Two competing Olympic strategies

August 14, 2008

Both presidential campaigns have invested pretty heavily in television ads for the Olympics, with Obama reportedly spending $5 million, and McCain $6 million. Given reports on high ratings for this year’s games, it’s probably money well spent — a lot of folks will see the commercials.

But it strikes me as interesting how the competing campaigns are going about communicating with this particular audience. Here’s the new Obama campaign spot, the second to run during the Olympics.

“It begins with a plan

2pharmaceuticals.com

,” the voice-over says, while we see a construction crew beginning to assemble a suburban home. “A plan to build. A plan to put hard working Americans first.”

From there we learn about the “Obama Economic Plan”: “He’ll put the middle class ahead of Corporate Interests to … Grow the economy. End tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas. Help businesses that create jobs here. Invest in education. Cut taxes for working families. And make energy independence an urgent national priority.”

It’s a simple, straightforward, positive spot on the economy. There’s not much to dislike. Indeed, it’s reminiscent of the Obama campaign’s first Olympic ad, which was another positive commercial about energy policy and the economy.

The McCain campaign is trying something very different.

To refresh your memory, here’s McCain’s spot for the Olympics:

“Is the biggest celebrity in the world ready to help your family?” the voice-over asks. “The real Obama promises higher taxes, more government spending. So, fewer jobs.”

As the music changes, the announcer tells us, over images of a wind farm, “Renewable energy to transform our economy, create jobs and energy independence, that’s John McCain.”

The attacks on Obama are patently false, and McCain’s claims about energy policy are equally deceptive, but there’s another question to be considered: who goes negative during the Olympics? MSNBC’s First Read reported:

[L]ike good NBC-Universal employees, we spent much of the weekend watching the Olympics. And during the commercial breaks, we saw plenty of those Obama-is-the-biggest-celebrity-in-world TV ads hitting the presumptive Democratic nominee. But almost every other TV ad we saw — whether it was from Audi, Coke, or the now foreign-owned Anheuser-Busch — was positive and upbeat. Just asking: Are McCain’s ads tonally off for the Olympics? They stuck out because they were darker than every other ad. The good news: The ads stuck out. The bad news: The ads stuck out. It’s a gamble. The message will get across, as all messages from constant negative TV ads do. But will McCain’s own favorable ratings pay a price as well?

People can and will debate the strategic merit behind misleading, negative attack ads in a presidential campaign. But I can’t help but wonder if there’s something unique about the Olympics, and the expectations of the viewing public.

McCain is a senile old foll!!!

  • I saw the positive “McCain is the true maverick” ad on the Olympics today. I guess the poll data reaffirms common sense: don’t go negative during the Olympics.

  • The Olympics inherently value “celebrity”; they are designed to produce it.

    John McCain deserves your vote because he’s not like Michael Phelps or Barack Obama?

  • McCain can’t go positive, he’s way too far in the hole for that.

    In 2004, George Bush beat John Kerry 63%-37% in the Central & Northern Tier. If Barack Obama is only trailing McCain by a point or two in these traditionally Republican areas, the Pennsylvania race is over. He’s going to come out of Philadelphia alone with a 400,000 vote lead, and there will be no way for McCain to catch up. None.

    http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/8/14/11152/9475/1006/567515

  • “But, Dear Friends in these days of modern time, when you can’t tell the AC’s from the DC’s, well aren’t we all yearning for someone who can turn on a little stopping power?”
    Firesign Theater – Don’t Crush That Dwarf, Hand Me the Pliers

  • The tone of JSMcC*nt’s add has struck me as:
    Annoying,
    Lying,
    Innappropriate,
    Desperate,
    Wrong-headed,
    Childish.
    And so on.

    And Racer X is right about his need to go negative. The Republican’t internal polling is probably scaring the Dickens out of them.

  • Obama’s negatives are up significantly last I checked. I don’t mean to keep harping about politics as junior high school, but public opinion is not particularly swayed by the “truth” of an argument. The negative ads are having the desired effect, dampening down enthusiasm for Obama. Somehow, someway, we need to take the lid off the 527s

    Given how war weary the Country is, it is hard to believe that most American’s would welcome the belicose McCain. Mr. 100 years, now wants to commit to fighting Russia. No wonder our soldier’s are contributing more to Obama than McCain.

  • The problem with the Obama economic plan: the middle class is the RESULT of a healthy economy, not the cause. The possible (maybe even probable) exception is small business owners, whose viability depends even more on limited regulatino than The problem is that it has been proven, time and time and time again, that private business and corporations drive the economy. Government spending did not save the Soviets, and in every command and control economy in the world right now there is a lower standard of living than we have here. I am all for some limited socialism as a safety net of sorts, so that people are free to be innovative, but that is a lot more limited than what Obama is proposing. Look no further than our Olympic host: removal of typical communist regs in SEZ = explosive growth. Kinda sucks when reality doesn’t match you desires, doesn’t it?

  • In a purely Olympic setting I think Obama is dead-on by staying positive. Also, remember, he’s got targeted negative ads running in various states that hit McCain hard outside the positive Olympic setting.

  • I like this second ad of Obama’s way better than the first one. It makes clear, positive statements and highlights his face much more than the first one, which kind of left me scratching my head and thinking, “What was that that just went by?” This one will do a lot better in getting the word to the public, I have no doubt.

    I *heart* Michael Phelps. Doesn’t everybody? 🙂

  • One interesting promise that McCain makes is that he will build 45 new nuclear reactors which will create 700,000 jobs. Even if true, these jobs would take 30+ years to add to the economy. But that is also 14,000 jobs per nuclear plant. That seems like quite a lot of jobs. Where do these figures come from?

  • I’m boycotting the Olympics this year, so haven’t seen ads from either side. Having worked in the advertising business at one time, I’m not swayed by them anyway. Lots of psychology behind ads; they are designed for one thing: to influence buying habits. I’d frankly love to see political advertising illegal in this country. People running for office, whether local dog catcher or President, need to show their true colors by their actions. We all know that politicians will say what they think they need to in order to be elected. That’s true on every side. It doesn’t need to be amplified by campaign ads, or ads by outside groups.

    As for me, I support Obama. But I distrust all of them. I’m sick of politics being more important than policy. I’m really tired of the American people being fooled and sold out. I though things would change significantly when the Dems were able to take the majority in the 2006 elections. Other than a number of investigations, which seem to not resolve much, the Iraq war is still going on and still being funded, GW/Cheney are still co-Presidents and this administration continues to march the world toward disaster. When Pelosi took impeachment off the table, she condemned us to witness everything we have seen since, and I fear, a good deal more to come. In addition, the Constitution doesn’t say “may impeach,” it says “shall impeach.” I hope she’s defeated in this year’s elections. But if the American people elected McCain as President, despite everything that we have seen that Republicans in power are a disaster for this country, then I give up. I’ll leave the country. I don’t even recognize it anymore, and a McCain administration will end all hope of reversing the evil this country has become.

  • Aaron, since you like reality so much, here’s a little:

    Removal of regulations on business, plus heavy state investment, plus state oppression of unions or any other collective bargaining, creates explosive growth of economic inequality, air that borders on unbreathable, and attracts multi-national corporations.

    There is no true middle class in China, only a class getting rich
    off the labor of their fellows by supplying goods to the West in factories that are pumping pollution into China’s countryside at an ever-increasing rate.

    The average Chinese individual may be marginally better off today than a generation ago, but this cannot continue. The end has already started with the downturn in the US economy. It will end with a new moneyed class enjoying their riches amongst the ruined countryside while the common people suffer.

  • I’m boycotting the Olympics this year, so haven’t seen ads from either side. -impeachcheneythenbush

    You and me both.

    And nothing I’ve heard from the fabricated fireworks, lip-synching children, and revoked visas has made me think I’ve made anything less than the right decision.

    Now if I could just bring myself to boycott their main sponsor, Coke.

    Curse you, Coke Zero, and your sweet, calorie-free, caramel colored deliciousness. Curse you!

  • Aaron @ 10:

    I understand your point, but there are several counter-examples.

    1) Standard of living is a malleable thing, subject to differing definitions. Yes we have a handful of people in the US whose standard of living beats anyone, anywhere. But several studies addressing standard of living across society have us behind several northern European countries — countries where education and health care are guaranteed and free in exchange for much higher tax rates. We have more wealth than they do, but also more poverty – and the unlimited free education provides a great workforce engine for their economy.

    2) To the extent the context of your post is the Obama-McCain race, the differences are in some ways at the margin. The US has always had substantial command-and-control elements to its economy, and the US has always had less of such mechanisms than most other countries. Both of those statements will continue to be true whether Obama or McCain is President: Obama will not turn us into a European social democratic state; McCain will not eliminate all central planning or redistribution mechanisms.

    3) Clinton was less for unfettered capitalism than Dubya, yet the economy was much more robust on Clinton’s watch – and raised more boats across different economic classes. That would seem to be a hole in your pro-Republican theory.

    4) The Soviet argument is a red herring. No one is proposing central industrial planning. The better analogy to the USSR is that their economy tanked when they engaged in unrelenting miliary spending that grew faster than their economy could support or stayed high when the economy was weak. Arguably this is happening now as we wage an extended, costly war of choice while our domestic economy contracts.

    As to your initial premise, that a middle class is a result of a good economy, not a cause of a good economy, that may be a bit of a chicken-and-egg issue, but perhaps the best answer is that they are symbiotic – they feed off of each other and ensure the forward motion is perpetual. If you lose either the good economy or the middle class, you put the other at risk.

  • d’oh! Aaron, Charles reminded me of the last point I meant to make: Adam Smith wouldn’t recognize what is advocated by the right as “free markets.” Smith understood that even in a capitalist democracy there would still be market failures and that government should step in to address them. The total absence of regulation is not a free market – it is plutocracy. Absent the seriously distorted flow of information, there is no way a majority would ever support what I call E.Coli Conservatism. What deregulated markets gives the masses is poisoned peanut butter, toxic tomatoes, childrens toys that are essentially booby traps, and deadly dog food. The profits of that destruction accrue only to a very very few. Hardly an ideal system.

  • tomj said: “One interesting promise that McCain makes is that he will build 45 new nuclear reactors which will create 700,000 jobs. Even if true, these jobs would take 30+ years to add to the economy. But that is also 14,000 jobs per nuclear plant. That seems like quite a lot of jobs. Where do these figures come from?”

    Because the cooling plumbing is so tricky on standard nuclear reactors, McC*nt is supporting an alternate architecture which relies on workers drinking vast quantities of beer, then urinating on the uranium cores to keep them cool. The radiation kills the workers so fast they will need 700,000 new workers every year.

    How’s that for job creation?

  • I can’t help but wonder if there’s something unique about the Olympics, and the expectations of the viewing public. — CB

    Once upon a time… All the Hellenic tribes laid down their weapons and suspended their “misunderstandings” for the duration of the Olympic Games. That temporary truce often led to permanence, as erst-while enemies competed side by side and learnt to respect one another, even as they tried to prove their superiority through peaceful means.

    When the Games were resurrected in modern times, their overall import was essentially the same: take a breather from squabbling, see if peace won’t work as well. Even though we no longer suspend our wars, some of us still think of the Olympic games as a time when the world is supposed to come together, in peace. A time of hope.

    I think that might be why a “dark” ad, one which is aimed at producing fear, seems more offensive during the Olympics. I know, for example, that I was almost as staggered and repulsed by the *timing* of the Georgia/Russia war, as I was by the fact of it by itself.

  • @@@ 20. On August 14th, 2008 at 3:39 pm, Lance said:
    Because the cooling plumbing is so tricky on standard nuclear reactors, McC*nt is supporting an alternate architecture which relies on workers drinking vast quantities of beer, then urinating on the uranium cores to keep them cool. The radiation kills the workers so fast they will need 700,000 new workers every year.

    LMAO,,, & by using old people (Who water more often) he will FIX Social Security forever.

  • Scott F: I don’t mean to keep harping about politics as junior high school, but public opinion is not particularly swayed by the “truth” of an argument.

    Good point! To carry the high school scenario further, imagine a hallway where two students are having an argument. To the onlookers, the winner is always the one who fires off the most “snaps.” The negative ads we’re seeing are veering toward the tone of “your momma” jokes. McCain’s celebrity ads try to “clever up” the negativeness by attempting humor. Same thing. Unfortunately there are votes to be won by dominating a shouting match.

  • Libra, the modern Olympics are so far removed, both temporally and essentially, from the ancient Hellenic games, it’s almost insulting. The ancient Olympics were a sacred event, marked with religious significance. Originally, the Olympics were a time of peace, as you say. However, three of the modern revivals (1916, 1940 and 1944) have been canceled due to war. Almost as vulgar, many more Olympic games have been marred by violence of one sort or another, from the Afghan invasion of 1980, to the 1972 Munich Olympics.

    Of course, given the almost nauseating stench of commercialism surrounding the games, and the venal corruption of the IOC, one has to wonder where the rot really started.

  • @@@ 20. On August 14th, 2008 at 3:39 pm, Lance said:
    Because the cooling plumbing is so tricky on standard nuclear reactors, McC*nt is supporting an alternate architecture which relies on workers drinking vast quantities of beer, then urinating on the uranium cores to keep them cool. The radiation kills the workers so fast they will need 700,000 new workers every year.

    And who’s beer distributorship would deliver the beer?

    Speaking of Cindy, apparently she hurt herself trying to fend off blows, or sumptin, and is now wearing a sling. Are any pain relievers involved?

  • It’s strange to me, all the people that wonder why Obama isn’t running away with the election.
    To me, it’s obvious, and it isn’t about race… it’s about the Media.
    The Media, generally, just spews the McCain narrative as Gospel, while subjecting Obama to some intense scrutiny.
    Several weeks back, George Mason did a study that found that the majority of Obama’s Media coverage, is negative.
    Last week, Pew Research did a Poll that found the majority of people have heard enough about Obama, and want to hear more about McCain.
    So, if all people hear 24/7, is Obama, Obama, Obama, and most of it is negative, isn’t it more surprising that he’s actually in the lead?
    If the Media EVER starts to scrutinize Senator McCain, the Polls will open up.
    If not, I suspect all the negative ads, books, etc, will sway enough people to elect McCain.

  • maya said: “And who’s beer distributorship would deliver the beer?”

    Damn Maya, now -I- believe it 😉

  • Libra wrote: “I know, for example, that I was almost as staggered and repulsed by the *timing* of the Georgia/Russia war, as I was by the fact of it by itself.”

    Well, we can thank John Sidney’s friend for starting this thing during the Olympics, and George W’s friend for finishing it.

    Think that can be a campaign slogan? John McCain, he picks his friends even worse than George Bush.

  • I had a response that I thought was decent and level-headed to zeitgeist, but it got scrubbed somewhere. Basically I said that zeitgeist has some good points, but I believe that Obama is way too far left (more than Clinton, who was pretty good economically, I think; he did sign NAFTA which is pretty free market). And that we can solve education without higher taxes if we spend our current allocation better (remember Pelosi and McCain promising to end pork and earkmarks?). Also that I thought I recalled hearing some commitee members in the House agitating for nationalization of the oil industry specifically. I also said that Obama seems like the better guy, I would much rather have him as a buddy than McCain, but cap and trade alone will knock 5% off GDP and we can’t do that. Proper regulation is great, an appropriate safety net with socialist leanings is probably needed, but everyone should end up having to pretty much earn what the get in life.

  • Content aside, there is one difference between McCain’s and Obama’s Olympic ads that says it all for me –

    Obama’s ads are in HD, McCain’s aren’t.

    With the closeups McCain uses, I’m thankful for that.

  • Aaron –

    sometimes McCain also supports cap and trade. then again, sometimes he doesn’t. McCain is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you’ll get. 🙂

    (or was that momma always told me stupid is as McCain does?)

    i would be much more supportive of everyone having to earn what they get in life if where we started in life and the artificial barriers put in front of us in life were considerably closer to even. given that viewpoint, however, are you pro estate tax? (i.e. we dont want the sons and daughters of the rich having unearned rewards)

  • zeitgiest –

    I am not FOR an estate tax, I think being able to leave a secure future for your offspring can be a powerful incentive to produce and save instead of consume, but it is preferable to increasing income tax, which decreases all production. Not everyone is motivated to leave an inheritance, and not everyone has someone to leave it to, but income tax as a redistribution of wealth reduces the marginal incentive to be more productive. The general principle is that taxing something more will always result in less of it, so it is better to tax estates than income. I think that an estate tax of 15% along with an income tax of the same would be sufficient to provide the necessary government functions, including some employment transition programs and aid programs for those physically unable to work. I think it would be interesting, though probably very impractical, to somehow reduce the taxes taken out of the estate based on the productivity of the inheritor (in other words, if you continue to contribute to society despite being financially independent, you are rewarded). Probably impossible to implement, but fun on paper. I think the telling data on taxes is the reduction of the dividend tax: since the dividend tax was reduced, the government has actually collected MORE revenue from it than at the old, higher tax rate. It would be interesting to see if something similar happened with income tax. Maybe couple it with this radical proposal: eliminate corporate income taxes altogether (they just pass it on in increased prices, wage freezes, etc.) but increase the minimum wage to $11 or $12 per hour.

  • Aaron and Will Hunting

    Charles and Zeitgeist have given you some good counter points. I would like to add one as well.

    As Charles pointed out, that your assumption of China easing off on their regulation resulted in their economy taking off, it also allowed (under China’s approval) for some pretty nasty pollution as well as exploitation of their countrymen. Were you aware that when ‘shit hit the fan’ i.e. when China got a serious backlash from the rest of the world, their response was to literally hang the so called culprits (scapegoats)

    They promised that the people responsible for building the schools that collapsed during the earthquake earlier this year, would be prosecuted and executed when found guilty.

    Think for a moment. How would Ken Lay and his gang have acted at Enron (energy deregulation) if they knew that if their wrongdoing was found out, they were going to be executed, not merely sent to the white-collar-crime club-med facility? How about Jack Abramoff, or any of the other politicians caught in corruption, knowing they could be executed if found out. That’s what actually happened to one cabinet member in China, after it was found out that he had embezzled a mere $500,000.00

  • 14. On August 14th, 2008 at 3:11 pm, tomj said:
    ” One interesting promise that McCain makes is that he will build 45 new nuclear reactors which will create 700,000 jobs. Even if true, these jobs would take 30+ years to add to the economy. But that is also 14,000 jobs per nuclear plant. That seems like quite a lot of jobs. Where do these figures come from? ”

    —
    Not to be defending McCain and/or his message, but I would think (not knowing for sure, just taking a shot in the dark here) that these numbers come not just from the actual employees of these 45 new reactors, but also the jobs in support of the reactor. You will have a large number of jobs in the service industry from those that clean the uniforms to who serve them coffee to those who make the McBurgers to those that are hired to increase the staffing in the local hospitals for the growing number of people brought into those populations.

    Industry has a trickle down effect, good or bad. Look at the impact on an area that the closure of a manufacturing plant has. Not only are the hundreds (thousands) laid off from the actual job, but how many are effected in jobs that service the industry itself (steel and fuel, for example) or the employees (near by restaurants that cater primarily to the workers).

    So, is it a stretch that 45 plants will create 14,000 jobs per? Sure. But is it is not that far a stretch.

    • Comments are closed.