When the campaign becomes a race of commercials

David Corn has an interesting, and largely persuasive, piece today, describing what may prove to be a high hurdle for Barack Obama’s campaign on Feb. 5 — at that point, the race moves away from his strengths as a candidate.

If the Democratic presidential race is between [Obama and Clinton] it boils down, in a way to this: Clinton says, believe in my resume; Obama says, believe in me.

Clinton is pitching herself as a woman of experience who can start working for you and our children on Day One. Look, 35 years of policy wonkery and advocacy. Look, a record of accomplishment…. Obama is selling himself as…himself. That is, Obama is insisting that he has the ability to create a new politics — a transformative, overcoming-the-divide politics — because of who he is, because of his character and considerable personal attributes. Sure, he points to his past as a community organizer and civil rights lawyers and to his work in the Illinois state senator and the U.S. Senate to bolster his argument that he possesses the right stuff. But his is not a campaign of resume-waving. He’s running on his soul. And Obama goes further than asking voters to hire him as their advocate. He issues an invitation: join me in this grand cause to change politics, change government, and change the nation. He speaks of his campaign as a movement and compares it to the great social movements of America’s past.

With Obama, it’s not about his career highlights, it’s about him. To buy his case, a voter must believe in him, have faith in him, place hope in him — must have (or feel) a connection with him. And this is where the problem kicks in.

That sounds about right to me. Obama’s win in Iowa was very impressive, but it came after months of campaigning in a small state, in a style that played to Obama’s strengths. Voters, to borrow a phrase, got to “kick the tires and look under the hood” of a large Democratic field. Candidates showed up at their homes. They got to ask questions, get answers, and interact with the field the way voters in other states can’t. These folks, after getting up close and personal with all of them for almost a year, and looking each of them in the eye, preferred Obama to Edwards and Clinton in a big way.

But the campaign conditions in Iowa won’t be repeated. Indeed, on Feb. 5, it’ll be the polar opposite — so long retail politics, hello wholesale.

The election will be shaped by Supersaturated Tuesday, February 5, when two dozen states, including some of the largest in the union, will hold primaries or caucuses. No candidate will be able to reach large number of voters in an up-close-and-personal manner. There will be big rallies in California and elsewhere. But the people who show up will be a minuscule fraction of the electorate, and these events may not receive extensive local media coverage — absent Oprah or a newsworthy mishap. (California television news is notorious for shortchanging political coverage. There are, after all, so many car chases to chase after.)

At this stage, the candidates will be reaching voters mainly through commercials. A television spot is a fine medium for a candidate to share his or her resume, to list his or her accomplishments. It is much tougher to convey the intangibles of hope, faith, and transcendence in a 30- or 60-second spot. The bottom line: advantage to Clinton.

In fact, I’d go even further than this, because Clinton starts off with a big advantage in every Feb. 5 state, by virtue of who she is. Except in those cases when a president or vice president is running, Clinton is about as close to an incumbent as you can get. If you were to poll Democrats in every state in the country on, say, Dec. 1, 2006, asking for their presidential preference, you’d probably find that Clinton led, by a fairly wide margin, in 49 of them. If you did the same poll on Dec. 1, 2007, I suspect you’d see similar results — 47 states, maybe 48. These are people who haven’t seen any campaign ads, haven’t watched the debates, and haven’t received any direct mail or robocalls. They know Hillary, they know her last name, they’ve liked her for nearly two decades, and that’s enough to give her an edge.

With more than 20 states voting on Feb. 5, this means Clinton probably starts out ahead in every contest but one (Illinois). I don’t doubt that Obama has the political skills to close the gap, but as Corn notes, he won’t be able to do it his way — by letting voters look him in the eye and hear what he has to say.

And at that point, it’s a race of commercials, which is why a lot of Feb. 5 voters will be seeing spots like this one:

Will it be enough? Stay tuned.

“With Obama, it’s not about his career highlights, it’s about him. To buy his case, a voter must believe in him, have faith in him, place hope in him — must have (or feel) a connection with him. And this is where the problem kicks in.”

*****

It’s not that simple. You’re trivializing Obama and writing him off a bit too early. If you look at the results of both NH and NV, a trend emerges – Obama beats the pants off Clinton in the outlying areas, but she reverses the trend in the more populated areas (where the most votes). He even beat Clinton in that little hamlet in NH that voted at 12:01 am on January 8th. I believe there are about 20 people living there. Obama got 7 votes, Hillary got NONE. Many of those people never met him personally.

What caused the difference? Attack ads. In both cases, Clinton decided to inundate voters in the more populous regions with attack ads against Obama that lied about his stance on women’s pro-choice issues, his social security fix and other things. This is what Obama needs to confront.

In NV, if you didn’t include Clark County (the most populous county), Obama beat Clinton in 11 of the state’s 17 counties. He needs to confront the swiftboating ads that are focused in the more populous areas. His wide appeal to voters in both states shows he’s VERY electable. The losses have nothing to do with The Bradley Effect.

He must devise a strategy to successfully overcome the swiftboat ads.

  • And Obama goes further than asking voters to hire him as their advocate. He issues an invitation: join me in this grand cause to change politics, change government, and change the nation. He speaks of his campaign as a movement and compares it to the great social movements of America’s past.

    He doesn’t use this kind of language more than any other candidate, as far as I’ve noticed.

    There’s not any social movement behind Obama. He may be trying to make it sound that way, but he’s just another Senator who decided to run for President. He’s a good, Democratic one, but this stuff about Barack being the leader of a social movement is baloney.

    Corn is doing a little selling within his “serious, credible” (I say sarcastically) piece, or he is sold. Is he trying to get the Obamaites to get their little hineys in gear?

  • Corn’s argument is a bit oversimplified and relies on some pretty tricky assumptions. A simple rule of public relations is that it is much easier to create a positive image from scratch than it is to overcame a negative image already in the audience’s head. Hill has to work harder than Barack to build a positive picture of her for voters with a bad preconception of her. Commercials don’t work as well to overcome the negatives as a person-to-person meeting either. If Hill goes negative in her ads, she may not be the lesser of two evils as she may assume, she may be viewed as just as rotten an apple.

    The experience vs. change argument seems shallow as well. Trust, faith a person, and other intangibles are as much in play as these two elements.

  • A person who can’t provide enough tangible assurances to trust him is someone and who wants something from is one who’s likely to limit his message to you to saying “Trust me! I’m a great soul!” while batting his eyelashes, gazing with his beautiful eyes, pursing his lips, and showing off his dimples.

    It doesn’t mean we should all go, “Gah!! It’s all about soul!” and swoon and stop thinking about anything else.

  • Petardo
    I think Romney disproves your points that it is easy to build a positive image. He has spent millions of dollars trying to do so to very little effect.
    A good commercial for Obama has to
    1- introduce him to those who don’t know him
    2- show his positive attributes in a convincing and believable way
    and
    3- make that relevant to the issues the voter cares about.

    Hillary has the advantage on point 1- since her ads don’t have to do this.
    Number 2 might be harder for her- but her New York senate campaign showed she was effective in hitting points two and three.
    If she can do this nationally she will have an advantage.

    On this particular ad- I think Obama misses a little bit on point two. I’m not sure it is that inspiring to those who aren’t already inspired.
    But where I feel it is really weak is on point three. It does seem to be more about him. Its the kind of spiel you see in tributes when someone is getting an award not the kind that tries to really connect with voters.

    The sad thing is that we will probably never see the effectiveness of the Edwards commercial since I don’t think he has enough money to advertise as much as the other two.

  • I think Romney disproves your points that it is easy to build a positive image. -Truthsquad

    I don’t think Petardo’s argument was that it is easy to build a positive image; it was that it is easier if you start with a blank slate. I’m not sure Romney started as a blank slate given his history as a Governor who tended to have some less than hard core conservative beliefs.

  • Aye, and that is the problem with both Clinton and Obama.

    Obama has little to no experience. And for Clinton — I’ve looked at her record and I am not impressed. I wonder if she would feel more comfortable running as a Republican?

  • This might be a reason why New Hampshire was so important. If Obama had won in Iowa and then gone on to the predicted win in New Hampshire, he would have gone into Super Tuesday looking like the front runner and these arguments would no longer apply. Having failed to get the win in New Hampshire he’s still the insurgent candidate with an uphill fight.

    Fortunately Obama does have advantages which insurgent candidates don’t usually have, such as having the money to advertise and having a number of endorsements from prominent Democrats which help give him credibility despite limited experience. Plus Clinton has many of her own negatives, and her experience isn’t really all that impressive.

  • After x number of debates, millions raised on the internet (mostly from non-Iowans i assume), blogs like Carpetbagger, and an extremely long campaign, I think most voters have about as much information as they want. This isn’t to say most are well informed. In fact, from watching interviews of “people on the street” in Iowa and New Hampshire, my guess is kicking the tires isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. Obama’s biggest disadvantage is that people hear little bits over and over again on TV that frankly are not educational, but are influential. For example, that Clinton won in Nevada. I still can’t find anything on the web that shows who actually got how many votes, and under what conditions the state or convention delegates are obliged to honor the voter’s mandate.

  • Obama has little to no experience. -Ronin

    Does this qualify as a ‘right-wing talking point,’ yet? Or should we just say Rovian, GOPesque, obtuse, ignorant, and ill-informed?

    When are we going to divorce ourselves of this silliness? Does someone have to post a list of accomplishments (like Zeitgesit’s rundown of the Clinton Administration) every time Obama’s experience is questioned?

    I think most voters have about as much information as they want. -Danp

    I would agree, yet you still have commenters beholden to the idea that Obama has ‘little to no experience.’

  • I’m a Super Tuesday voter (Missouri) and I’m still vacillating between Clinton and Obama. Much as I dislike the seemingly pro-Reagan comments Obama made, I repelled further by the stench of Mark Penn and his ilk, and the apparent nepotism at work in this campaign for a previous president’s spouse. Plus, Bill’s disingenuous attacks on Obama are reminding me of the undisciplined and reckless side of the Clintons. And there is that war vote. So I guess it’ll be Obama for me.

    I’d vote for Edwards if I thought he still had any realistic chance. I’m afraid he doesn’t.

  • As I see it, Hillary Clinton will NEVER inspire Republicans to vote for her. She will likely inspire them to vote AGAINST her. She may be able to win the White House, but it will be partisan politics as usual.

    Barack Obama touches many people particularly indipendents and moderate Republicans (yes, they do exist) and has the potential to build a broad-based movement that could benefit the Democratic party for decades.

    Which candidate will win the wholesale campaign? I honestly don’t know yet. Clinton certainly knows how to play the game, but on the other hand there is a movement afoot to change the game.

    I think by this point it should be obvious to anyone who regularly participates here that I favor Obama. Having said that, I admit that ANY of the three top Dems will be an improvement over the Bush administration. I just prefer a higher degree of statesmanship. To me, that quality is found in Obama and Edwards far more than Clinton.

    As to the recent nastiness in the debate, I see it as a necessary action by Obama to confront serious mischaracterizations coming from Clinton. Unfortunately, her tactics may work because the more he is forced to confront her, the less he is able to stay on his message of positivity.

    For that I say, “booooooo!” to the Clintons. They may win, heck, they may even get my vote in the general election, but they will not earn my respect.

  • Comments are closed.