Where the Hell are Those Ads Linking McCain to Bush Everyone Thinks He Should Run?
There are a lot of people complaining that Obama should be running lots and lots of ads tying McCain to Bush and doing a lot of hand-wringing about his failure to do so. Maybe these people are right. Maybe if he did that right now, undecided voters would shake off their pre-Labor Day torpor, say "wow, that never occurred to me until now" and suddenly make up their minds, sending Obama's polling numbers into the sixties, where they would stay until Election Day. There's a first time for everything, they say.
However, logically, the fact that they're not doing this admits of only two explanations. Either Obama's campaign is so inept, so utterly and outrageously oblivious, that the notion of running ads like that has never even occured to them, or else, they have considered doing it and made a considered judgment not to do it.
Okay, so does anyone here, other than the Republitrolls and Hillarite Deadenders, really think that Obama would be where he is if his campaign were so clueless that the idea of running ads linking Bush to McCain right now had not occurred to them? Seriously, does anyone really think someone at the mothership in Chicago is going to log on to the Internet in the first time of their life, discover the existence of liberal blogs full of sage campaign advice and smack his or her head after a "Eureka!" moment. "Holy shit! That's it! We should run ads linking McCain to Bush! How could we have been so blind? Thank God for these amatuer strategists on this Internet thing who came up with this ingenious media strategy because no one here even thought of it!"
No?
Then does it not follow that they have, in fact, considered doing those kinds of ads and made a deliberate decision not to do so? In that case, the real question becomes why they have have chosen not to do so.
And a few possible explanations come to mind.
One is that they intend to do that eventually but think the timing isn't right. Maybe they want to wait, and not wear the theme out too soon. Another, is that they've focus grouped and polled such ads (political campaigns do that kind of thing, I've been led to understand) and discovered that they're ineffective. Maybe they discovered, for example, that people have so completely moved on past Bush that they aren't even really angry at him anymore--just impatient for him to start moving his shit out of the White House. Maybe they've found that such ads do more harm to Obama's favorability ratings than McCain's (not beyond belief give that there's at least some evidence emerging that McCain's "celebrity" ads are driving his negatives up faster than they're driving up Obama's.) Maybe they have research that shows that the fact that McCain doesn't talk like he's stuffed his mouth full of Novacaine flavored jawbreakers causes people to believe he's much smarter than Bush.
Are they right? Dunno. Are they screwing up by the numbers by not following your advice to flood the airwaves with ads trying to tie McCain to Bush? I have no idea. Campaigns have been known to make bad decisions.
But I do know it was the result of an actual decisions and I wish people would stop talking about this as if it's just some horrendous oversight on their part. That's just silly.
If Obama doesn't get on the attack soon, McCain will get elected, by hook or by crook.
Since Obama has framed McCain as 'honorable' and a 'war hero' to boot, why the hell shouldn't the undecided dimwits just vote 'safe', for the white guy?
August 16, 2008 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
First, your comment has nothing to do with my point, which is that there is almost certainly a reason why he's not running a particular type of ad, not attack ads in general.
Second, your premise is false. He is, in fact, running negative ads in the battleground states. He just isn't pimping them in the national press the way McCain does. Per Chuck Todd at MSNBC's First Read:
Which raises a point I really should have made explicitly in my original post.
Obama's job right now is not, repeat, not to hold the hands and soothe the delicate dispositions of the people who are already for him. No one, but no one, is going to change from Obama to McCain because they're scared Obama isn't being mean enough to McCain. Instead, at this point, Obama and his campaign's job is to win enough of the undecided voters in the nine to eighteen (depending on who you ask) battleground states to ensure that he gets at least 270 electoral votes. Period.
Our job, as supporters, is keep our nerve and not undercut him in that effort succombing to the Democratic tendency to start panic-driven stampedes over the cliff.
August 16, 2008 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
No one, but no one, is going to change from Obama to McCain because they're scared Obama isn't being mean enough to McCain.
A lot of Americans think we need a President who can get down dirty and fight. They think that is needed to keep the USA 'on top' economically and geo-politically. That is why many will vote for McCain the 'honorable war hero' because as he has said, McCain knows how to 'win wars'.
It's bullshit but that's what won for Bush in 2004.
August 16, 2008 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
"McCain knows how to 'win wars'. "
It's a funny thing for McCain to claim. Which war was that, by the way? Vietnam? Iraq? He's batting 0 for 2.
August 16, 2008 11:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
What rubbish, and you swallowed it, hook line and sinker. Hilarious. Nice way to move those McCain talking points along.
August 17, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think what he is referring to is the *perception* of McLame/Repubs being tough. Dems always have to fight this. I hear it DAILY and it wouldn't hurt Obama to sound tougher against terrorism, Russia, etc.
August 17, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Steve, I'm going to have to respectfully disagree here. I know Obama's campaign ran a stellar primary campaign, but so did John Kerry. The general election is a whole different animal. McCain is running ads trying to define Obama as a celebrity that is getting heavy airplay during the Olympics coverage. I think we need to be hitting back harder now and redefining McCain as Bush's lackey - not the Straight Talk McCain that everyone remembered from 2000. It's going to take time for that message to seep in for the many Americans that don't follow politics closely and think the "maverick" label still applies to McCain. I'm not saying Obama should go negative yet, but there is a way to go on offense without being offensive.
But to give the Obama campaign props, their counterattack / debunking on Corsi was phenomenal. So I'll give them the benefit of the doubt on holding off on the GWB attacks, but now would be a great time for a 527 ad to say what the Obama campaign is not willing to unleash yet.
August 16, 2008 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, I'm still sulking about the avatar change and I'm not talking to you until you bring back the old photo.
Oh, okay, just this once.
I'm not saying he shouldn't be smacking McCain around and the news indicates that he is, in fact, doing some smaking in the battleground states under the radar of the MSM.
I'm just saying that there's almost certainly a reason why this one specific type of smack that his supporters are clamoring for isn't running at this time. May not be a good reason. May not be a right reason. I'm just trying to elevate the criticism past the implicit assumption that many seem to have that the thought of trying to link McCain to Bush hasn't occurred to the folks in Chicago.
August 17, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Okay - the avatar pic is back :) I know they are a smart campaign and I trust they know what they are doing. But McCain is reinforcing his image as a reformer rebel with the "Original Maverick" ad that is all over the Olympics coverage which has millions of viewers. It's already hard enough to correct people's misperceptions of McCain as a rebel or maverick when he's really been one of Bush's most reliable stooges. My yelling at the the TV that the add is pure BS has a 3 mile impact at most. An broader ad campaign or some response to expose the lie would be really, really nice.
August 17, 2008 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Saw one today here in Pittsburgh.
August 16, 2008 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's an amateur ad that I enjoy. I could see a polished version being effective; the clear visual in the contrasting charts helps destroy the 'McCain is a Maverick' falsehood (which is his only real defense against the 3rd Bush term attack).
August 16, 2008 11:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Steve, I also have to dissent a little. Maybe Obama is holding back, but I think they are being overcautious. They need to hit McCain harder on his hypocrisy, on being a big corrupt phony. They have to redefine McCain for the public. They just have to. The MSM is not going to do it, since they are too busy dutifully typing up the garbage GOP operatives email them every day. Maybe this is strategy as you say, but I don't think this is great strategy. They need to be on offense more than defense, and they need more control of the media narrative. Obama's record here is far from perfect. They gave Hillary far to much room to hang on by letting her dominate the media for the last half of the primary. For one, Obama needs more surrogates, and they need to be more aggressive.
August 16, 2008 11:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
If they are targeting hard-hitting ads into the states where its close without informing the MSM in advance, why isn't that enough?
It seems to me that what a lot of people who already support him are really clamoring for--whether they admit it or not--is positive reinforcement. They want to see ads, and they want to hear a lot of MSM chatter about ads, that reinforce and reaffirm their own beliefs because it will give them warm fuzzies and fill them with the inner-glow born of their own rightousness.
Well McCain clearly needed to do a lot of that because he has always been about as popular with his own base as his BFF Lieberman was with us back before we realized what a truly loathesome sentient slime-mold he really was. McCain and Obama both came into this race with reputations for being squeaky clean campaigners that were real to the MSM and public, if not, ahem, entirely well grounded in reality.
By running his negative ad campaign in the national MSM as well as in actual local markets, McCain has accepted a hit to his clean and honorable reputation in order to give his base much needed positive reinforcement.
Unlike McCain, however, Obama has more to lose than to gain by pushing his negative ads into the MSM narrative. He doesn't need to shore up our support the way McCain does with his base; we're already shored. That's that enthusiasm gap we keep hearing about. However, do you doubt for a moment that Obama wouldn't take an even harder hit from the MSM than McCain if he did push his battlground state negative ads onto their radar? If it worth it to us to have him take that hit just to make us feel better?
Finally, Obama's campaign may well be in possession of data that says the kinds of commercials that would give us, the already converted, warm fuzzy feelings of rightousness, are a major turnoff to the undecideds and weak McCain leaners. I don't know if that's the case, but it strikes me as plausible. If that's the case, who would you rather his ads target, them or us?
August 17, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think this is an excellent point. The political junkies who frequent TPM are just a different audience than the typical voter, and what would look terrific to us might offend the typical voter, who still believes that John McCain is the Straight Talkin' Maverick McCain they liked back in 2000.
The typical voter shouldn't believe any such thing, of course, but the constant repetition of "maverick" and "McCain" (seen in today's NY Times, still) has been powerfully effective.
August 17, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
You make some good points about not appearing to go negative and not needing instant gratification.
There's some merit to this. But there's also risk: risk that McCain dominates the MSM and the conventional wisdom, that the topic of the day is always GOP-picked, and that McCain is not being vetted and being given a pass. Clearly, the Media will never ask hard questions of McCain or question his spin. Only Democrats can do that now.
Also, you don't have to go "negative" in the sense of GOP sleaze. You just have to show the two McCain side by side and ask why he's flipflopped so much, and why what he says is so different than who he is. McCain looks bad not because of merely "going negative", but because his attacks are so sleazy and disdainful. Obama doesn't need to start hitting McCain himself, but somebody has to do it. He simply is not being veted.
August 17, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bingo. Well said. Obama has to be the leader of the narrative and make McLame respond.
August 17, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Steve - I think you've raised something important, and it should be happening in more places than just TV ads.
Obama is portraying himself as a leader of change, unity, hope and optimism. His campaign uses every possible method to associate Obama with these qualities in the public consciousness: his language, logo, endorsements, photos, public appearances, use of surrogates, ads, etc.
In the private sector, this is called branding, and it only succeeds when done with ruthless consistently and thoroughness.
In presidential politics, the same is true for "branding" your opponent. Each campaign has no choice but to talk about the other, so the only question is whether they use all the means available to them to communicate a counter-brand --with the same ruthless consistency and thoroughness as their own brand.
Even if Team Obama has made a strategic decision to not air ads associating McCain with Bush --temporarily or not-- they clearly aren't using all the other means available to reinforce voter perception that McCain = Bush. I'm talking here about the language of his spokesmen and surrogates, comments in press releases, images on the web, in collateral materials, and ads, etc. They should append every mention of McCain's name with "George Bush," show only pictures of McCain with Bush, and regularly describe him as a "Bush enabler."
As a private sector marketing person, I can tell you that Obama's passivity on this is a mistake.
Public perception about a brand must be maintained through constant cultivation and repetition; it always can be changed by external forces and aggressive counter-branding (something right-wing Republicans do very well). Team Obama is essentially ceding a significant amount of branding territory to McCain --territory he should dominate with very little effort, as voters are disgusted with Bush and the GOP.
The ads are important too, but Obama isn't even doing the little things to seize this advantage.
August 17, 2008 1:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Again, I am not here to debate whether they're making a mistake. I am only trying to get people to start their criticism from the basis of an assumption that the thought of doing this had, in fact, occurred to them and that if they're not doing it, there's a reason.
And I see that you're not one of the people I'm talking to because you are at least assuming there's a reason and arguing they're wrong. My work here is done.
August 17, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have never seen anyone on this site present the idea of linking McCain to Bush's 3rd term as if the Obama camp had not already thought of it.
Who are you talking about?
August 17, 2008 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, some of the dissent in the above comments have very valid points, but as Steve hinted at in is main post: it's still AUGUST. Inhale. Exhale. Repeat.
Most folks don't pay attention until after the conventions and/or Labor Day. Let's not "...start panic-driven stampedes over the cliff."
August 17, 2008 4:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll accept that. I'm just frustrated with the MSM playing along with GOP rules, as usual.
August 17, 2008 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
If I were to bet, my money would be on this.
If they had started that theme before Labor Day, it would be old and stale by the end of September.
I've been impressed with the pushback on the Corsi crap, but must admit that I'd like to see the campaign smack McCain's image around a little bit more. I know that most people simply aren't paying the least bit attention to this right now, but I've felt, since 2000, that images get set when most people aren't paying attention, so the absence of a real strong push to tie McCain to Bush has worried me.
On the other hand, what the hell do I know? I was agitating back in February that Obama jump all over the "plagiarism" charges, he didn't, and it had no effect.
August 17, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Attack ads work. There is no disputing that. Obama, or a 527 needs to start chipping away at Mccain. The MSM has and is going to continue giving McCain a pass on everything. Obama can't go over board, but needs to sprinkle some attack ads in there with everything else. No one seems to know why McCain and Obama are statistically tied in alot of polls considering McCain is a walking Gaffe-fest, and that he says one thing one day and denies it the next. I think the Obama camp is overly afraid of Obama looking like the "angry black man". If he doesn't start doing soemthing soon, he's going to lose this election.
August 17, 2008 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink