PDA

View Full Version : "Celebrity" ads and responses



LeoGetz
07-30-2008, 07:00 PM
I freaking love it. Please god let Obama run an ad of McCain stealing baby Alex from his mother in the middle of the night Elian Gonzalez style & send him to Iraq.

McCain ad likens Obama to Paris Hilton, Britney Spears (http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/2008/07/30/MCCAIN_obama_britney_paris.html)

ari1013
07-30-2008, 07:03 PM
One word: Desperation.

I didn't realize it was this bad for McCain.

Doc Fluty
07-30-2008, 07:34 PM
yeah.. thats a gay ad

DenButsu
07-30-2008, 08:20 PM
McCain's going to lose for sure if he keeps campaigning this way.

All this was was a slow-pitched softball for Obama to hit back hard (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/30/obama-camp-launches-response-ad/) on McCain for his negative campaigning.


Keep setting 'em up, John. Obama will knock 'em down.

FearAD
07-30-2008, 08:30 PM
It's kinda sad.

McCain whining they like him more.
":They pay more attention to him."

None of my friend are sending me any Pro-McCain email. They just complain about Barack.

I think Barack is going to slay him in the debates.

ari1013
07-30-2008, 09:14 PM
It's kinda sad.

McCain whining they like him more.
":They pay more attention to him."

None of my friend are sending me any Pro-McCain email. They just complain about Barack.

I think Barack is going to slay him in the debates.
That's what happens when you have no message of your own. You simply rely on attacking the other candidate.

McCain and Kerry are good friends. I wonder if they shared ideas on how to run a campaign.

CubsGirl
07-30-2008, 09:29 PM
That's what happens when you have no message of your own. You simply rely on attacking the other candidate.

McCain and Kerry are good friends. I wonder if they shared ideas on how to run a campaign.
I think he has a message, but Obama is apparently such a tough candidate to run against that he feels the need to try and make people dislike Obama more than he wants to make people like him

DenButsu
07-30-2008, 10:43 PM
he feels the need to try and make people dislike Obama more than he wants to make people like him

I think the big problem there is that McCain is precisely at his least likable when he's trying too hard to be liked.

("And that's not change we can believe in... heh-heh heh..... heh")

ari1013
07-31-2008, 12:13 AM
I think he has a message, but Obama is apparently such a tough candidate to run against that he feels the need to try and make people dislike Obama more than he wants to make people like him
When is the last time McCain has actually spoken about his message at the national level? All of his ads focus on Obama. So all we see in the battlegrounds is:

Obama talking about how he was raised with good old fashioned American values and how that's what has inspired him to bring America back on the right path

And McCain endorsing attack ads on Obama for being a liberal elitist who hates all things American and instead prefers basketball, Honest Tea, and, of course, arugala.

cubsofchicago
07-31-2008, 02:04 AM
lol did they really think that was a good ad lol i cant believe they aired it :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

gcoll
07-31-2008, 03:00 AM
One word: Desperation.

I didn't realize it was this bad for McCain.

It's not. In most polls, doesn't he trail by somewhere around 2 points?

WES445
07-31-2008, 03:02 AM
And we still got roughly 3 more months to go. Who is the drunk monkey running McCain's political smear dept.?

DenButsu
07-31-2008, 04:28 AM
John Weaver, for years one of John McCain's closest friends and confidants, has been in exile since his resignation from McCain's presidential campaign last year. With the exception of an occasional interview, he has, by his own account, bit his tongue as McCain's campaign has adopted a strategy that Weaver believes "diminishes John McCain."

With the release today of a McCain television ad blasting Obama for celebrity preening while gas prices rise, and a memo that accuses Obama of putting his own aggrandizement before the country, Weaver said he's had "enough."

The ad's premise, he said, is "childish."

"John's been a celebrity ever since he was shot down," Weaver said. "Whatever that means. And I recall Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush going overseas and all those waving American flags."

Weaver remains in contact with senior McCain strategists and, for a while early this year, regularly talked to McCain.

The strategy of driving up Obama's negatives "reduces McCain on the stage," Weaver said.

"For McCain to win in such troubled times, he needs to begin telling the American people how he intends to lead us. That McCain exists. He can inspire the country to greatness."

He added: "There is legitimate mockery of a political campaign now, and it isn't at Obama's. For McCain's sake, this tomfoolery needs to stop."theatlantic.com (http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/07/weaver_mccains_former_strategi.php)



The tone and quality of Weaver's statements sure have the feel to me of a guy who still considers McCain a friend and seems genuinely concerned about the direction his campaign is taking, and maybe even the impact that sort of campaigning might have on McCain's legacy and reputation. So if that's true, for a guy in that position that's some pretty powerful stuff.

And it makes me wonder... (And this is just pure speculation on my part, since I really don't know much about the inner workings of the McCain campaign)... Is this an indication that the right-shifting of McCain's political rhetoric isn't only a strategic maneuver, but that the reigns of his campaign have actually been seized by its more rightist elements? If the guys in his campaign who were the real bridge builders across party lines, the ones who were really with him on the "maverick/reformer" type trajectories, if they're the same ones who are getting the boot from his staff and lamenting how his campaign is being run now... Well, I don't really know what that would mean, but somehow it seems to me like it makes it much harder for McCain to present himself as an independent-minded maverick if his ship is being captained and crewed by status quo elements. They're just going to have a natural tendency to steer him away from that. And it's going to show, so voters will see it.

SmthBluCitrus
07-31-2008, 09:42 AM
I showed my husband the ad and these were his exact words (he's very a-political, by the way; he very rarely votes) ...


"Aren't they running against each other? I couldn't even hear what the girl was saying, but did he endorse Obama?"

I thought that was interesting. Again, my husband doesn't pay attention to "this stuff," as he puts it. But, I think that means the ad didn't sit the way they had intended.

DenButsu
07-31-2008, 09:54 AM
:laugh2:

Yeah, it does kind of have a beer commercial feel to it (drunk blonde, product, drunk blonde, product...)

ari1013
07-31-2008, 11:07 AM
It's not. In most polls, doesn't he trail by somewhere around 2 points?
Maybe he knows something we don't. I've read that a lot of the polls are understating Black turnout. For instance, in NC, McCain has consistently polled 3 points ahead in every single polling outfit the last 2 months. But they've had Black turnout between 15 and 20% when Blacks make up 26% of the electorate. They're basing the numbers on previous years. So if Obama really can bring more voters to the booth in November, we could see big changes.

6% more Black voters * 88% average Black support for Democrats = 5.28% more for Obama

6% more Black voters * 11% average Black support for Republicans = 0.66% more for McCain

Net result: 4.62% for Obama --- giving Obama the state.

In other words, if McCain's not up by 5 or more in a Southern state, he's got to be worried.

But as you said, it's really just 2 points. So he shouldn't be this worried.

PHX-SOXFAN
07-31-2008, 11:22 AM
Maybe he knows something we don't. I've read that a lot of the polls are understating Black turnout. For instance, in NC, McCain has consistently polled 3 points ahead in every single polling outfit the last 2 months. But they've had Black turnout between 15 and 20% when Blacks make up 26% of the electorate. They're basing the numbers on previous years. So if Obama really can bring more voters to the booth in November, we could see big changes.

6% more Black voters * 88% average Black support for Democrats = 5.28% more for Obama

6% more Black voters * 11% average Black support for Republicans = 0.66% more for McCain

Net result: 4.62% for Obama --- giving Obama the state.

In other words, if McCain's not up by 5 or more in a Southern state, he's got to be worried.

But as you said, it's really just 2 points. So he shouldn't be this worried.

I'm glad you do these numbers so I don't have to.

This cracks me up. Do you bring up stuff like this when you 're having a drink at happy hour?

ari1013
07-31-2008, 02:14 PM
I'm glad you do these numbers so I don't have to.

This cracks me up. Do you bring up stuff like this when you 're having a drink at happy hour?
Actually back in grad school we did have a whole lot of discussions on politics. One of my best friends is a proud neocon and we'd have some good debates. It's one of the reasons I sat down and read Rossiter. True conservatism makes sense in some cases, just as liberalism makes sense in others.

gcoll
07-31-2008, 10:03 PM
Maybe he knows something we don't. I've read that a lot of the polls are understating Black turnout
Possibly. Though a lot of times polls can be skewed by people telling the pollster, what they think he wants to hear.

Although I have thought that the number of black voters inspired to vote for Obama, may make polling difficult. Especially when Obama also has strong support from young people, who are (from what I've heard) notoriously unreliable when it comes to getting out to the polls.


But as you said, it's really just 2 points. So he shouldn't be this worried.
Who says he's worried? Because he aired some ad that is a bit silly? Come on.

ari1013
08-01-2008, 08:27 AM
Possibly. Though a lot of times polls can be skewed by people telling the pollster, what they think he wants to hear.

Although I have thought that the number of black voters inspired to vote for Obama, may make polling difficult. Especially when Obama also has strong support from young people, who are (from what I've heard) notoriously unreliable when it comes to getting out to the polls.


Who says he's worried? Because he aired some ad that is a bit silly? Come on.
It's not just this ad. McCain's burning through money. He's spending more each week than he's raising. And the RNC is following suit. Again, that's something we saw Kerry do -- and then Kerry was broke in September and couldn't respond to the Swiftboaters until the Federal Funds kicked in.

Ironically, the RNC put out an ad here talking about how Obama's spending on his campaign is out of control -- and that's what we should expect when he takes office next year as well, even as Obama has spent a fraction of what McCain's spent since the final primary.

Devils05
08-04-2008, 08:17 PM
Here's a clip of a segment on the Daily Show about it:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=178207&title=dick-move-of-the-week-mccain

BG7
08-04-2008, 08:19 PM
Watch this ad again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJEsAi5n3fM

Can you spot all 3 penises? (not counting McCain).

b1e9a8r5s
08-04-2008, 08:57 PM
Maybe he knows something we don't. I've read that a lot of the polls are understating Black turnout. For instance, in NC, McCain has consistently polled 3 points ahead in every single polling outfit the last 2 months. But they've had Black turnout between 15 and 20% when Blacks make up 26% of the electorate. They're basing the numbers on previous years. So if Obama really can bring more voters to the booth in November, we could see big changes.

6% more Black voters * 88% average Black support for Democrats = 5.28% more for Obama

6% more Black voters * 11% average Black support for Republicans = 0.66% more for McCain

Net result: 4.62% for Obama --- giving Obama the state.

In other words, if McCain's not up by 5 or more in a Southern state, he's got to be worried.

But as you said, it's really just 2 points. So he shouldn't be this worried.

What about the theory of the ******** (i can't think of his name) effect? The theory that white respondents to surveys are more likely to say they will vote for an African American candidate then they are to vote for them, because they don't want to seem bias. I don't know how factual that is, but I've heard it brought up on several occasions. I can't think of the guys name, who it's named after.

DenButsu
08-04-2008, 10:04 PM
What about the theory of the ******** (i can't think of his name) effect? The theory that white respondents to surveys are more likely to say they will vote for an African American candidate then they are to vote for them, because they don't want to seem bias. I don't know how factual that is, but I've heard it brought up on several occasions. I can't think of the guys name, who it's named after.

I don't know the name, but the phenomenon you're describing is definitely real. People have a hard time acknowledging their inner racist tendencies sometimes, and they don't honestly consider themselves racist, so when the question is put to them directly, the answer is "Sure, I'd vote for a black person"... but then somehow their vote never quite manages to go that way. (And before anybody starts crying about this, no, I'm not suggesting that not voting for the black candidate automatically makes someone a racist).

The problem is that it's practically impossible to quantify this hypothesis. You can't poll people about it, because the entire premise is based on people (consciously or unconsciously) lying when they're polled. So all you can do is compare polls to actual results, and since polling is a very imperfect science to begin with, those comparisons aren't exactly reliable.

In this election, the place to watch will be Appalachia, where some white Democrats who voted for Clinton in the primaries may tell pollsters they'll vote for Obama based on party affiliation, but then pull the lever for McCain when they actually get to the booth.

But there also are reasons to believe that this might not be a huge factor in this election, since Obama's appeal clearly slices through racial lines. Granted, Iowa preceded Rev. Wright, but that went a long way towards dispelling the myth that Obama will have a hard time attracting white rural/working class voters. And then just yesterday this report from the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/03/AR2008080301969_pf.html) suggests that even white working class voters favor Obama by a significant margin:


Democratic Sen. Barack Obama holds a 2 to 1 edge over Republican Sen. John McCain among the nation's low-wage workers, but many are unconvinced that either presidential candidate would be better than the other at fixing the ailing economy or improving the health-care system, according to a new national poll.

Obama's advantage is attributable largely to overwhelming support from two traditional Democratic constituencies: African Americans and Hispanics. But even among white workers -- a group of voters that has been targeted by both parties as a key to victory in November -- Obama leads McCain by 10 percentage points, 47 percent to 37 percent, and has the advantage as the more empathetic candidate.

Still, one in six of the white workers polled remains uncommitted to either candidate. And a majority of those polled, both white and minority, are ambivalent about the impact of the election, saying that no matter who wins, their personal finances are unlikely to change.




So when it's all said and done, my guess is that we'll probably see, overall, a white voter turnout for Obama that's just slightly less that what the polls were indicating going in. And that will fuel speculation and debate about whether some white voters lied in the polls and if so how many, but since there's no way to accurately measure that, we'll really never know.

b1e9a8r5s
08-04-2008, 10:10 PM
I don't know the name, but the phenomenon you're describing is definitely real. People have a hard time acknowledging their inner racist tendencies sometimes, and they don't honestly consider themselves racist, so when the question is put to them directly, the answer is "Sure, I'd vote for a black person"... but then somehow their vote never quite manages to go that way. (And before anybody starts crying about this, no, I'm not suggesting that not voting for the black candidate automatically makes someone a racist).

The problem is that it's practically impossible to quantify this hypothesis. You can't poll people about it, because the entire premise is based on people (consciously or unconsciously) lying when they're polled. So all you can do is compare polls to actual results, and since polling is a very imperfect science to begin with, those comparisons aren't exactly reliable.

In this election, the place to watch will be Appalachia, where some white Democrats who voted for Clinton in the primaries may tell pollsters they'll vote for Obama based on party affiliation, but then pull the lever for McCain when they actually get to the booth.

But there also are reasons to believe that this might not be a huge factor in this election, since Obama's appeal clearly slices through racial lines. Granted, Iowa preceded Rev. Wright, but that went a long way towards dispelling the myth that Obama will have a hard time attracting white rural/working class voters. And then just yesterday this report from the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/03/AR2008080301969_pf.html) suggests that even white working class voters favor Obama by a significant margin:






So when it's all said and done, my guess is that we'll probably see, overall, a white voter turnout for Obama that's just slightly less that what the polls were indicating going in. And that will fuel speculation and debate about whether some white voters lied in the polls and if so how many, but since there's no way to accurately measure that, we'll really never know.

Right, so perhaps the polls are underestimating the black vote, but overestimating the white vote for Obama.

ari1013
08-04-2008, 10:27 PM
It's the Bradley Effect named after the mid-Atlantic politician.

DenButsu
08-04-2008, 10:29 PM
Right, so perhaps the polls are underestimating the black vote, but overestimating the white vote for Obama.

That could very well be. But I think the bottom line is that we just can't know to what extent and in what kind of numbers.

ari1013
08-04-2008, 10:30 PM
Right, so perhaps the polls are underestimating the black vote, but overestimating the white vote for Obama.
It's quite possible. But then again, his white vote in Appalachia is meaningless since McCain will clean his clock out there. And down South, Obama's probably only going to get about 20-30% of the white vote anyway since that's roughly what Kerry and Gore got.

Basically, if you look at the map, there are very few states that Obama needs to win out of all of the close ones. And in the states that Obama's ahead, he's really ahead. So as long as 2-3 of those 10 or 12 close states come out Blue in November, the Bradley effect won't make a difference.

DenButsu
08-04-2008, 10:39 PM
the Bradley effect

There it is.

And "Appalachia" includes significant parts of Ohio, PA, and Virginia, all of which are in play, right?

BG7
08-04-2008, 11:05 PM
Obama did so poorly in Appalachia because the guy did a half assed campaign there.

Devils05
08-04-2008, 11:44 PM
This is the best part about that ad:


Then there's the small inconvenience that Paris' parents, Rick and Kathleen Hilton, are supporters of McCain's Republican presidential bid. According to federal campaign records, they gave the maximum $4,600.

No word on their plans for the general election, but this much is certain: Their daughter has never paid to attend an Obama campaign fundraiser.-LATimes.com (http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-cause1-2008aug01,0,6538800.story)

DenButsu
08-04-2008, 11:53 PM
This is the best part about that ad:

-LATimes.com (http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-cause1-2008aug01,0,6538800.story)

Yep, they gave the maximum, and Mom is not happy about the ad:


Kathy Hilton (Paris' mother):

McCain's Celebrity Ad: Frivolous, A Waste Of Money, A Waste Of Time

I've been asked again and again for my response to the now infamous McCain celebrity ad. I actually have three responses. It is a complete waste of the money John McCain's contributors have donated to his campaign. It is a complete waste of the country's time and attention at the very moment when millions of people are losing their homes and their jobs. And it is a completely frivolous way to choose the next President of the United States.huffpo (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathy-hilton/mccains-celebrity-ad-friv_b_116593.html)

ari1013
08-04-2008, 11:59 PM
There it is.

And "Appalachia" includes significant parts of Ohio, PA, and Virginia, all of which are in play, right?
I guess... but those states all have urban centers that comprise the bulk of the population.

ari1013
08-04-2008, 11:59 PM
Obama did so poorly in Appalachia because the guy did a half assed campaign there.
Partially true. He never had a chance to win, but he could have probably lost by 15-20 instead of 30-40.

DenButsu
08-05-2008, 12:17 AM
Partially true. He never had a chance to win, but he could have probably lost by 15-20 instead of 30-40.

And even in spite of that, he's still doing more to challenge McCain across the entire electoral map than any Dem has done... when, like ever? :laugh2: ...certainly more than people would have imagined possible for him even 6-8 months ago. Pushing to challenge in states conventional wisdom would pretty much automatically chalk up for the 'Pubs.

Drucifer
08-05-2008, 12:25 AM
I freaking love it. Please god let Obama run an ad of McCain stealing baby Alex from his mother in the middle of the night Elian Gonzalez style & send him to Iraq.

McCain ad likens Obama to Paris Hilton, Britney Spears (http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/2008/07/30/MCCAIN_obama_britney_paris.html)It the Big Lie strategy. You'll be surprise how many voting simpletons believe it.

DenButsu
08-05-2008, 12:32 AM
It the Big Lie strategy. You'll be surprise how many voting simpletons believe it.

Hey, McCain's struggling. He's got to do something to chip away at Obama. Going negative and lying about him might be his best shot at this point.

BG7
08-05-2008, 12:57 AM
And even in spite of that, he's still doing more to challenge McCain across the entire electoral map than any Dem has done... when, like ever? :laugh2: ...certainly more than people would have imagined possible for him even 6-8 months ago. Pushing to challenge in states conventional wisdom would pretty much automatically chalk up for the 'Pubs.

We were bound for a blow out election sometime soon. 3 straight too close to call elections would be insane.

I think Obama will carry the following states that Kerry didn't: Colorado, New Mexico, North Dakota, Montana, Iowa, Missouri, Indiana, Arkansas, Indiana, Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and maybe Alaska.

I expect two things, for him to name HRC his veep, America to realize what a bumbling idiot McCain is when him and Obama are right next to each other debating, and some Hillary-Romney shouting matches during the veep debate.

ari1013
08-05-2008, 01:37 AM
We were bound for a blow out election sometime soon. 3 straight too close to call elections would be insane.

I think Obama will carry the following states that Kerry didn't: Colorado, New Mexico, North Dakota, Montana, Iowa, Missouri, Indiana, Arkansas, Indiana, Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and maybe Alaska.

I expect two things, for him to name HRC his veep, America to realize what a bumbling idiot McCain is when him and Obama are right next to each other debating, and some Hillary-Romney shouting matches during the veep debate.
That's very optimistic. That would fulfill the blowout that you're looking for (400 EVs).

I just don't see it happening. The internet has helped people become more aware -- and by extension, more polarized.

SmthBluCitrus
08-05-2008, 01:43 AM
We were bound for a blow out election sometime soon. 3 straight too close to call elections would be insane.

I think Obama will carry the following states that Kerry didn't: Colorado, New Mexico, North Dakota, Montana, Iowa, Missouri, Indiana, Arkansas, Indiana, Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and maybe Alaska.

I expect two things, for him to name HRC his veep, America to realize what a bumbling idiot McCain is when him and Obama are right next to each other debating, and some Hillary-Romney shouting matches during the veep debate.

One flaw. HRC will not be the VP.

b1e9a8r5s
08-05-2008, 02:28 PM
We were bound for a blow out election sometime soon. 3 straight too close to call elections would be insane.

I think Obama will carry the following states that Kerry didn't: Colorado, New Mexico, North Dakota, Montana, Iowa, Missouri, Indiana, Arkansas, Indiana, Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and maybe Alaska.

I expect two things, for him to name HRC his veep, America to realize what a bumbling idiot McCain is when him and Obama are right next to each other debating, and some Hillary-Romney shouting matches during the veep debate.

Wow, I don't see anyway all of that happens. If anything, this race has gotten closer, not further apart, as the daily tracking polls are consistently no more than 4 pts in favor of Obama nationally. I don't see Obama winning Florida (McCain by 6 in today's poll), Missouri (close, but I think McCain pulls it out), Montana (McCain +5% avg, plus historically republican), Arkansas (McCain by 16% avg, not sure why this is even on your list), Alaska, North Dakota. McCain would need more than just those to win the Presidency obviously, but I don't see anyway he loses all those states.


Hell I see McCain winning Hawaii, Illinois and Massachuesets. I mean why not, while we are dreaming.

BG7
08-05-2008, 02:54 PM
Wow, I don't see anyway all of that happens. If anything, this race has gotten closer, not further apart, as the daily tracking polls are consistently no more than 4 pts in favor of Obama nationally. I don't see Obama winning Florida (McCain by 6 in today's poll), Missouri (close, but I think McCain pulls it out), Montana (McCain +5% avg, plus historically republican), Arkansas (McCain by 16% avg, not sure why this is even on your list), Alaska, North Dakota. McCain would need more than just those to win the Presidency obviously, but I don't see anyway he loses all those states.


Hell I see McCain winning Hawaii, Illinois and Massachuesets. I mean why not, while we are dreaming.

You missed the part about Hillary Clinton being the VP. (Hillary would carry Arkansas for him).

It will be a much closer race if she isn't. But if she is, it will be an absolute demolition.

b1e9a8r5s
08-05-2008, 03:04 PM
You missed the part about Hillary Clinton being the VP. (Hillary would carry Arkansas for him).

It will be a much closer race if she isn't. But if she is, it will be an absolute demolition.

Oh, ok, I get why put it on there. A couple things though. One, I don't see anyway he picks her. He doesn't want to have to deal with her and Bill. Second, nothing would motivate the republican base like Hillary Clinton being added to the ticket. She (and Bill) bring so much baggage and the republicans would have a field day with it. Not sure if that equals a win for McCain, given the political climate, but it certainly wouldn't equal a blowout, IMO.

BG7
08-05-2008, 04:08 PM
Oh, ok, I get why put it on there. A couple things though. One, I don't see anyway he picks her. He doesn't want to have to deal with her and Bill. Second, nothing would motivate the republican base like Hillary Clinton being added to the ticket. She (and Bill) bring so much baggage and the republicans would have a field day with it. Not sure if that equals a win for McCain, given the political climate, but it certainly wouldn't equal a blowout, IMO.

I think the Hillary problem would be seen in the South (minus Arkansas) for the most part, which would have no bearing on the states I listed in play of ND, Indiana, Montana, Ohio, Florida, etc.

If Obama can successfully merge his supporters with Hillary's, they are going to run rampant.

For example, the Indiana primary. Hillary and Obama had almost 1.28 million combined voters. George Bush won that with 1.48 million in 2004, with Kerry only getting 0.97 million in 2004.

I think Hillary really beefs up the ticket in Indiana, Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania. That is the election right there. Hillary should have no adverse effect on the ticket in New Mexico (she should help here actually). She might hurt him in places like North Dakota, Montana, Virginia, but where she helps him, is more important than those states, and more likely to turn Obama then ND/MT, except Virginia is in play for Obama even without a blowout.

I think it is Survey USA, who has been doing the VP polling. Obama/Hillary ticket routinely kicks the McCain/Romney ticket's *** (which I think will be the ticket).

BG7
08-05-2008, 04:11 PM
And here's why I think Hillary will be the veep. They have pretty much closed the book on her, with the shortlist supposively being Bayh, Biden, and Kaine. A large contingent of her supporters have said, oh right, lets give up, get on the Obama train. Then there is that contingent that says, "I won't vote for Obama no matter what". I think by excluding her from this supposive shortlist, that contingent shifts to "I guess I will support him if Hillary is the veep". Now with Hillary thought to be out of the running, the once inevitable veep choice will be a big surprise.

b1e9a8r5s
08-05-2008, 04:59 PM
I think the Hillary problem would be seen in the South (minus Arkansas) for the most part, which would have no bearing on the states I listed in play of ND, Indiana, Montana, Ohio, Florida, etc.

If Obama can successfully merge his supporters with Hillary's, they are going to run rampant.

For example, the Indiana primary. Hillary and Obama had almost 1.28 million combined voters. George Bush won that with 1.48 million in 2004, with Kerry only getting 0.97 million in 2004.

I think Hillary really beefs up the ticket in Indiana, Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania. That is the election right there. Hillary should have no adverse effect on the ticket in New Mexico (she should help here actually). She might hurt him in places like North Dakota, Montana, Virginia, but where she helps him, is more important than those states, and more likely to turn Obama then ND/MT, except Virginia is in play for Obama even without a blowout.

I think it is Survey USA, who has been doing the VP polling. Obama/Hillary ticket routinely kicks the McCain/Romney ticket's *** (which I think will be the ticket).

I really think you are oversimplifying it. For one, the Indiana Primary was an open primary, so independents or republicans were allowed to vote. McCain had clinced the nomination by then (May 6th). Also, that was an eternity ago in terms of politics, and world events as well as canidates posistions (on both sides) have changed. I just don't think it's as simple is a you make it to be.

ari1013
08-05-2008, 05:58 PM
And here's why I think Hillary will be the veep. They have pretty much closed the book on her, with the shortlist supposively being Bayh, Biden, and Kaine. A large contingent of her supporters have said, oh right, lets give up, get on the Obama train. Then there is that contingent that says, "I won't vote for Obama no matter what". I think by excluding her from this supposive shortlist, that contingent shifts to "I guess I will support him if Hillary is the veep". Now with Hillary thought to be out of the running, the once inevitable veep choice will be a big surprise.
No. The PUMA people are basically a bunch of racists that won't vote for him no matter what. It doesn't matter if Hillary's the veep. They've said it themselves. They're only happy if she's the nominee. Some of them had even said that they didn't want her to take him as her veep back in March...

BG7
08-05-2008, 06:09 PM
No. The PUMA people are basically a bunch of racists that won't vote for him no matter what. It doesn't matter if Hillary's the veep. They've said it themselves. They're only happy if she's the nominee. Some of them had even said that they didn't want her to take him as her veep back in March...

The PUMA's are only a small group, and some of them are lying even, that they won't for Barack, especially if she's on the ticket.

ink
08-05-2008, 08:15 PM
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/64ad536a6d

One of the comments in the thread under her video ...


John McCain just made me like Paris Hiltonůso I guess he has done something in this campaign other than make cheap shots at his opponent!

Den, feel free to move this if it's not up to forum standards! ;) lol.

DenButsu
08-05-2008, 11:06 PM
Yeah, I'll put this on expiring redirect into the main thread about the ad...

That was actually better than the awfulness I was bracing myself for... The part where she speaks "seriously" about "her energy plan" was almost shocking - just to hear several intelligent sentences strung together coming out of her mouth - even if she didn't understand the script she was reading.

ink
08-06-2008, 12:02 AM
I thought it was kind of funny. :hide: Did I say that out loud? I like the fact that the "celebrity" spoofed the old wrinkled guy in return. I used to think that the Republicans let McCain run so they could bring a better candidate forward in the next election cycle. The big surprise is that voters polled are actually buying any of his ads and spin, and the polling is staying close.

"Fool me once, shame ... shame on ... you." Long, uncomfortable pause. "Fool me — can't get fooled again!" ;)

Who knows, maybe voters are ready to be fooled once more ...

DenButsu
08-11-2008, 08:53 AM
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/embrace_ad

Pushback on the "celebrity ad" - by use of the same technique, basically.

ari1013
08-11-2008, 10:05 AM
ouch! that's definitely a negative ad. Is he televising this? I really hope he doesn't put it up during the Olympics. His current Olympic ad is much better.

DenButsu
08-11-2008, 10:46 PM
Thread title changed since we've moved far beyond the original headline about the first ad to a place where the very notion of "celebrity" has become a campaign issue in itself.

gcoll
08-11-2008, 11:27 PM
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/embrace_ad

Pushback on the "celebrity ad" - by use of the same technique, basically.

At least this defeats the whole "Obama won't go down that road" **** I had to argue with the past few days.

DenButsu
08-12-2008, 12:28 AM
At least this defeats the whole "Obama won't go down that road" **** I had to argue with the past few days.

He finally caved on that, but not without resistance - and he was not the initiator of the negativity in this campaign. I find it unfortunate that he took the bait and allowed himself to get dragged down into the muck with McCain, but dragged down he was.

DenButsu
08-12-2008, 12:36 AM
Now this (from CNN) (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/11/obama-camp-says-their-donors-portrayed-as-mindless-fans/) to me is a much, MUCH better response to the McCain ad than the Obama "No, you're a celebrity" ad:


Obama camp says their donors portrayed as 'mindless fans'

(CNN) — Barack Obama's campaign manager said Monday John McCain's now-famous Pairs Hilton/Britney Spears television ad wasn't just insulting to the Illinois senator, but to his campaign's legion of supporters as well.

And in an e-mail to those supporters Monday, campaign manager David Plouffe is hoping a backlash from that television spot will push Obama over the two million individual donor mark by the party's convention at the end of August — only six months after the campaign topped one million donors.

"While supporters like you are out knocking on doors, registering new voters, and organizing in your local communities, our opponents are not even trying to match your efforts. Instead, they're spending millions to spread the smear that Barack is just a 'celebrity' and that our grassroots movement is just a bunch of mindless fans," Plouffe wrote in the e-mail in what is one of his harshest assessments to date of McCain's 'Celebrity' ad.


To me it's a much smarter response than "I know you are but what am I" for Obama to twist the McCain message into "He's not insulting me, he's insulting you". I saw this idea floated by someone who e-mailed a liberal blog... I think, at least among Obama supporters (and perhaps some undecideds as well), it should resonate really well.

gcoll
08-12-2008, 01:18 AM
He finally caved on that, but not without resistance - and he was not the initiator of the negativity in this campaign. I find it unfortunate that he took the bait and allowed himself to get dragged down into the muck with McCain, but dragged down he was.
lmao. If that's the way you want to portray it, that's fine.


to me is a much, MUCH better response to the McCain ad than the Obama "No, you're a celebrity" ad:

Yeah. That's a much more clever come back.

Although coming out now, it strikes me as a "damn...that's what I should have said" type moment.

And it seems kind of silly, when you've got your own "celebrity" ad out there. Though I'm not sure what the point of the "celebrity" insult was in the Obama ad.

DenButsu
08-12-2008, 01:29 AM
lmao. If that's the way you want to portray it, that's fine.

lMfao... You think McCain didn't go negative long before Obama? :laugh2:




Yeah. That's a much more clever come back.

Although coming out now, it strikes me as a "damn...that's what I should have said" type moment.

And it seems kind of silly, when you've got your own "celebrity" ad out there. Though I'm not sure what the point of the "celebrity" insult was in the Obama ad.


I saw it written by a random poster at a liberal blog that they thought this in fact was a response not to the "celebrity" ad but to McCain's ad portraying himself as a "maverick". And in that sense, basically the point of the ad was to dampen the "maverick" image by pushing his status as a Washington insider and his linkage to Bush. And therefore, the inclusion of the term "celebrity" was nothing more than a device to get the media to cover that commercial, since if it was just a "McCain isn't a maverick" commercial they wouldn't notice it. And since they did use the word "celebrity", the media did pick up on it, so it worked. That interpretation makes sense to me.

gcoll
08-12-2008, 01:44 AM
You think McCain didn't go negative long before Obama?
I have a broader definition of "negative", as you've pointed out....but that is inconsequential.

The notion is that Obama heroically tried to stay absolutely positive......but was dragged down into the mud by John Mccain. I think that's kind of silly. To portray one as infinitely honest, and good...and the other one as a mustache twirling villain.

Also, if that was Obama trying his best to stay positive, he sucks. All it took was calling him a celebrity? wtf?

Also, wtf did Mccain do that was so bad? You act as if Mccain has attacked Obama on a deeply personal level, when he really hasn't said all that much. Neither campaign has done anything that I'd consider reprehensible in their "attacks".