Skip to main content

View Diary: How much will negative advertising affect Obama? (142 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I know the Campaign has to be fought (41+ / 0-)

    But the Presidential Campaign is all but done, unless they throw it away somehow.

    What is vastly more important are the down ticket races that could give us back the House, and improve the Senate.

    That is where the negatives could pile up.

    I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
    but I fear we will remain Democrats.

    by twigg on Thu Apr 12, 2012 at 04:37:18 PM PDT

    •  Karl Rove has already said he'll focus on Congress (46+ / 0-)

      He'll have plenty of money so he'll be throwing some at the president to keep his bona fides with the mouth-breathers, but people like Sherrod Brown are who he'll be training most fire on.  

      I think negative ads will hurt for the next few months, but I also suspect Rove and his pals will have so much money that their awful lies will come back to bite them before November.  Teevee will be all but unwatchable with all the negative ads, and if Democrats are deft they can engender resentment at all the noisy lying ruining people's television time.  They should also frame all the ads as billionaires trying to buy the government for Romney and his Republican friends. That'd be how I'd handle it.

      When Free Speech is outlawed, only outlaws will have Free Speech.

      by Dallasdoc on Thu Apr 12, 2012 at 04:51:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Congress Approval Rating (9+ / 0-)

        Is about 12% and all those Teabag Republicons can have some problems.  I think we have to look at numbers in September to get a truer picture as to where Congress is.  People are no longer sitting back, they're looking at their own Reps and what they have and have not done.

        Never be afraid to voice your opinion and fight for it . Corporations aren't people, they're Republicans (Rev Al Sharpton 10/7/2011)

        by Rosalie907 on Thu Apr 12, 2012 at 06:03:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I think Markos misses the effect (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        chloris creator, dougymi, cocinero

        which is in the number of states that will be contested.  In 2000 there was a very large impact on the limitations in spending that were in the Federal Campaign Financing Law.  This meant, for example, that Gore had to pull out of Ohio late.

        In 2008 the Obama campaign was able to contest states they wouldn't have been able to if they had taken Federal Financing.  In 2012, you will see the same thing on both sides.  The effect will be to increase the number of states being contested.

        So it isn't so much about the quantity of ads, it's the fact that they will be run in places they wouldn't have been before that will be a change from past elections.

        I have long thought that there is a diminshing marginal return in campaign advertising, and I have no doubt we will see this in 2012.

        The bitter truth of deep inequality has been disguised by an era of cheap imported goods and the anyone-can-make-it celebrity myth - Polly Toynbee

        by fladem on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 05:42:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  co-signed... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Possiamo
        Teevee will be all but unwatchable with all the negative ads, and if Democrats are deft they can engender resentment at all the noisy lying ruining people's television time.  They should also frame all the ads as billionaires trying to buy the government for Romney and his Republican friends. That'd be how I'd handle it.

        "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis, 1935 --Talk of foresight--

        by tuma on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 09:02:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I think when you start this early, (0+ / 0-)

        you end up burning out and it backfires.

        Sherrod told me the other day the ads ARE having an impact but I think he's just being cautious and not taking anything for granted. His opponent Josh "The Empty Suit" Mandel is largely unknown but so far for every point of recognition he picks up, he also picks up a point of disapproval. To know him is to understand what an unqualified vacuum he is.

        Take the "Can't(or)" out of Congress. Support E. Wayne Powell in Va-07. http://www.ewaynepowell.com/

        by anastasia p on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 02:56:56 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Wow!! Is this complacency or what? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Possiamo, mchestnutjr
      But the Presidential Campaign is all but done,
      Sorry sir...not by a long shot. If I were to rate our chances in this election right now...I'll make it Obama 50.5% no more
      -The GOP would coalesce around Romney down the  line They hate Obama more than you know.
      -We are still to see the full force of CITIZENS UNITED and yes it would work to an extent
      -Romney has gotten better not worse as all candidates do...
      -Above all is...which way the economy trends here onward...
      -Have you guys examined the impact of the vote suppression laws in the midwest and FL?
      -This is an election that would be the closest as you can imagine. Bush won OHIO by 60K votes...hence the election....thus the impact of these laws might make the difference. There are states like WI, VA, OH, NC, MI, PA, CO, NV where I think the difference may be less that 2% points.

      "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis, 1935 --Talk of foresight--

      by tuma on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 08:59:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not convinced (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ddn, virginislandsguy

        Republicans just don't like Romney.  Hatred of the incumbent doesn't really drive turnout.  They hated Clinton but never fully coalesced around Dole (and we hated Bush and weren't sufficiently energized by Kerry).  Getting off the couch and waiting on a line at a polling station is hard work.  Sufficient numbers of Republicans will just laze around the house on Election Day, particularly if Obama continues to hold a consistent lead in polling.

        Voter suppression laws are unlikely to affect the presidential race -- they're much more likely to keep us from taking back the House.  Current polling in the Midwest suggests that Obama is so far ahead of Romney that a few thousand votes here and there are unlikely to affect the electoral college.

        The popular vote may be closer than we'd like, but given Obama's structural advantage in the electoral college and the number of competitive states Romney needs to win to get to 270 (i.e., all of the them), I'd say Obama's odds are much closer to 80% at this point.

        Karl Rove and the Republican establishment knows all this.  Romney is taking one for the team.  Unless there's a game-changing scandal or crisis by the end of summer, the money will concentrate on holding the House and taking the Senate.

        •  Romney is actually worse than Kerry (0+ / 0-)

          Because Kerry never really had a base problem. Romney would be more like if Gephardt were the nominee.

          I think it's Obama's election to lose. If he gets his voters out he wins. You're also right that the Republicans will have to prioritize their time and money. In 2008 it was clear for weeks in advance that Mccain had no chance, and the Republicans were already working on trying to spin their upcoming defeat. If Romney similarly looks weak in October, you're going to see them move hard for the consolation prize: the Senate.  

          •  Yes, and it's not complacency to worry about that (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Possiamo, mchestnutjr, ddn

            I'm really scared of the scenario where Obama wins a narrow re-election, but we lose the Senate and fail to take back the House.  While not as bad as the President Romney + Majority Leader McConnell + Speaker Boehner apocalyptic scenario, the four years of political chaos that would ensue from this stalemate would tarnish Obama's entire legacy and make it very likely that a Tea Party type becomes president in 2016.  Obama would be completely impotent for his entire second term, and it would be the kind of image that sticks with voters for decades.

            So, it's not complacency to say that we've pretty much got the presidency sown up, and need to focus primarily on Congressional races.  Quite the opposite -- focusing on a presidential contest we've already won just because it gives us the warm and fuzzies to read positive polling data will lead to a misallocation of resources, energy and attention.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site