livestock, lipstick, and liquidity: politics thread

by **Houshphandzadeh** » Fri Sep 19, 2008 10:59:08

Woody wrote:They're both negative, but big deal, all campaigns are

The true test is who can be the slimiest

SEX LESSONS FOR KINDERGARTENERS > He has lots of houses

I think that's what I'm getting at. I'll gladly take either candidate looking straight and calm at the camera and elucidating contrasts between his opponents positions over a slideshow of no-context newspaper clippings with a doom and gloom voiceover, but I think in this context they'd both be considered negative?

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri Sep 19, 2008 11:09:52

Pretty sure the sex ed thing turned out to mostly just be a web video. Obama's ad linking McCain to an out of context Limbaugh quote from 14 years ago to make it seem like McCain thinks Mexicans are stupid and useless was pretty classy.

But Mr. HopeChange is good. And McCain is bad. So McCain is slimy, and Obama is just trying to draw contrasts.

by **Houshphandzadeh** » Fri Sep 19, 2008 11:11:48

Are you referring to what I said? I never said either was more or less innocent, just that "negative" in the context of advertising studies may not align with what most people think of as negative.

As if I've made more than like two pro-Obama posts in the last six months, or a single anti-McCain post.

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri Sep 19, 2008 11:13:51

No. I was responding to Woody, who hates politics, but likes making fun of McCain in the politics thread.

by **Houshphandzadeh** » Fri Sep 19, 2008 11:14:08

Oh. Oops. Some itchy trigger fingers up in here!

by **dajafi** » Fri Sep 19, 2008 11:24:21

I've found the tone of both campaigns disappointing.

One purpose of the campaign should be to make clear the distinctions between the two parties and the two candidates. This hasn't happened, despite what I believe were the sincere intentions of both men.

Hopefully the debates will bring out some of these substance issues, though the experience of the primaries isn't encouraging here.

I have been thinking a little more about McCain's whole "I wouldn't have gone all Rove on ol' Parrack Spearsbama if he'd just done some town halls with me." I do think this is a pretty lame excuse for breaking his own pledge to run an honorable campaign, but it also reflects the breakdown in negotiations. Obama IIRC wanted other/additional formats, including a "Lincoln/Douglas debate" where they would have given longer statements with perhaps a deeper exploration of issues--and less soundbite-type argument. Evidently that was a non-starter for the McCain camp.

My point is that there's blame to go around for the dismal state of the national conversation.

by **BuddyGroom** » Fri Sep 19, 2008 11:57:50

It's pretty hard these days to find a national poll in which McCain is leading Obama. Rasmussen does have the race at 48-48, but no other national poll I've seen has McCain above 45% so it seems likely that poll is an outlier.

by **Woody** » Fri Sep 19, 2008 12:10:20

jerseyhoya wrote:No. I was responding to Woody, who hates politics, but likes making fun of McCain in the politics thread.

It's actually nothing personal against the guy, he's just easy to make fun of. But to be fair, I make fun of LAexile, too. And in case you hadn't noticed, making fun is kind of what I do around here. I make your workday more bearable.

by **TenuredVulture** » Fri Sep 19, 2008 12:14:55

Woody does raise an important point. Not all negative ads are bad. A negative ad that highlights aspects of an opponent's record (John McCain was a member of the Keating 5) provides information that helps voters make an informed decision. Negative ads are not necessarily bad.

Of course, Republicans these days are very sensitive, delicate creatures, and their feelings are very easily hurt.

by **phdave** » Fri Sep 19, 2008 13:06:23

Laexile wrote:
Phan In Phlorida wrote:Just saw this on the CNN, and Googled for a link to verify...

According to TNS Media Intelligence Campaign Media Analysis Group and the University of Wisconsin Advertising Project (try saying that without taking a breath):

Obama's Run More Negative Ads

77% of the Obama campaigns' ads were deemed "negative," compared to 56% for McCain.

Obama went negative from the beginning. McCain didn't go negative until the end of July. We should look at their timeframe. McCain may have been more negative since August.

Here is a google ad that appeared in early June:

Some of the blog posts I read (written in June) suggest that this was the first negative ad of the general campaign.

by **Phan In Phlorida** » Fri Sep 19, 2008 13:15:57

phdave wrote:
Laexile wrote:
Phan In Phlorida wrote:Just saw this on the CNN, and Googled for a link to verify...

According to TNS Media Intelligence Campaign Media Analysis Group and the University of Wisconsin Advertising Project (try saying that without taking a breath):

Obama's Run More Negative Ads

77% of the Obama campaigns' ads were deemed "negative," compared to 56% for McCain.

Obama went negative from the beginning. McCain didn't go negative until the end of July. We should look at their timeframe. McCain may have been more negative since August.

Here is a google ad that appeared in early June:

Some of the blog posts I read (written in June) suggest that this was the first negative ad of the general campaign.

A banner ad? That's so 1990's.

:mrgreen:

by **Monkeyboy** » Fri Sep 19, 2008 13:39:48

Woody wrote:They're both negative, but big deal, all campaigns are

The true test is who can be the slimiest

SEX LESSONS FOR KINDERGARTENERS > He has lots of houses

Exactly, all campagns are negative. But there's a difference between going negative and just plain lying and sliming. It wouldn't surprise me to learn Obama leads in the former category, but I know McCain leads in the latter.

The McCain campaign really needs the public to see the two as equal though, which is why they are pushing the idea that both campaigns are equally slimy.

by **Monkeyboy** » Fri Sep 19, 2008 13:42:10

jerseyhoya wrote:Pretty sure the sex ed thing turned out to mostly just be a web video. Obama's ad linking McCain to an out of context Limbaugh quote from 14 years ago to make it seem like McCain thinks Mexicans are stupid and useless was pretty classy.

But Mr. HopeChange is good. And McCain is bad. So McCain is slimy, and Obama is just trying to draw contrasts.

I agree that was a slimy one from Obama, but how may other ads like that can you find from the Obama campaign? I can find lots from McCain's ad closet.

by **Monkeyboy** » Fri Sep 19, 2008 14:45:42

LikeI said, she is one of them...

Palin won’t say whether veep is an executive post

Vice President Dick Cheney has said his office only partially belongs to the executive branch. Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Biden disagrees and Republican rival Sarah Palin isn’t saying.

Sen. Biden (Del.) believes the office he is seeking is solely in the executive branch, according to his staff. But aides to Alaska Gov. Palin did not answer the question.

“Unlike Dick Cheney, Joe Biden won’t have to create a full employment plan for lawyers and scholars to clear up something that was unquestioned for about 200 years. The vice president is part of the executive branch, period. End of story,” said Biden spokesman David Wade.

In turn, a spokesman for the Republican presidential campaign did not answer the question. Instead, he e-mailed remarks Palin gave at a campaign rally in Golden, Colo., on Monday.

Palin did not say what branch of government she believes the vice president’s office is part of in those remarks. Instead, Palin said she and Republican presidential nominee John McCain had discussed what responsibilities she would take on as his second-in-command.

by **BuddyGroom** » Fri Sep 19, 2008 14:51:50

I guess people have seen the big swing back toward Obama at 538.com

by **dajafi** » Fri Sep 19, 2008 14:54:42

Here's the best case I've seen for McCain's economic agenda (in fact, probably his whole candidacy). Of particular interest, given the exchange Werthless and I had in the last thread about health care, is the following:

The reason poor Americans get too little health care is that rich Americans get too much. The reason rich Americans get too much is that they're overinsured, and therefore run to the doctor for minor problems. The reason they're overinsured is that employer-provided health benefits aren't taxed, so employers overprovide them.

It has been clear for decades that the single most effective way to control health care costs is to eliminate the tax break for employer-provided health care. According to one careful study by my colleague Charles Phelps (admittedly several years old, but I'm not sure anything relevant has changed), this single reform could reduce health care costs by 40% with essentially no effect on health care outcomes.

Essential as this reform may be, I'd always assumed it was a political non-starter. I was therefore astonished to learn that it's the essence of McCain's health care reform. (At the same time, he would give each individual $2500, and each family $5000, to use for health care.)

I am astonished that I hadn't heard about this, and particularly astonished that Barack Obama hasn't thrust it in my face with a negative spin. Possibly he has and I just wasn't paying attention. In any case, this is just what the doctor ordered, and I am delighted that McCain has put it on the table.

Obama, by contrast, wants poor people to get more medical care without addressing the problem of overuse by rich people. Where is that extra medical care going to come from? If the answer is "nowhere," then a primary effect of the Obama plan must be to raise prices, making doctors and hospitals the big beneficiaries.

Now, that I think this is a strong abstract argument on the economic merits doesn't mean that I also believe it either works politically--the idea that any politician could make hay of the talking point that "you, rich family, are using too health care" is beyond absurd--or (above all) that McCain and a Republican Party that seems to find the nuts and bolts of governing a bit fruity, could make it work operationally. Health care isn't a normal good (that's the one thing I clearly remember from those economics of health care courses I took in grad school a decade ago), and even if McCain's amounts of subsidy might eventually meet falling health care costs, that's a lot of damage done to low-income people in the meantime.

I'd love to see this guy argue it out with the researcher who found, a couple years back, that the supposedly ginormous expenditures Americans make on health care actually represent a good investment in terms of outcomes. I thought it was David Ellwood, but that doesn't seem to be right based on Google searchage.

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri Sep 19, 2008 15:11:04

Thanks for linking to that, dajafi. I especially liked the denial of evolution and denial of free trade parallel. :lol:

by **dajafi** » Fri Sep 19, 2008 15:14:20

jerseyhoya wrote:Thanks for linking to that, dajafi. I especially liked the denial of evolution and denial of free trade parallel.

I did too. Dude can write.

by **Laexile** » Fri Sep 19, 2008 15:16:11

TenuredVulture wrote:Woody does raise an important point. Not all negative ads are bad. A negative ad that highlights aspects of an opponent's record (John McCain was a member of the Keating 5) provides information that helps voters make an informed decision. Negative ads are not necessarily bad.

Of course, Republicans these days are very sensitive, delicate creatures, and their feelings are very easily hurt.

It's the context. The Keating 5 was 20 years ago. Is something that happened that long ago relevant? Obama talks about using cocaine as a teenager and in college in his books. Is that relevant? John McCain was cleared of all impropriety in the Keating 5 mess. While he did meet with bank regulators he instructed them to not treat Keating any different than anybody else. The other four members of the Keating 5 were all Democrats. John Glenn and John McCain has minimal involvement, compared to the other three senators. Republicans have speculated that McCain was included in the investigation because the Democrats leading it wanted to include a Republican. Mentioning John McCain was part of the Keating 5 and saying nothing else would likely mislead people who have no knowledge of the scandal.

Highlighting an aspect of your opponent's record negatively is rarely done in context. Obama voted "here" 130 times in the state senate. Just saying that, and nothing else, may give a different impression than the reason Obama did so.

The two campaigns don't highlight the other candidate's position without distorting it. It's as if the position contrast isn't enough to make it truly villainous.

by **Laexile** » Fri Sep 19, 2008 15:18:41

BuddyGroom wrote:I guess people have seen the big swing back toward Obama at 538.com

Not unexpected. McCain's bump was attributed to his convention bounce. That usually wears off. They are back pretty much where they were before the conventions.

Archived

livestock, lipstick, and liquidity: politics thread