PDA

View Full Version : McCain Going All In



ari1013
08-05-2008, 06:25 PM
http://adage.com/campaigntrail/post?article_id=130119

McCain is spending all his remaining "cash on hand" on advertising during the Olympics.

Obama has a series of ads about him, his leadership, and his policies that are all ready to go.

Let's see if McCain follows Obama's lead or if he instead continues to go negative. Something tells me that negative ads during the Olympics are likely to backfire; but then again, it's worked so far for McCain.

b1e9a8r5s
08-05-2008, 06:39 PM
http://adage.com/campaigntrail/post?article_id=130119

McCain is spending all his remaining "cash on hand" on advertising during the Olympics.

Obama has a series of ads about him, his leadership, and his policies that are all ready to go.

Let's see if McCain follows Obama's lead or if he instead continues to go negative. Something tells me that negative ads during the Olympics are likely to backfire; but then again, it's worked so far for McCain.

You say all in, like he's not going to have more money tomorrow or next week. Of course he won't have as much as Barack, but it's not like your never going to see another ad from him.

BG7
08-05-2008, 07:09 PM
http://adage.com/campaigntrail/post?article_id=130119

McCain is spending all his remaining "cash on hand" on advertising during the Olympics.

Obama has a series of ads about him, his leadership, and his policies that are all ready to go.

Let's see if McCain follows Obama's lead or if he instead continues to go negative. Something tells me that negative ads during the Olympics are likely to backfire; but then again, it's worked so far for McCain.

I think the big backfire is going to be the result of the olympics being on NBC networks. So people watching the Olympic Basketball team from the Hoosier state or whatever, who may usually watch Fox News (not a heavy watcher though, just a here and there) who have developed a slight bias against Obama, but didn't mean to, will be watching the Basketball game on MSNBC...then MSNBC news break....McCain goes in the gutter against Obama...

SmthBluCitrus
08-05-2008, 07:57 PM
You say all in, like he's not going to have more money tomorrow or next week. Of course he won't have as much as Barack, but it's not like your never going to see another ad from him.

McCain is spending more money than he's bringing in. It's a strategy that's going to hurt when we get to mid-September. The same thing happened to Kerry/Edwards '04.

gcoll
08-06-2008, 12:09 AM
Let's see if McCain follows Obama's lead or if he instead continues to go negative
Again. Did everyone miss the "Mccain is in the pocket of big oil" ad?

PHX-SOXFAN
08-06-2008, 11:27 AM
Again. Did everyone miss the "Mccain is in the pocket of big oil" ad?

again, pointing out someone's financiers is not comparing them to infamous celebs and attempting character assassination. when oil is such an issue as everyone is making it, contributors from that industry should be pointed out, that's not negative.

b1e9a8r5s
08-06-2008, 01:33 PM
again, pointing out someone's financiers is not comparing them to infamous celebs and attempting character assassination. when oil is such an issue as everyone is making it, contributors from that industry should be pointed out, that's not negative.

How is saying someone is a celebrity an attack? It's not an important issue and I'm not sure I like the strategy, but it's not an attack.

PHX-SOXFAN
08-06-2008, 01:51 PM
How is saying someone is a celebrity an attack? It's not an important issue and I'm not sure I like the strategy, but it's not an attack.

he could have picked beckham, or dicaprio, or or clooney, but he didn't. He picked two idiot blonde females who are in trouble frequently. think about it.

b1e9a8r5s
08-06-2008, 02:04 PM
he could have picked beckham, or dicaprio, or or clooney, but he didn't. He picked two idiot blonde females who are in trouble frequently. think about it.

You know, both of these guys are trying to win. That's the point right. Everytime Obama talks about McCain, he's going to try to put a negitive spin on him, weather its about his policies or his age or whatever. Its called politics. If you really think Obama wouldn't go negitive on McCain if he thought it would give him the best chance to win, your kidding yourself. Why do democrats/liberals always like to play the role of victim? The big bad republicans are always out to get you. It's like the boogie man. Do you realize how tame this ad was, in relative terms?

PHX-SOXFAN
08-06-2008, 02:10 PM
You know, both of these guys are trying to win. That's the point right. Everytime Obama talks about McCain, he's going to try to put a negitive spin on him, weather its about his policies or his age or whatever. Its called politics. If you really think Obama wouldn't go negitive on McCain if he thought it would give him the best chance to win, your kidding yourself. Why do democrats/liberals always like to play the role of victim? The big bad republicans are always out to get you. It's like the boogie man. Do you realize how tame this ad was, in relative terms?

no one is trying to play the victim. one group is just trying to take the higher road. It's laughable, the way mccain is running ads and talking points, not offensive or intrusive.

I wouldn't label republicans big and bad. Look at GW, not intimidating.

b1e9a8r5s
08-06-2008, 02:15 PM
no one is trying to play the victim. one group is just trying to take the higher road. It's laughable, the way mccain is running ads and talking points, not offensive or intrusive.

I wouldn't label republicans big and bad. Look at GW, not intimidating.

Do you think Obama would go negative, if he thought it was his best chance to win?

PHX-SOXFAN
08-06-2008, 02:22 PM
Do you think Obama would go negative, if he thought it was his best chance to win?

no, he'll take the high road. He won't need to go negative, not in this political climate. negative politics is for the underdogs, and those who lack firepower on issues.

By the way, where are you reading about obama being bad for the economy? Dick Morris via newsmax?:speechless:

http://election.newsmax.com/morris_depression.html?s=al&promo_code=6750-1

b1e9a8r5s
08-06-2008, 02:36 PM
no, he'll take the high road. He won't need to go negative, not in this political climate. negative politics is for the underdogs, and those who lack firepower on issues.

By the way, where are you reading about obama being bad for the economy? Dick Morris via newsmax?:speechless:

http://election.newsmax.com/morris_depression.html?s=al&promo_code=6750-1

He won't need to go negative is different than he wouldn't go negative. Here's one quick link, but I've read several other takes as well.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121728762442091427.html?mod=opinion_main_comment aries

gcoll
08-06-2008, 11:31 PM
again, pointing out someone's financiers is not comparing them to infamous celebs and attempting character assassination. when oil is such an issue as everyone is making it, contributors from that industry should be pointed out, that's not negative.

He's doing more than "pointing out financiers" (people that have also given money to Obama btw). The money Mccain has received from people affiliated with oil, is about $1.3 million. It accounts for about .9 cents for every $100 Mccain has raised. How is that enough to constitute "in their pocket"?

Obama's claim is not that Mccain has received money from oil companies. It's that oil companies have Mccain "in their pocket" that's a HUGE DIFFERENCE.

Obama has received around $400,000 from people affiliated with the oil industry. Is he in their pocket as well?

Which is a more personal attack?

Calling someone corrupt, and in the pocket of oil companies?

Or calling someone a celebrity? And the crux of that ad is not the celebrity claim. Everyone focuses on the celebrity aspect of the ad.....but watch the ad. "Obama is the biggest celebrity in the world" is the opening line...and they fade through 2 shots of Britney and Paris. Most of the ad concentrates on "against drilling"


no, he'll take the high road. He won't need to go negative, not in this political climate. negative politics is for the underdogs, and those who lack firepower on issues.
Obama already went negative.

Calling someone corrupt....is a negative thing to do.

ari1013
08-06-2008, 11:50 PM
So did McCain win in getting Obama to go negative?

Will we ever have a political contest in which both candidates really do stick to the issues and not attack one another personally?

b1e9a8r5s
08-07-2008, 10:36 AM
So did McCain win in getting Obama to go negative?

Will we ever have a political contest in which both candidates really do stick to the issues and not attack one another personally?

No we won't and to be honest it doesn't bother me that much. I mean, I think everyone has there own line where they begin to get turned off. For me, neither campaign has crossed it, at least not yet.

The reality of it is, that not everyone takes the time to do there own research and they accept what they hear on face value. Because of this, the negative and more than that, actual lies, will always be a somewhat effective strategy. How many people believe that Obama is Muslim (I saw a poll that said 12%)? How many people thought John McCain had a black baby in South Carolina in 2000?

And even if the Campaigns themselves didn't lie or go negative, I'm sure there will be a 527 to pick up the torch.

KaiserZr
08-08-2008, 09:04 PM
no, he'll take the high road. He won't need to go negative, not in this political climate. negative politics is for the underdogs, and those who lack firepower on issues.

By the way, where are you reading about obama being bad for the economy? Dick Morris via newsmax?:speechless:

http://election.newsmax.com/morris_depression.html?s=al&promo_code=6750-1

Bull crap, if he knew it would give him the race he would...the guy is already has this arrogant feel about him. Also I don't see what is so wrong about attacking character...all if fair in love and war, and politics is just like war.

DenButsu
08-08-2008, 10:18 PM
Bull crap, if he knew it would give him the race he would...the guy is already has this arrogant feel about him. Also I don't see what is so wrong about attacking character...all if fair in love and war, and politics is just like war.

Huh. Where'd you get that word from, Kaiser?

Oh, yeah. I know:


(F)ormer White House senior aide Karl Rove referred to Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, as "coolly arrogant."

"Even if you never met him, you know this guy," Rove said, per Christianne Klein. "He's the guy at the country club with the beautiful date, holding a martini and a cigarette that stands against the wall and makes snide comments about everyone who passes by." blogs.abcnews.com (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/06/rove-obamas-the.html)

:eyebrow:

Now you do what they told ya (http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=ALpZR8RMJZ4)

gcoll
08-08-2008, 11:10 PM
Huh. Where'd you get that word from, Kaiser?
Karl Rove didn't invent the word arrogant.

And Obama does come off as arrogant.

And that's not racist. Other politicians who come off as arrogant are Edwards, and Romney.


So did McCain win in getting Obama to go negative?
Uhhh.....no. I think Obama went negative on his own. He's a politician running for president.


Will we ever have a political contest in which both candidates really do stick to the issues and not attack one another personally?
No. It's a PR thing. The entire goal is to incite an almost "mob mentality". The way you do that is to rally people around catch phrases.

"Mccain = 3rd term of Bush" "Mccain is in the pocket of big oil"

"Obama is full of empty rhetoric" "Obama's a douche"

"I want to have a beer with that guy!!"

But. You can go negative and still stay on the issues.

ink
08-08-2008, 11:24 PM
But. You can go negative and still stay on the issues.

So why doesn't McCain do it? Instead of all this "celebrity" crap.

DenButsu
08-08-2008, 11:24 PM
Karl Rove didn't invent the word arrogant.

And Obama does come off as arrogant.

The popularized notion that "Obama is arrogant" was manufactured by Karl Rove. He may have struck you, individually, as arrogant (although I still don't understand where this knock comes from - I really don't agree with it at all). But the fact that we see "Obama" and "arrogant" in the same sentence now appearing daily in printed and televised media coverage of him is most definitely a Rove creation.

Karl Rove... always elevating the public discourse.


What a ******g scumbag he is.