Underneath the radar
One of the things that hasn't gotten much mention is the way the Obama folks are crafting their local/regional ads. The Obama people aren't pressing these statewide/regional ads because they're perceived as negative, but I do find the strategy interesting.
They're attacking McCain on local issues, DHL/jobs in Ohio, Yucca Mountain in Nevada, ties to the unpopular Ralph Reed in Georgia, etc. rather than going with a broad brush national negative campaign on character.
A couple points. 1) This allows the Obama camp to maintain a claim of positive campaigning while still scoring points in battleground states. 2) As this is below the radar, the candidate doesn't get drawn into a back and forth over the ads.
But, maybe most importantly, 3) Strategically, this sort of localized advertising really strains campaign resources. Unlike the broad, national McCain attacks, where you can kinda watch the plethora of national polls to get some sense of effect, this micromarketing requires localized state polling which is more complex and requires a lot more money to monitor.
Is the Yucca Mountain ad effective? You have to poll Nevada. DHL? Pay for a poll in Ohio. In effect, it's another way to force McCain to spend money and time on more states than he wants.
"McCain's map" is traditional, but it's also pretty tight. They can't afford to be surprised anywhere, so this sort of local marketing sets up a situation where the McCain campaign has to "chase" these ads in all these battleground states.
(It's my opinion that the Obama people still intend part of this campaign to be a war of attrition. They want the McCain folks spending everywhere because once he gets through that convention, he has $84 million and not one penny more.)
PS. I'm just trying to generate some sort of non-VP post.
They're attacking McCain on local issues, DHL/jobs in Ohio, Yucca Mountain in Nevada, ties to the unpopular Ralph Reed in Georgia, etc. rather than going with a broad brush national negative campaign on character.
A couple points. 1) This allows the Obama camp to maintain a claim of positive campaigning while still scoring points in battleground states. 2) As this is below the radar, the candidate doesn't get drawn into a back and forth over the ads.
But, maybe most importantly, 3) Strategically, this sort of localized advertising really strains campaign resources. Unlike the broad, national McCain attacks, where you can kinda watch the plethora of national polls to get some sense of effect, this micromarketing requires localized state polling which is more complex and requires a lot more money to monitor.
Is the Yucca Mountain ad effective? You have to poll Nevada. DHL? Pay for a poll in Ohio. In effect, it's another way to force McCain to spend money and time on more states than he wants.
"McCain's map" is traditional, but it's also pretty tight. They can't afford to be surprised anywhere, so this sort of local marketing sets up a situation where the McCain campaign has to "chase" these ads in all these battleground states.
(It's my opinion that the Obama people still intend part of this campaign to be a war of attrition. They want the McCain folks spending everywhere because once he gets through that convention, he has $84 million and not one penny more.)
PS. I'm just trying to generate some sort of non-VP post.
posted by mikevotes at
3:35 PM
5 Comments:
On the other hand, McCain's baseless, tasteless negative radio ads are very cost effective and seem to be working.
By
Praguetwin, at 4:35 PM
A few points, if I may:
- Local (state) targeted ads are more effective, as a rule. Internal campaign polling has proven this for decades.
- McCain has a ton of money to burn through before the convention. It's use it or lose it. After that, he's on public financing and Obama has about a 2:1 advantage in the most crucial phase of a campaign.
- McCain has far more defensive costs than Bush had in the past. Bush's states were safe. Several of McCain's are marginal or worse. And he will have less money and a poorer ground game than his opponent with which to conduct this defence.
- Virtually all of the polling we have seen thus far assumes that the ratio of Democrats to Republicans (state-wide or nationally) is unchanged since 2004, and is weighted as such. I believe this to be a false assumption.
- McCain's recent gains have largely been the result of consolidating his Party behind him, not from independents. It's low-hanging fruit. The recent ads appeal to the base, not the nation at large.
"McCain's map" is traditional, but it's also pretty tight. They can't afford to be surprised anywhere
Exactly right.
By
Todd Dugdale , at 8:11 PM
1) I was not aware that local ads are more effective. The issues they're hitting are suignificant enough locally for me to be aware of them nationally, so they must be significant locally.
2) On funding, I know there is supposed to be a no communication firewall between campaign and RNC on media, how effective could the RNC be doing state polling?
4) I haven't really been watching the internals, but I'll take your word. I'd be curious if they just use 2004 or include a weighted 2000 or 2006 or 2002, because each of those had a slightly different demographic.
One of the reasons I've been so dismissive of the polls is that it's my opinion that the strong Obama ground game vs. the near non-existent McCain ground game is worth 2+ points where they choose to really push.
5) I've also been watching the 65+ numbers, and the celeb ads seem to have made some ground there. Of course, if there was a group who might accept "uppity...."
As I wrote somewhere earlier today regarding the latest round of the "Obama fret," Even if the polls showed a slight McCain lead, I'd still rather be on the Obama side. There's just so much more open there.
(Also, McCain is still polling below 45. He's dragged Obama down a little, but hasn't really brought himself up that much.)
By
mikevotes, at 9:20 PM
2 - McCain is ostensibly working with "primary campaign" money up to the convention.
In several states, the RNC office and the McCain campaign offices are the same.
4 - An example: Rasmussen just "adjusted" the D/R ratio in the last Minnesota poll +6 R and -3 D. It was to bring it into line with the "known" Party ID, i.e. the 2004 numbers. With a 9 point shift in D/R, Obama's lead 'dropped' from 10 to 2 over three weeks. On the one hand, it's better to work with "knowns". On the other, I would say that things have changed significantly in the past four years that would drop that R a lot rather than add to it.
5 - I'm unconvinced at the moment that the ads were responsible, but that is the only age demographic breaking for McCain right now. That is volatile as McCain's stand on Social Security become more widely known, though.
My opinion, for what it is worth, is that we are seeing a nominal ceiling for McCain (leaving the convention bounce aside) right now. His base is consolidated, but you can't use "base appeals" on the electorate at large, and that base is smaller than it was in 2004. I have a hard time believing that Democrats won't rally to Obama, and if they do, he wins. As always, predictions are tricky. I've been wrong before.
By
Todd Dugdale , at 9:53 PM
2) Sorry, after the primary. Technically, those independent media arms are not supposed to dirctly communicate with the campaign.
4) The one thing I would say is that Repubs do vote more regularly. I tend to agree that Dem voting will probably be up (with or without the new registrations,) and Repub may well be down, but I would expect that many Repubs will show up to vote because that's what they do.
5) I'm waiting to see the Soc. Security press. My guess is that it starts to come at the convention. Despite the viagra ads, The over 65's watch alot of news TV.
And we'll add #6. That 45% does seem to be a pretty hard ceiling. If you look at the collected polls, he hasn't really come close to it in any respected polling.
(And, if you can get them to the polls, they'll vote Dem.)
By
mikevotes, at 10:07 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home