|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Aug 2, 2008 10:34:08 GMT -5
Call it "drawing contrast," "making the issues clear," or just going negative - the campaign has gotten really negative in the last couple of weeks. That's largely been the decision of McCain who's been doing small scale releases of ads with questionable factual content attacking Obama. In that light - I found this article (linked off of Politico) written by Rick Davis, McCain's current campaign adviser who works with Schmidt to create McCain's message and strategy - www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/2004/03/21/the_anatomy_of_a_smear_campaign/The article is interesting in that it suggests that negative ads are both effective and more effective when they aren't true. Is this really McCain's strategy? |
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Aug 2, 2008 10:39:11 GMT -5
I was absolutely undecided as of 2 weeks ago, and I can say that I'm sliding towards Obama. I don't know how effective such ads are in general, but for me, blaming "Obama! Obama! Obama!" for rising gas prices is a joke.
|
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Aug 2, 2008 10:54:03 GMT -5
Here's McCain's latest ad -
I'll say this for the man, he understands cynicism well. However, in this ad he misquotes Obama and uses a joke from a campaign speech out of context. Also, it sort of forgets the whole "ads are 90% non-verbal" aspect of messaging.
On EDIT: I think this is just as bad as the "Obama Obama Obama" raising your gas prices - because he didn't mention a Latin American country in the snippets of the speech they took from Berlin he doesn't care about Latin Americans -
|
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Aug 2, 2008 12:58:13 GMT -5
McCain is trying to rally the base. These ads will do nothing for him among the mythic independents. But, in red states, where studies have shown the level of education to be inferior to that in the blue states, people will soak up these ads and go to the polls.
It is a lot like the BC04 strategy. It works for the few months it takes to win an election, but it does not do much for winning wars.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Aug 2, 2008 13:32:31 GMT -5
But, in red states, where studies have shown the level of education to be inferior to that in the blue states, people will soak up these ads and go to the polls. You really want to go there? To say that people in certain states are not as smart as those in other states and the stupid don't know any better than to vote for McCain, while the smart people will vote for Obama? It's that type of thinking that continues to keep getting liberals and the dems in trouble. |
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Aug 2, 2008 13:55:43 GMT -5
There is an unquestioned difference in voting patterns across educational levels. I am not sure anyone has credibly questioned that, other than to say it is impolite to raise. Unless McCain wins by a landslide, it will be a fact that the most educated people in this country will tend to vote for Obama, and the least educated will tend to vote for McCain, and the difference between McCain and Obama will trend toward Obama as education levels increase. It also stands to reason that some Republicans accept this dynamic, as they tend to berate the leftish tendencies of professors and those who they educate. I didn't say the uneducated do not know any better. I am just saying that McCain's tactics are particularly appealing to them.
One additional perspective, which might be helpful, is to look at how campaigns have conducted themselves. What if Willie Horton was white and killed a black woman - sadly, would that ad have run against Dukakis? There were other examples to be made in the MA furlough system, so why was this one picked? Why would campaigners pass out Band-Aids and flip-flops to mock a veteran? Why would a campaign think it could get away with challenging the Pentagon's judgment in awarding a series of military honors/decorations? Rove was brilliant in 2004 for coming up with code words that would just bring the base together and paint Kerry as "the other." I ran into enough people who couldn't articulate why they were voting for Bush, but they sure as heck could come up with a "flip flop" chant because that was apparently the classy thing to do.
I am not sure if Obama is handling this correctly, but I am not sure how much he can fight back. The next phase of the McCain attack in this crude cycle would be to portray Obama as "uppity."
As a side note, the Spears/Hilton/celebrity ad is particularly ironic when weighed against McCain's private life, in which he had an affair with the youthful, ouattractive heiress who he would later marry.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Aug 4, 2008 10:25:52 GMT -5
Negative advertising tends to lower your opponent's numbers without raising your own, and the polling so far is bearing this out (Obama's down, but McCain hasn't gone up). I have a feeling (and I fully admit it might just be a hope) that Obama's going to tear into McCain as soon as the conventions are over and McCain's spending is limited by law.
The Paris/Britney ad is most similar to the "Call Me" ad used against Harold Ford in 2006. That is, it's trying to stoke miscegenation fears, which is disgusting.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Aug 4, 2008 10:42:11 GMT -5
I don't see the Paris/Britney ad as stoking miscegenation fears. I do see it as a silly ad. However, in its silliness, there is a tremendous germ of truth. That is, that as of August 4, 2008, Obama's primary qualification for President appears to be a massive cult of personality.
He promises "Change you can believe in" with no details and the mostly brain-dead American public laps it up like dogs from a bowl.
Throw a wildly complicit mainstream media into the mix and you have a tremdously popular candidate who appears to be popular for no concrete explicable reason.
I've asked friends who support Obama why they do and the obvious answer is because he is not GWB. If that is his credential, any American over 35 can be President.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Aug 4, 2008 11:55:47 GMT -5
I don't see the Paris/Britney ad as stoking miscegenation fears. I do see it as a silly ad. However, in its silliness, there is a tremendous germ of truth. That is, that as of August 4, 2008, Obama's primary qualification for President appears to be a massive cult of personality. He promises "Change you can believe in" with no details and the mostly brain-dead American public laps it up like dogs from a bowl. Throw a wildly complicit mainstream media into the mix and you have a tremdously popular candidate who appears to be popular for no concrete explicable reason. I've asked friends who support Obama why they do and the obvious answer is because he is not GWB. If that is his credential, any American over 35 can be President. Well, this is just wildly stupid. Obama has positions, many of them have been much discussed on this board (Iraq for instance), and simply denying that they exist doesn't mean they don't exist. Furthermore, even if Obama hadn't said a damn thing about his positions this campaign season (which isn't true), there are these things called "political parties" in this country, and one can generally infer where a candidate stands on the issues from where their party stands. I get the "cult" meme, you're trying what should be a positive in an election (popularity) into a negative. But if you think this through, it's quite a weak line of argument. "Vote McCain: He's Unpopular!" doesn't strike me as an effective plea, nor can one look at such an attack unironically when coming from a party that has practically beatified Ronald Reagan. Furthermore, GWB is an extremely bad president, not continuing his policies is a giant positive for any candidate, and you're out of touch with the vast majority of Americans if you don't see this. Are you reading a different constitution than I am? The only qualifications for the presidency that it mentions are to be over 35 and a natural born citizen. Finally, while it gets heated sometimes here in the political thread, the posters here, liberal and conservative alike, generally try to have substantive conversations. All you want to do, in contrast, is flame liberals. I suggest you take this to Townhall or Free Republic instead of sullying up the board here. |
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Aug 4, 2008 11:58:53 GMT -5
The Paris/Britney ad is most similar to the "Call Me" ad used against Harold Ford in 2006. That is, it's trying to stoke miscegenation fears, which is disgusting. Wow, that's some impressive reading between the lines there. I don't think anyone (other than those looking for sinister motives) would see the ad for anything more than what it is - namely that Obama is famous for being famous - much like the vapid Paris Hilton. Is it going in the pantheon of great political ads? No. But you're doing the same thing Obama is now doing when he's accusing the McCain camp of playing the race card when it's Obama who is the only one bringing the subject up. Now THAT is offensive. |
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Aug 4, 2008 12:06:38 GMT -5
I don't see the Paris/Britney ad as stoking miscegenation fears. I do see it as a silly ad. However, in its silliness, there is a tremendous germ of truth. That is, that as of August 4, 2008, Obama's primary qualification for President appears to be a massive cult of personality. He promises "Change you can believe in" with no details and the mostly brain-dead American public laps it up like dogs from a bowl. Throw a wildly complicit mainstream media into the mix and you have a tremdously popular candidate who appears to be popular for no concrete explicable reason. I've asked friends who support Obama why they do and the obvious answer is because he is not GWB. If that is his credential, any American over 35 can be President. Well, this is just wildly stupid. Obama has positions, many of them have been much discussed on this board (Iraq for instance), and simply denying that they exist doesn't mean they don't exist. Furthermore, even if Obama hadn't said a damn thing about his positions this campaign season (which isn't true), there are these things called "political parties" in this country, and one can generally infer where a candidate stands on the issues from where their party stands. I'll try and live up to your high standards for what an Internet message board should strive to be.  Whether or not Obama actually stands for something and has enunciated positions  on a particular issue is irrelevant. As is the fact that they've been discussed on this board. The point is a great deal of people who support Obama have no idea where he stands on issues and what his plans are (other than the generic Dem vs. Republican distinction). The depth of their support comes down to vagaries like "change" and "youth" and "he's not George Bush." Ask a group of Obama supporters outside your Ambassador/highly-educated clique (the people who really pay attention to the details) and I bet a majority of them couldn't tell you squat about his policy positions. |
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Aug 4, 2008 12:11:40 GMT -5
Anyone who is finding the current campaigns of either McCain or Obama as being negative hasn't been paying attention to what real negative campaigning is. The major themes of this year's "negative" ads are that McCain is old and tied to the past and Obama is all glitz and no substance. If that's too negative for some of you, you need to adjust your sensitivities.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Aug 4, 2008 12:20:32 GMT -5
Anyone who is finding the current campaigns of either McCain or Obama as being negative hasn't been paying attention to what real negative campaigning is. The major themes of this year's "negative" ads are that McCain is old and tied to the past and Obama is all glitz and no substance. If that's too negative for some of you, you need to adjust your sensitivities. To be fair, we do have some time for it to get worse.  I think with these two candidates, people on both sides were expecting a more civil debate. It's disappointing to see that this won't be the case and it will be a normal presidential election, which is why everyone's more attuned to this stuff from the get go. |
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Aug 4, 2008 12:47:20 GMT -5
Anyone who is finding the current campaigns of either McCain or Obama as being negative hasn't been paying attention to what real negative campaigning is. The major themes of this year's "negative" ads are that McCain is old and tied to the past and Obama is all glitz and no substance. If that's too negative for some of you, you need to adjust your sensitivities. To be fair, we do have some time for it to get worse. I think with these two candidates, people on both sides were expecting a more civil debate. It's disappointing to see that this won't be the case and it will be a normal presidential election, which is why everyone's more attuned to this stuff from the get go. I'd be curious to see what you think has been so negative/horrible about the campaign so far. |
|
Jack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,411
|
Post by Jack on Aug 4, 2008 12:48:06 GMT -5
Whether or not Obama actually stands for something and has enunciated positions on a particular issue is irrelevant. As is the fact that they've been discussed on this board. The point is a great deal of people who support Obama have no idea where he stands on issues and what his plans are (other than the generic Dem vs. Republican distinction). The depth of their support comes down to vagaries like "change" and "youth" and "he's not George Bush." Ask a group of Obama supporters outside your Ambassador/highly-educated clique (the people who really pay attention to the details) and I bet a majority of them couldn't tell you squat about his policy positions. How many times will this argument take place? What makes those Obama supporters any different than McCain supporters who like him because he has "experience" or he is a "maverick?" There are millions of superficial voters out there- otherwise they wouldn't bother with the ads at all. |
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Aug 4, 2008 12:51:22 GMT -5
Whether or not Obama actually stands for something and has enunciated positions on a particular issue is irrelevant. As is the fact that they've been discussed on this board. The point is a great deal of people who support Obama have no idea where he stands on issues and what his plans are (other than the generic Dem vs. Republican distinction). The depth of their support comes down to vagaries like "change" and "youth" and "he's not George Bush." Ask a group of Obama supporters outside your Ambassador/highly-educated clique (the people who really pay attention to the details) and I bet a majority of them couldn't tell you squat about his policy positions. How many times will this argument take place? What makes those Obama supporters any different than McCain supporters who like him because he has "experience" or he is a "maverick?" There are millions of superficial voters out there- otherwise they wouldn't bother with the ads at all. If you're going to support someone because he's going to bring change to Washington, shouldn't you at least know what he's going to change? |
|
Jack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,411
|
Post by Jack on Aug 4, 2008 13:02:29 GMT -5
How many times will this argument take place? What makes those Obama supporters any different than McCain supporters who like him because he has "experience" or he is a "maverick?" There are millions of superficial voters out there- otherwise they wouldn't bother with the ads at all. If you're going to support someone because he's going to bring change to Washington, shouldn't you at least know what he's going to change? He will be neither the first nor the last man to be elected President at least partially on the ineptitude of his immediate predecessor. |
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Aug 4, 2008 13:04:40 GMT -5
1) what really surprises me is that after the flak they've gotten from that add they're still airing it.
2) there are plenty of legitimate reasons to vote for Obama just like there are plenty of legitimate reasons to vote for McCain.
3) like Jack said there are just as many people who will vote for McCain with out knowing his positions.
4) and like someone else said even if you don't know exactly what changes hes promising you'd assume he's making changes that are in line with the ideals of his party so you at least have a clue. Are you suggesting Obama's change could mean anything and no one knows what it will be in the end and we shouldn't trust him? that seems to be your argument.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Aug 4, 2008 13:06:03 GMT -5
How many times will this argument take place? What makes those Obama supporters any different than McCain supporters who like him because he has "experience" or he is a "maverick?" There are millions of superficial voters out there- otherwise they wouldn't bother with the ads at all. Yes, but Obama supporters are smarter...or so I'm led to believe. |
|
Jack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,411
|
Post by Jack on Aug 4, 2008 13:22:02 GMT -5
How many times will this argument take place? What makes those Obama supporters any different than McCain supporters who like him because he has "experience" or he is a "maverick?" There are millions of superficial voters out there- otherwise they wouldn't bother with the ads at all. Yes, but Obama supporters are smarter...or so I'm led to believe. No one could get elected if only smart people voted for them. There are only a few hundred thousand living Georgetown alums, after all. |
|
on a particular issue is irrelevant. As is the fact that they've been discussed on this board. The point is a great deal of people who support Obama have no idea where he stands on issues and what his plans are (other than the generic Dem vs. Republican distinction). The depth of their support comes down to vagaries like "change" and "youth" and "he's not George Bush." 
