad is by the Village reactions. If they hate the ad, if they say you're rolling around in the mud, if they call your character into question? Then you've got a powerful ad.

    Otherwise, you've got shit. That's how we knew the Celebrity ads worked. It's how we know that ad with the woman and her baby, where she's saying, 'You can't have him' was a great ad. It's how we know 'Betray-Us' was strong and Wes Clark's statement hit home hard.

    When the Village starts hating on you, you don't back down, you double down.

    Almost literally. You roll out an ad with Clark saying, 'Who honestly thinks that being shot down in Vietnam gives you foreign policy cred? And the temper tantrum in response to my statement, the McCain campaign's hysterical meltdown, looks pretty thin-skinned.'

    When the Village anger starts simmering, you run your, 'John McCain begged for a land war in Kosovo. He sulked when we didn't invade Russia. He shrieked that Korea--no, Iraq--no, Iran--no, Libya--no, Russia is the greatest threat to civilization evar! The world stage isn't a good place for red-faced temper tantrums."

    Then when the howls of outrage start, you run your 'John McCain claims that John McCain wasn't tortured in Vietnam, he'll say anything to win' ad.

    Then at the complete freakout meltdown, you run the calmly explanatory, 'Obviously I think John McCain was tortured. What other explanation is there for such an honorable man making 32 propaganda films for the enemy? I'm not sure why the McCain camp is throwing a temper tantrum: I'm just saying that clearly he didn't make those films because he wanted to. Torture like that would break any one of us. Me, you--John McCain. Broken. That's why it's so very wrong.'

    McCain is against children's health insurance.

    [ Parent ]
    Good point. (0.00 / 0)
    ALL commercials should be able to pass the "can you follow the story with the sound off" test. Because that is how a lot of people use TV now, not to mention the millions of sets left running silently in every bar, airport and hotel lobby.

    If you liked Bush, you'll love McCain
    [ Parent ]
    I should tell you how I would have directed the ads (4.00 / 8)
    a) The economic one. I don't understand why he isn't showing the pain the street rather stats. I would start with various Americans impacted by policies that McCain expouses. I would juxtapose the impact of those policies with something McCain. I would end with a simple phrase- McCain=Bush3. End of ad. The first image would be of the people hurting, then the second of McCain- people hurtinb ecomes associated with mccain.  Simple. Visceral. But. I am not directing this, and they don't use simple hollywood techniques to win the day.

    b) The second ad-- I would chuck it because it assumes I am a wasting insider and must accept a lot of info really fast about who is Ralph Reed, who is Abramoff? Etc. Too much info in such a short time means the audience isn't going to pick up why they should care. I would find a photo or footage of Mccain with Ambramoff. I would find footage of Bush with Ambramoff. I would show news headlines of Armamoff being convicted from conservative and MSM well known sources.  I would have a split screen of Bush with Abramoff and Mccain with Ambramoff. At the bottom of the Screen I would simply say- do you want more of the same?

    # 1 (0.00 / 0)


    John McCain doesn't care about Vets.


    PS (4.00 / 4)
    I am not saying that what i write off top of my head is the best. I am just critiquing this as a failure to properly use the medium. Film (and indeed commercials) are first about emotional impact. If you hook them emotionally, they will remember. it's not a debate. It's not an argument. It's emotions. Walter Murch - the great editor of film in his book Blink of Eye discusses how one's first goal is emotional impact in a story. It's not hte only goal. There must be clarifity etc, but there must be first an emotional reason to vest one's interest in what one is seeing.  
    Honestly? (4.00 / 3)
    They should both be scarier and faster! They should have scarier voices and scarier music and scarier images.

    I actually like the georgia one to run nationally -- if they make it scarier and they say things like:

    John McCain was on the panel investigating Jack Abramoff, one of the most corrupt lobbyists the U.S has ever know -- shot of Jack with his gangster hat, then maybe an ominous shot of suffering children in a Marianas sweat shop -- then John McCain looking sinister. Then the text: John McCain didn't investigate fully. Why not?

    Then the press would be like "What do you mean he didn't investigate fully?"

    And the Obama campaign would be like, "He didn't call Ralph Reed to testify."

    And the press would be like, "Ralph Reed? What? What's this all about? Are you saying John McCain is corrupt?"

    Obama campaign -- "We're just saying he didn't investigate fully."

    And then the press digs into it to figure out whether the charge is true, thereby repeating the implication over and over and over again and then after they've investigated in their feeble way the reporters write that the ads are narrowly true and that while McCain might not be corrupt (if only in the strictest sense) he's certainly irresponsible and lazy and willing to let his allies off easy and probably a little bit worse than that.

    They need to take it to this guy and fast and hard. That's my humble opinion.

    I voted 1st ad (0.00 / 0)
    Because it's got new information that is valuable to low-information voters -- McCain's tax cuts are for the rich, Obama's are for the 100 million familes.

    The second ad is too much inside baseball but it might cause a slow leak in the "John McCain is an honorable man" idea. McCain is a slightly less vulgar version of Duke Cunningham.  If Ad #2 accomplishes Mission Slow Leak then it will be effective over time in ways that Ad #1 is not.

    John McCain

    Both suck... (4.00 / 1)
    As pointed out earlier the first is too muddled and while on a possibly effective topic, just doesn't resonate even with me (a "high info voter" I assume).

    The second had a better feel and flow and more resonance (due to the story-telling aspect) and is also on a potentially effective theme (McCain as just another corrupt insider), but the characters are way to esoteric (or inside politics) for the average voter (okay, I realize its playing to a targeted, informed audience, but so what).  Its not transferable to "low info voters," or just about anyone else.

    Damn people, is this the best we got?

    People don't need to understand the scandal (4.00 / 1)
    They just need to know it was a scandal and show Abramov walking down the street with that Fedora looking like a gangster.

    John McCain defends Bush's Iraq strategy.
    [ Parent ]
    Second Ad - By Far (0.00 / 0)
    It says McCain's name more... It's simple to understand... It shows him with Bush... It plays off of the straw that broke the camels back in '06 - Republican scandals.

    Also, honestly, the first one has too many words. They're displayed too fast so you can't read and listen and look at the pictures at the same time. It's info overload for the low info voter, with confusion being the end product.

    John McCain defends Bush's Iraq strategy.

    the second, maybe (0.00 / 0)
    on its own, no. but as part of a series of ads that are all about money and McCain and end with Bush+McCain=TruLuv, it might sink in. never the specifics of any of them, just the general sense. that's why it isn't a critical flaw that the specifics are kind of arcane. think of Whitewater. nobody ever understood what the hell that was really about.

    that first one, though. ugh. so emo. "i have no tax relief. i am a sad bear. a sad middle class bear like you." boring boring boring. the constant fades to black were like my eyes closing as i fell asleep.

    there was one throwaway bit in it i did kind of like:

    "Barack Obama. President."

    like it's already true and we all know it and he's just letting the Republicans work through their grief.

    i don't know how that would play with someone who genuinely felt torn between McCain and Obama. but then that's an alien mindset. but for people who haven't formed an opinion because they think about other things, maybe.

    Mind Melding With The Heartland (0.00 / 0)
    All the guesswork here as to what the average American would think about these commercials is no different than the talking heads on Cable TV telling us what the average American thinks about the issues of the day.

    Unless you're doing a scientific study on how people respond to these commercials, your opinions are worthless. And when you talk about how you think "low information voters" will react to them, you sound more incredulous than Diane Warwick and the Psychic Friends Network. And you sound like arrogant pricks.

    Sorry everybody, but you have no idea what you're talking about.

    Both are Bad (4.00 / 3)
    I'm tired of Obama taking the high road when it comes to attacking McCain's character.

    Heard one of the Veterans for Obama speak tonight at a local Dem club, saying why vets shouldn't support McCain.  I wish this was coming out of the Obama camp.  (paraphrasing)

    "In 2002, when Max Cleland, a fellow Vietnam vet was smeared and labeled unpatriotic, John McCain said nothing.

    In 2004, when John Kerry, another fellow Vietnam vet was attacked and called unpatriotic, John McCain was once again silent.

    And today, John McCain does not support the new G.I. bill, which would increase benefits for veterans."

    You get the point.  Nothing should be off the table when it comes to McCain's character.  Is this going to be another reactive and cautious campaign that goes down in flames?

    First ad (4.00 / 2)
    First ad because it hits back hard on the tax issue, while advancing the pro-Obama "for the change we need" argument.

    The second ad is ok, though it would be more powerful if they'd dug up/included McCain himself speaking about Abramoff and/or Reed.

    It would be really powerful to use McCain's own words to attack him -- to make him a witness against himself. One of the best I've seen is this Move-On that makes him look like an old crank while he points out his own hypocrisy and hits him on important issues:


    Wow! (0.00 / 0)
    I'd seen that before, but when you hold it up against the other two . . . well, just wow.  

    McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion  
    [ Parent ]
    1st by default (0.00 / 0)
    I'm not thrilled with either of them, but while the 2nd may play well in Georgia or D.C., here in downstate Illinois the low info voters I've run into (and oh gawd there are so many of them!) have a very low opinion of all politicians and suspect they're all in it for the $ they can get out of it.  

    I have no data to support this, but I'd bet at least a nickle that around 80 to 90% of them, if they have even heard of Abramoff, couldn't tell you anything more about him and the scandal than that he was some crook lobbyist who got caught doing something he shouldn't have been doing, and would completely miss the ad's link of him to McCain and any relevance it may have.

    Obama shouldn't be messing with any ad that implies some pols = crooked/bad, some pols = honest/good, 'cause the folks I've met will totally miss the "some" and never make it past the pols = crooked/bad which is what they pretty much think already.

    #1 is on the message I think will have the most impact, but the ad itself is about as impactful as luke warm dishwater.  This is the issue that has the potential to get the low info folks to overcome their disgust with politicians and scandals in general and out to the polls to send a message to McCain and the g.d. corporations.  I don't think the 2nd one will do much more than reinforce their disgust with politicians and scandals.

    $0.02 (if that)

    McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion  

    Both good (0.00 / 0)
    But neither is a game changer.  I voted for the second because it goes against McCain's maverick image and paints him as just your average, corrupt politician.  I think it can drive up McCain's negatives a bit.
    First Ad . . . (0.00 / 0)
    . . . since the second ad might be a little too complicated for a typical Joe SixPack to follow, and Joe SixPack might also believe the conventional MSM B.S. that McCain is too "honorable," that he wouldn't be involved with corrupt actors like Reed/Abramoff.  The first ad's better, at least by default.
    I watched them both with the sound off at 3 am (0.00 / 0)
    And the first one has some problems on the first two text things.  I have no idea what is going on other than to guess based on what I already know.  Other than that I like it better.

    Both of them are entirely too jumpy.  I think the entire background for every ad should just be a scrolling collage of Bush and McCain together.  Add some popupus that say "He will raise your taxes", "He will side with Abramoff over you" (with maybe a brief picture of abramoff, "Obama will lower your taxes, McCain wont"

    I kind of feel like the ads are trying to make an inteleectual and complicated argument when what I really want is for them to share my pain over how the Bush admin has hurt my life through his policies.


    The liberal wiki
    Send an email to [email protected]

    On that note (0.00 / 0)
    (After becoming a little more awake)  I'd like to see an ad that tells me how mocain voted on all of Bush's signature issues.  IE no child left behind, that medicare thing, heck even the Iraq war for good measure.


    The liberal wiki
    Send an email to [email protected]
    [ Parent ]
    And they should all say (0.00 / 0)
    Bush's no child left behind, Bush's Medicare plan, Bush's Iraq war.

    And there should be an ad for every congressman and senator running who voted for that stuff.

    The liberal wiki
    Send an email to [email protected]

    [ Parent ]
    1st ad, but not because of taxes (0.00 / 0)
    Tying McCain to jobs being sent overseas arouses the emotional nativist instinct of certain voters who should be courted.

    Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
    Give the ad money to MoveOn (4.00 / 2)
    Both ads are typical mediocre consultantocracy crap.

    People are linking to MoveOn ads for examples of ads that work.

    What is wrong with this picture?

    First Ad (0.00 / 0)
    The second ad is red meat for the base, but the first ad speaks to a broader audience of democrats, republicans, and independents.
    ads (0.00 / 0)
    where are the ads about health care?
    First ad (0.00 / 0)
    The first ad addresses personal concerns while the second ad is more "inside baseball."  If I were a low information voter I would be more interested in what the candidates are going to do for me economically than whether McCain investigated Ralph Reed or not.
    Second ad... (0.00 / 0)
    The first ad starts with a strong question.  It then starts attacking big corporations, which I believe swing voters either won't care about, or just expect as par for the course for Democrats.  It then polishes off with the policy dump, which I generally believe is always just a big steaming pile of crap.  Though I think "Barack Obama. President." was a strong way to finish the ad.  

    On the whole, I hate the ad, but I hope the opening question is repeated in tons of ads until election day.  

    The second ad has no good visuals, but has a narrative - McCain corrupt.  It could be punchier, and I think it would be stronger if Obama narrated it himself, but other than that, it's not awful.  

    It amazes me how much Obama isn't getting the ad thing.  Then again, his ads weren't great during the primaries either - Hillary's were much better from what I saw.  

    Obama needs to pick one of two themes to frame McCain, and stick with it.

    1.  McCain as the third term of Bush.  This way, he won't have to destroy the character of McCain in the public eye, which he seems averse to doing.  He just needs to prove to swing voters that a McCain term is a big risk - that we cannot risk more of the same.

    2.  The flipside is to take the varnish of McCain's reputation as an honorable man.  In many ways, I think this will be the stronger way to attack, as swing voters make decisions on ultimately irrational reasons - how else could it be explained that McCain is now viewed as better on the economy, when aside from discussing tax cuts, he has said nothing about the economy?  Destroy the man's reputation, and his perceived leads on issues will evaporate.  

    Blah and slightly more blah (0.00 / 0)
    The first obviously speaks more to the issues concerning voters these days: the economy. But, if you can believe some of the more believable media -- e.g. NY Times today -- voters are looking for some sense that the candidates actually have plan to address the country's economic problems. While trashing the other candidate's economic "plan" obliquely approaches that need by trashing McCain, it doesn't do anything to show that Obama has any decent ideas. Just looks like a predictable response to McCain's "Taxman" ad.  "Who can cut taxes more than the othe guy" is just playing into their game, doesn't address real solutions and even "lower information voters" will probably just see it as pandering.
    I voted for the second (0.00 / 0)
    because the first was self-contradictory.  First it says "No tax relief" for regular folks, then it says Obama will cut taxes 3 times as much as John McCain.  3 times 0 =0.

    QT

    Visit the Obama Project

    Searching for John McCain?



    By the way (0.00 / 0)
    I am a low information voter.  Despite hanging out here, I don't know much at all about Reed or Abramoff. I feel the ad did a good enough job giving me the impression that they were the bad guys.

    QT

    Visit the Obama Project

    Searching for John McCain?



    [ Parent ]
    First one is slightly less bad (4.00 / 1)
    Jack Abramoff was a 2006 issue. Either voters are tired with it or they were never interested in the first place. It might work in Georgia, but elsewhere it's got no chance.

    The second one is slightly better, but comes nowhere near to hitting the target.

    Obama's ads need to be less waffley and much more frank. If I was going to do it, it'd be something like this:

    "John McCain. He owns ten houses, is worth five million dollars, hates social security and wants to start a war with Russia.

    He's changed his position on every major issue, he voted less than a Senator who had a stroke and he wants to stay in Iraq for a hundred years.

    Vote for Barack Obama. Not the lunatic."

    I don't expect the Obama team to get close to that level of harshness, but they do need to take the gloves off. If the first one were about three times as negative and wasn't as jumpy, then it might work.

    Also, I'm not sure the "Barack Obama. President" bit works. It comes across as too arrogant and it's probably a better idea to run against McCain than it is to run for Obama.

    Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

    Second One Better (0.00 / 0)
    I think ads on tax plans become noise after a while.  McCain's ads say 'Obama will raise your taxes', Obama's say 'I'll cut them' and how is anyone going to know which is correct without doing a lot of research?  Maybe we need the 'I'll cut them' ad, so that McCain does not have the field to himself, but all that can be accomplished is to muddy the waters.

    The 'Same old Washington' theme is better.  It has a lot of facts behind it.  While joining McCain to Bush is always good, a complementary theme that he is a standard issue Republican is also good.  It tarnishes his brand, and is true to boot.  

    new ad on houses: (0.00 / 0)



    New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.
    Was about to post this one (0.00 / 0)
    It is better, but still lacking the Bush/McCain image.  They should be burning that hug into people's retinas!
    [ Parent ]
    Details.... (0.00 / 0)
    I think the specific criticisms in the first one are effective in that not only will they have an emotional impact, arising out of people's pocketbooks, but also they are easy to grasp.

    The second one requires much more specialized background knowledge.  Many more people pay taxes and think of themselves as middle-class than follow Abramoff's shenanigans.

    There is one substantive problem, though.  The message is contradictory in that the narrator says Obama would cut taxes to the middle class "three times as much" as McCain, while the on-screen text says, instead, that he would cut them "three times more."  Obviously both these claims can't be accurate.  Obviously the important thing is that Obama's plan cuts taxes to the middle class more, period, but still the discrepency is disconcerting.

    My dream ad (0.00 / 0)
    would be this:

    No words, just sad/scary music as a series of images play across the screen.

    A picture of a headline reading "home foreclosures at record highs", then one of McCain hugging Bush. Pictures from Katrina, then the one of Bush and McCain mugging for the camera with a birthday cake, etc. etc. There's no shortage of stuff that can be used.

    Then at the end, white words on a black background "Can we really afford four more years?"

    If you liked Bush, you'll love McCain

    Two New Obama Ads: Which is Better? | 110 comments

    Donate to Open Left
    ELECTION 2008 Presidential Forecast
    Senate Forecast
    House Forecast
    PREMIUM AD

    ADVERTISEMENTS



    MENU

    OpenLeft in your inbox!

     

    Or, subscribe to each author individually.
    OPTIMIZE MCCAIN About
    Tips
    McCain
    John McCain
    QUICK HITS
    SEARCH

       

    Advanced Search

    OPENLEFT VIDEO WALL
    Donna Edwards Thanks OpenLeft


    Russ Feingold on the New FISA Legislation


    Jon Conyers on Impeachment


    Al Franken Thanks Blue Majority


    FCC Commissioner Michael Copps on Pearl Jam, Net Neutrality


    Darcy Burner on the FISA Legislation

    More OpenLeft video...

    LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
    BUSH DOGS
    STATE BLOGS

    Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

      © OpenLeft 2007-2008, Powered by SoapBlox