Romney-Obama: Handicapping the Race

[Wikkiwallana]

In the absence of polls, does anyone have any solid stats on, say, advertising buys/type of ads being used/state variations? What sort of ads are being aimed at what specific markets -- any single group/state getting predominantly attack or predominantly policy? Any notable oddities in the women-centred (if any) or Spanish-language ones?

I've been trying to chart this on the strategic level, but I agree with Ardchoille: I'd love to hear which ads are running on a State-by-State basis as well.

For my part, I watch very little TV - yet I've seen a blitz of Romney ads on Xfinity (which is the web portal for delayed on-demand rebroadcast of programming from cable providers). I don't know if such programming is tailored to the local market: With a Comcast account, I'm sure that Xfinity can target each particular ad exactly - but I just don't know if they're doing that.

I do know that the Obama campaign is airing large buys on Spanish-language stations, while Romney isn't even coming close in those markets.

I've got a Comcast subscription, and the last campaign add I saw was the "Mitt Romney is the problem" one. The last one before that was the Reagan's birthday one. Both were on actual broadcast, not on-demand. So, I'm guessing our state isn't considered worth targeting.

[Quebec and Atlantic Canada]

I've been trying to chart this on the strategic level, but I agree with Ardchoille: I'd love to hear which ads are running on a State-by-State basis as well.

For my part, I watch very little TV - yet I've seen a blitz of Romney ads on Xfinity (which is the web portal for delayed on-demand rebroadcast of programming from cable providers). I don't know if such programming is tailored to the local market: With a Comcast account, I'm sure that Xfinity can target each particular ad exactly - but I just don't know if they're doing that.

I do know that the Obama campaign is airing large buys on Spanish-language stations, while Romney isn't even coming close in those markets.

I've got a Comcast subscription, and the last campaign add I saw was the "Mitt Romney is the problem" one. The last one before that was the Reagan's birthday one. Both were on actual broadcast, not on-demand. So, I'm guessing our state isn't considered worth targeting.

What state do you live in, per chance?

[Fal Dara in Shienar]

Can't you just hear them now?

"Governor, sir ... no, please, sir, not with the nail gun so close to your feet." BAM BAM "Oh, man! Someone get us a copy of Ryan's budget proposals, maybe there's something in them we can run with."

Ryan's recent career seems to be following a Republican party checklist for acceptability. The Tea Party lead purge of the GOP has lead to so many falling because they're not conservative enough that Ryan has gone further right. So he's now almost perfectly right, of everyone. I see no reason why that wouldn't cause the Democrats to open fire with both barrels and turn this into a general referendum not only on Romney's shady association with consistency, but on the Tea Party insanity in general.

I'm just throwing this out there, but Obama won Rep. Ryan's district by four points. It's considered a blue swing-district that consistently votes Democrat at several different levels of governance. If you're even half-right, which you aren't, I think someone needs to notify the people he's been representing and talking to for the last decade.

"Oh, I know you've been voting for people you view as sane, mildly progressive and likable for the last ten years, WI-1st, and usually Democrats. But this Ryan guy isn't any of that. I know because I read it off of HuffPo and you only live there."

[Wikkiwallana]

I've got a Comcast subscription, and the last campaign add I saw was the "Mitt Romney is the problem" one. The last one before that was the Reagan's birthday one. Both were on actual broadcast, not on-demand. So, I'm guessing our state isn't considered worth targeting.

What state do you live in, per chance?

Tennessee.

[New Chalcedon]

What state do you live in, per chance?

Tennessee.

And there's the point. Tennesse has voted Republican in every election since 1980 - why would anyone target it?

Ryan's recent career seems to be following a Republican party checklist for acceptability. The Tea Party lead purge of the GOP has lead to so many falling because they're not conservative enough that Ryan has gone further right. So he's now almost perfectly right, of everyone. I see no reason why that wouldn't cause the Democrats to open fire with both barrels and turn this into a general referendum not only on Romney's shady association with consistency, but on the Tea Party insanity in general.

I'm just throwing this out there, but Obama won Rep. Ryan's district by four points. It's considered a blue swing-district that consistently votes Democrat at several different levels of governance. If you're even half-right, which you aren't, I think someone needs to notify the people he's been representing and talking to for the last decade.

"Oh, I know you've been voting for people you view as sane, mildly progressive and likable for the last ten years, WI-1st, and usually Democrats. But this Ryan guy isn't any of that. I know because I read it off of HuffPo and you only live there."

Riiiiiight. Because the neo-Gilded Age Ryan Budget isn't Paul Ryan's work at all. Also, WI-01 is an R+1 swing-district which George W. Bush carried twice and Obama carried by a lesser margin than his national vote margin. It has elected Republicans to Federal Congress (both Houses) several times in the past decade, voting for Paul Ryna (duh, obviously) six times, against Russ Feingold in 2004 and 2010, for Scott Walker in 2010 and 2012 and against Jim Doyle in 2002 and 2006 and Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996.

How a Congressional District that voted for Republican gubernatorial and presidential nominees in each of the last five elections (by narrow margins, to be sure EDIT: With the exception of Obama 2008) is a "blue swing-district" is beyond me. It's a swing district to be sure at R+1, but it's voting behaviour only confirms that it's a red-tinged swing-district. On a more simplistic level, any district that kept its Republican representative in office in both 2006 and 2008 cannot be called "blue-leaning" (with the sole exception of DE-AL - Delaware politics is more congenial, and Castle's victories were more to do with him than with the GOP).

Also, on a somewhat side-notish issue - please name one policy area that Paul Ryan can reasonably be called progressive on. I'll grant the possibility that he has personal charm, but his policies on just about any issue are hardcore conservative. There's no question here - Mitt Romney made this VP pick for one reason, and one only - to please the far-right of his base.

[Telesha]

In the absence of polls, does anyone have any solid stats on, say, advertising buys/type of ads being used/state variations? What sort of ads are being aimed at what specific markets -- any single group/state getting predominantly attack or predominantly policy? Any notable oddities in the women-centred (if any) or Spanish-language ones?

I've been trying to chart this on the strategic level, but I agree with Ardchoille: I'd love to hear which ads are running on a State-by-State basis as well.

For my part, I watch very little TV - yet I've seen a blitz of Romney ads on Xfinity (which is the web portal for delayed on-demand rebroadcast of programming from cable providers). I don't know if such programming is tailored to the local market: With a Comcast account, I'm sure that Xfinity can target each particular ad exactly - but I just don't know if they're doing that.

I do know that the Obama campaign is airing large buys on Spanish-language stations, while Romney isn't even coming close in those markets.

Here in Chicagoland I know I've seen the "Romney is the Problem" and the "Choice" ads. Just yesterday I saw some Huckabee tripe about Repeal Obamacare NOW! I know there are one or two more but I only ever see ads when I'm watching either CNN or MSNBC, never on regular channels.

[Serrland]

I've been trying to chart this on the strategic level, but I agree with Ardchoille: I'd love to hear which ads are running on a State-by-State basis as well.

For my part, I watch very little TV - yet I've seen a blitz of Romney ads on Xfinity (which is the web portal for delayed on-demand rebroadcast of programming from cable providers). I don't know if such programming is tailored to the local market: With a Comcast account, I'm sure that Xfinity can target each particular ad exactly - but I just don't know if they're doing that.

I do know that the Obama campaign is airing large buys on Spanish-language stations, while Romney isn't even coming close in those markets.

Here in Chicagoland I know I've seen the "Romney is the Problem" and the "Choice" ads. Just yesterday I saw some Huckabee tripe about Repeal Obamacare NOW! I know there are one or two more but I only ever see ads when I'm watching either CNN or MSNBC, never on regular channels.

There have been some AM Radio ads, too. WLS (890), WBBM (780), WIND (560) and much to my chagrin, even my beloved WSCR (670 - The Score) have carried radio ads that I've heard (listening through my computer, mind). I imagine most of that is because the Chicago radio market extends into both NW Indiana (a sort-of but not really swing state) and SE/South Central Wisconsin (which is a swing state).

[Farnhamia]

I've been trying to chart this on the strategic level, but I agree with Ardchoille: I'd love to hear which ads are running on a State-by-State basis as well.

For my part, I watch very little TV - yet I've seen a blitz of Romney ads on Xfinity (which is the web portal for delayed on-demand rebroadcast of programming from cable providers). I don't know if such programming is tailored to the local market: With a Comcast account, I'm sure that Xfinity can target each particular ad exactly - but I just don't know if they're doing that.

I do know that the Obama campaign is airing large buys on Spanish-language stations, while Romney isn't even coming close in those markets.

Here in Chicagoland I know I've seen the "Romney is the Problem" and the "Choice" ads. Just yesterday I saw some Huckabee tripe about Repeal Obamacare NOW! I know there are one or two more but I only ever see ads when I'm watching either CNN or MSNBC, never on regular channels.

I tend to tune the ads out and the last few days haven't afforded me much TV time. Honestly, I can't recall what Obama ads have run here in Colorado, except that there are plenty. I support him anyway so I don't pay attention. Romney's been pushing the "Obama can't fix the economy and he's piling up debt like there's no tomorrow" theme. And I have seen one on saying the President is cancelling the work requirement for welfare. That one features a lot of sad white people.

[Serrland]

Also, interesting that both Obama and Ryan are in Iowa but are using different tactics - Ryan's message is predictably the job problem and the economy in general, whereas Obama is focusing on a more specific issue - the drought and agricultural politics. A bit of the race so far in miniature, innit? Romney and Co. focusing on big-picture, appeal to everyone topics, whereas Obama is targeting specific demographics in specific swing states.

If Obama keeps hammering the drought issue, and if it remains a huge problem in the Midwest, I wonder if Indiana - or more importantly Missouri - will start to swing back into play?

[Alien Space Bats]

Electoral-vote.com Map (as of August 14th, 2012)



Obama 317, Romney 212 (9 Undecided)

---

PLEASE NOTE: NEW POLLS SHOWN STILL MAY NOT REFLECT ROMNEY'S CHOICE OF RUNNING MATE.

---

Three polls have been added since my last update; two cover a polling period that includes the first two days after Mitt Romney's announcement of Paul Ryan as a running mate, but does not fall entirely within that time frame:

• In New Hampshire (4 EV's), a new poll by the University of New Hampshire completed on August 12th shows Obama leading in the Granite State by 3%. Note that UNH began this survey on August 1st, so most of its data was collected before Mitt Romney's VP announcement. The State remains "Barely Democratic".
  
  
• In California (55 EV's), a new poll by the Public Policy Institute of California, dated July 24th, shows Barack Obama leading by 11%; averaging this with Pepperdine University's July 17th poll (which had Obama leading by 19%), we end up with an average lead for the President on 15% in the Golden State. The State remains "Strongly Democratic".
  
  
• In Missouri (10 EV's), a new poll by SurveyUSA completed on August 12th shows Romney leading by only 1%. Note that this poll began on August 9th, so roughly half the data would have been collected after Mitt Romney announced his VP pick. The new poll reflects a significant change from the Mason-Dixon and Rasmussen results from late July; consequently we will need confirmation of this change from other sources. In the meantime, the State swings from "Likely Republican" to "Barely Republican".

As indicated above and in the poll results, these new polls do not yet reflect much (if any) of the bounce expected as a consequence of Mitt Romney's August 11th announcement of Paul Ryan as his running mate. It is likely that we won't see many new polls reflecting that change until late this week or possibly this weekend.

[Khadgar]

Also, interesting that both Obama and Ryan are in Iowa but are using different tactics - Ryan's message is predictably the job problem and the economy in general, whereas Obama is focusing on a more specific issue - the drought and agricultural politics. A bit of the race so far in miniature, innit? Romney and Co. focusing on big-picture, appeal to everyone topics, whereas Obama is targeting specific demographics in specific swing states.

If Obama keeps hammering the drought issue, and if it remains a huge problem in the Midwest, I wonder if Indiana - or more importantly Missouri - will start to swing back into play?

Indiana turning blue in 08 was a fluke, and unlikely to be repeated this year. Maybe in 16, if demographics change some.

[Alien Space Bats]

That one features a lot of sad white people.

If I'm right about the direction of this campaign, expect to see a lot more sad white people.

[Khadgar]

That one features a lot of sad white people.

If I'm right about the direction of this campaign, expect to see a lot more sad white people.

And very pointedly nary a black face to be seen in those adverts. So they can court the racially prejudiced without being overt.

[Alien Space Bats]

And very pointedly nary a black face to be seen in those adverts. So they can court the racially prejudiced without being overt.

Since we're talking strategy and tactics here, and media presentation counts, this is certainly germane to our discussion.

Race and gender are qualities that are used very, very carefully in American political ads. When you see an ad, understand that whenever you'rs seeing shots of anything but the candidate in a "live" setting (which can't be controlled quite so easily), every face is chosen to project a message that somebody, somewhere, will understand in terms of racial and/or gender politics (BTW, I hate using the term "gender" in reference to people, but in this context it's the appropriate term).

The welfare ad is a good example of this: All workers in the ad are white, and no welfare recipients are shown. The target audience is therefore white, and this audience is allowed to imagine who the unseen welfare recipients are. An African-American or Latino worker would have conveyed a different message, as would a single white mother or (alternately) an unemployed young white couple; depicting the welfare recipients as hippie layabouts would have conveyed still another message.

You can, of course, always read too much into an ad; but then, too, keep in mind that ads are written with plausible deniability in mind, so reading too much into an ad isn't necessarily the wrong thing to do. After all, these ads are being designed by experts who think about every little detail before they compose the final work product...

[Serrland]

If I'm right about the direction of this campaign, expect to see a lot more sad white people.

And very pointedly nary a black face to be seen in those adverts. So they can court the racially prejudiced without being overt.

Let's be honest, though. Why would Romney want to appeal to African-Americans? It's a lost demographic and a waste of money. Better to go after demographics that you can conceivably win over.

[Khadgar]

And very pointedly nary a black face to be seen in those adverts. So they can court the racially prejudiced without being overt.

Let's be honest, though. Why would Romney want to appeal to African-Americans? It's a lost demographic and a waste of money. Better to go after demographics that you can conceivably win over.

Oh I'm not saying they ought have included black people in the ad to appeal to blacks, but rather that the absence of anyone other than whites in the ad is a move meant to appeal to prejudice. The overt message is about welfare losing the work requirement (which is of course not on the table in any form and is another Romney lie), the covert message is that white people will be hurt and minorities will benefit.

[Neo Art]

Let's be honest, though. Why would Romney want to appeal to African-Americans? It's a lost demographic and a waste of money. Better to go after demographics that you can conceivably win over.

Oh I'm not saying they ought have included black people in the ad to appeal to blacks, but rather that the absence of anyone other than whites in the ad is a move meant to appeal to prejudice. The overt message is about welfare losing the work requirement (which is of course not on the table in any form and is another Romney lie), the covert message is that white people will be hurt and minorities will benefit.

Insidious little message isn't it? A bunch of white people worried about how the BLACK president will lower welfare requirements, and how they, the WHITE people, will have to pay for the recipients.

[Fal Dara in Shienar]

Tennessee.

And there's the point. Tennesse has voted Republican in every election since 1980 - why would anyone target it?

I'm just throwing this out there, but Obama won Rep. Ryan's district by four points. It's considered a blue swing-district that consistently votes Democrat at several different levels of governance. If you're even half-right, which you aren't, I think someone needs to notify the people he's been representing and talking to for the last decade.

"Oh, I know you've been voting for people you view as sane, mildly progressive and likable for the last ten years, WI-1st, and usually Democrats. But this Ryan guy isn't any of that. I know because I read it off of HuffPo and you only live there."

Riiiiiight. Because the neo-Gilded Age Ryan Budget isn't Paul Ryan's work at all. Also, WI-01 is an R+1 swing-district which George W. Bush carried twice and Obama carried by a lesser margin than his national vote margin. It has elected Republicans to Federal Congress (both Houses) several times in the past decade, voting for Paul Ryna (duh, obviously) six times, against Russ Feingold in 2004 and 2010, for Scott Walker in 2010 and 2012 and against Jim Doyle in 2002 and 2006 and Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996.

How a Congressional District that voted for Republican gubernatorial and presidential nominees in each of the last five elections (by narrow margins, to be sure EDIT: With the exception of Obama 2008) is a "blue swing-district" is beyond me. It's a swing district to be sure at R+1, but it's voting behaviour only confirms that it's a red-tinged swing-district. On a more simplistic level, any district that kept its Republican representative in office in both 2006 and 2008 cannot be called "blue-leaning" (with the sole exception of DE-AL - Delaware politics is more congenial, and Castle's victories were more to do with him than with the GOP).

I think you just proved my point. A district that goes for Clinton, Bush and Obama hardly sounds like some sort of ultra-rightwing bastion. He beat McCain’s performance in the district by 17 points. How, by being more rightwing? And those margins were *all* close with the gubernatorial elections. Is a district that is willing to split nearly down the middle for Russ Feingold going to send some right-wing extremist to congress with a sizable majority? I think not. It doesn't add up, and I think you can see in your own argument some of that basic unsoundness.

Also, on a somewhat side-notish issue - please name one policy area that Paul Ryan can reasonably be called progressive on. I'll grant the possibility that he has personal charm, but his policies on just about any issue are hardcore conservative. There's no question here - Mitt Romney made this VP pick for one reason, and one only - to please the far-right of his base.

I suspect that you will find a few in his voting record. Check it out, and see for yourself. http://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/26344/

I, for one, am surprised that you can still be considered far-right after voting for TARP. But maybe I'm just old fashioned.

You would be well served to check our his vote for the Violence Against Women Act.

[Khadgar]

Oh I'm not saying they ought have included black people in the ad to appeal to blacks, but rather that the absence of anyone other than whites in the ad is a move meant to appeal to prejudice. The overt message is about welfare losing the work requirement (which is of course not on the table in any form and is another Romney lie), the covert message is that white people will be hurt and minorities will benefit.

Insidious little message isn't it? A bunch of white people worried about how the BLACK president will lower welfare requirements, and how they, the WHITE people, will have to pay for the recipients.

It's wonderfully done. If anyone calls them on it, they'll feign innocence and declare that Democrats are just mudslinging to avoid the issues. The bold faced lie in the midst of it is awkward, but hell that's never been a big issue in politics.

[Wamitoria]

And there's the point. Tennesse has voted Republican in every election since 1980 - why would anyone target it?



Riiiiiight. Because the neo-Gilded Age Ryan Budget isn't Paul Ryan's work at all. Also, WI-01 is an R+1 swing-district which George W. Bush carried twice and Obama carried by a lesser margin than his national vote margin. It has elected Republicans to Federal Congress (both Houses) several times in the past decade, voting for Paul Ryna (duh, obviously) six times, against Russ Feingold in 2004 and 2010, for Scott Walker in 2010 and 2012 and against Jim Doyle in 2002 and 2006 and Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996.

How a Congressional District that voted for Republican gubernatorial and presidential nominees in each of the last five elections (by narrow margins, to be sure EDIT: With the exception of Obama 2008) is a "blue swing-district" is beyond me. It's a swing district to be sure at R+1, but it's voting behaviour only confirms that it's a red-tinged swing-district. On a more simplistic level, any district that kept its Republican representative in office in both 2006 and 2008 cannot be called "blue-leaning" (with the sole exception of DE-AL - Delaware politics is more congenial, and Castle's victories were more to do with him than with the GOP).

I think you just proved my point. A district that goes for Clinton, Bush and Obama hardly sounds like some sort of ultra-rightwing bastion. He beat McCain’s performance in the district by 17 points. How, by being more rightwing? And those margins were *all* close with the gubernatorial elections. Is a district that is willing to split nearly down the middle for Russ Feingold going to send some right-wing extremist to congress with a sizable majority? I think not. It doesn't add up, and I think you can see in your own argument some of that basic unsoundness.

Also, on a somewhat side-notish issue - please name one policy area that Paul Ryan can reasonably be called progressive on. I'll grant the possibility that he has personal charm, but his policies on just about any issue are hardcore conservative. There's no question here - Mitt Romney made this VP pick for one reason, and one only - to please the far-right of his base.

I suspect that you will find a few in his voting record. Check it out, and see for yourself. http://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/26344/

I, for one, am surprised that you can still be considered far-right after voting for TARP. But maybe I'm just old fashioned.

You would be well served to check our his vote for the Violence Against Women Act.

Chalcedon might not be aware of the fact that Ryan's constitutents screamed at him last year for his budget plan. Hell, there is some chance that his ascension to the national spotlight might actually cause him to lose his own district.

[Farnhamia]

I think you just proved my point. A district that goes for Clinton, Bush and Obama hardly sounds like some sort of ultra-rightwing bastion. He beat McCain’s performance in the district by 17 points. How, by being more rightwing? And those margins were *all* close with the gubernatorial elections. Is a district that is willing to split nearly down the middle for Russ Feingold going to send some right-wing extremist to congress with a sizable majority? I think not. It doesn't add up, and I think you can see in your own argument some of that basic unsoundness.



I suspect that you will find a few in his voting record. Check it out, and see for yourself. http://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/26344/

I, for one, am surprised that you can still be considered far-right after voting for TARP. But maybe I'm just old fashioned.

You would be well served to check our his vote for the Violence Against Women Act.

Chalcedon might not be aware of the fact that Ryan's constitutents screamed at him last year for his budget plan. Hell, there is some chance that his ascension to the national spotlight might actually cause him to lose his own district.

Doesn't his accepting the nomination for Vice-President later this month mean he's out of Congress anyway? He's up for election along with everyone else in the House, how can he campaign for both offices?

[Serrland]

Chalcedon might not be aware of the fact that Ryan's constitutents screamed at him last year for his budget plan. Hell, there is some chance that his ascension to the national spotlight might actually cause him to lose his own district.

Doesn't his accepting the nomination for Vice-President later this month mean he's out of Congress anyway? He's up for election along with everyone else in the House, how can he campaign for both offices?

He is still on the ballot in his district. He won't campaign for it - he doesn't need to.

[Khadgar]

Doesn't his accepting the nomination for Vice-President later this month mean he's out of Congress anyway? He's up for election along with everyone else in the House, how can he campaign for both offices?

He is still on the ballot in his district. He won't campaign for it - he doesn't need to.

Legally he can run for both at once. He may win one or the other, and an outside chance he'd win both, at which point he'd need to resign one.

[Wamitoria]

Insidious little message isn't it? A bunch of white people worried about how the BLACK president will lower welfare requirements, and how they, the WHITE people, will have to pay for the recipients.

It's wonderfully done. If anyone calls them on it, they'll feign innocence and declare that Democrats are just mudslinging to avoid the issues. The bold faced lie in the midst of it is awkward, but hell that's never been a big issue in politics.

As if bold faced lies were doing much to prop up the Romney campaign.

Speaking of which, I watched a clip from CNN this morning featuring an interview of Romney surrogate John Sununu by Solidad O'Brian. The Romney campaign is going to have to figure out a different way to explain these things in a way that doesn't involve John Sununu, because the man honestly makes an ass of himself in every interview he's in. "A poor relationship with the media hasn't hurt of so far!" says the Romney campaign.

[Farnhamia]

He is still on the ballot in his district. He won't campaign for it - he doesn't need to.

Legally he can run for both at once. He may win one or the other, and an outside chance he'd win both, at which point he'd need to resign one.

Gotcha.