Talk Elections

Obama’s Ad Effort Swamps McCain and Nears Record
By JIM RUTENBERG
Published: October 17, 2008

With advertisements running repeatedly day and night, on local stations and on the major broadcast networks, on niche cable networks and even on video games and his own dedicated satellite channels, Mr. Obama is now outadvertising Senator John McCain nationwide by a ratio of at least four to one, according to CMAG, a service that monitors political advertising. That difference is even larger in several closely contested states.

The huge gap has been made possible by Mr. Obama’s decision to opt out of the federal campaign finance system, which gives presidential nominees $84 million in public money and prohibits them from spending any amount above that from their party convention to Election Day. Mr. McCain is participating in the system. Mr. Obama, who at one point promised to participate in it as well, is expected to announce in the next few days that he raised more than $100 million in September,a figure that would shatter fund-raising records.

“This is uncharted territory,” said Kenneth M. Goldstein, the director of the Advertising Project at the University of Wisconsin. “We’ve certainly seen heavy advertising battles before. But we’ve never seen in a presidential race one side having such a lopsided advantage.”
(more at link)

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/18/us/politics/18ads.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

This, plus the fact that the NYT is going to come out with an endorsement  for Barak Obama tomorow means you can stick a fork in McCain.  He's done.

I can't tell if you're being a sarcastic hack or serious? The Times endorsing a Democrat will end the Republican's chances?

Let's see what he actually raised first.

If this is true you're going to have more than a plate of crow. More like an entire buffet.

I think he's being serious.  Which makes me sad :(

nah, he'll flawed-logic his way out of it as always

You would think that he would get tired of crow by now...

The range as of three days ago, was $70 M to $100 M plus.  You'll forgive me for being a bit skeptical. 

Basically to have a shot at parity, Obama/DNC needs to raise about $80 M more than the RNC spends on McCain (about 80% of the RNC total).

Roughtly, this is how the campaigns started on 9/1/08:

RNC:                     $113,000,000

80% McCain:           $90,000,000

McCain FEC:             $84,000,000

Total:                      $174,000,000

Obama/DNC:             $85,000,000

Difference:               $89,000,000

The RNC raised 9/08: $66,000,000

80% McCain:              $52,800, 000

Total, less spending:  $221,800,000

Obama/DNC:               $X

Total, less spending:  $85,000,000+ $X

If X = $100 M, Obama had $185 M to spend and  he's within $40 M of getting parity.

Now, I've underestimated McCain's total because $20-$40 M was transferred to other committees.

Naw, I'm serious.  My post makes it sound like the NYT endorsement is the reason I think it's over.  The NYT endorsement is pretty much a given.  It won't swing a lot of independents to the Obama camp, IMHO. 

What it does do is cap a huge lead that Obama has racked up in newspaper endorsements, including many that are owned by conservative Republicans.  Many of these papers backed GWB in 2004.  Here is a source from Editor and Publisher, which cites a lead of 58-16 in newspaper endorsements.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003875479

FRIDAY ENDORSEMENTS: Surprising Boosts for Obama from Denver and Salt Lake Papers -- Also Endorsed by 'AJC," 'KC Star' and 'Sun-Times'

By Greg Mitchell

Published: October 17, 2008 9:15 PM ET

The Denver Post, which had backed George W. Bush in 2004 and is owned by Republican-leaning William Dean Singleton, this evening endorsed Barack Obama for president. So did the Chicago Sun-Times, Kansas City Star. Southwest News-Herald (Ill.) and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. And to top it off: two more Bush backers in 2004, The Salt Lake Tribune and Las Cruces (N.M) Sun-News.

This followed this afternoon's surprises: the Chicago Tribune, which has never in 150 years endorsed a Democrat, backed Obama, as did its fellow Tribune paper, the Los Angeles -- which had endorsed no one in more than 30 years. It seems like a dam broke yesterday with the unexpectedly early choice of Obama by The Washington Post.

In E&P's exclusive count, Obama now leads 62-18 in editorial endorsements. New additions for him include the Miami Herald, the Philadelphia Inquirer and The Oregonian of Portland. Check out our running list, updated Saturday here.

Colorodo, of course, is a key swing state. Georgia is also now, surprisingly, in play and the Atlanta paper is the state's largest.

The Salt Lake paper complained that "out of nowhere, and without proper vetting, the impetuous McCain picked Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate. She quickly proved grievously underequipped to step into the presidency should McCain, at 72 and with a history of health problems, die in office. More than any single factor, McCain's bad judgment in choosing the inarticulate, insular and ethically challenged Palin disqualifies him for the presidency.

"Still, we have compelling reasons for endorsing Obama on his merits alone. Under the most intense scrutiny and attacks from both parties, Obama has shown the temperament, judgment, intellect and political acumen that are essential in a president that would lead the United States out of the crises created by President Bush, a complicit Congress and our own apathy."

The Kansas City paper also hit McCain hard for choosing an "unqualfied" running mate.

<...>


This, plus the fact that Obama is currently outspending McCain 4-1 on television advertising in key swing states is why I am confident that McCain will lose this election.   The NYT endorsement is nothing more than a bit of icing on a well-baked cake.

When Obama does win, I plan to camp out on this forum and crow about it for days.  You are all welcome to tune in to hear me rant and jive about how we have taken our country back, and about how we are determined to turn it into a socialist paradise for all to enjoy. 

Roughtly, this is how the campaigns started on 9/1/08:

RNC:                     $113,000,000

80% McCain:           $90,000,000

McCain FEC:             $84,000,000

Total:                      $174,000,000

Obama/DNC:             $85,000,000

Difference:               $89,000,000

The RNC raised 9/08: $66,000,000

80% McCain:              $52,800, 000

Total, less spending:  $221,800,000

Obama:                      $150,000,000

DNC:                            $42,000,000

80% Obama:                $33,600,000

Total, less spending:  $183,800,000

Total, less spending:  $85,000,000 + $183,800,000 = 268,000,000


Now, I've underestimated McCain's total because $20-$40 M was transferred to other committees.

I am surprised.





[/quote]

Wow, J. J. STILL can't figure out the meaning of Vorlon's 80% comment.

And your spin on it is?

lolz

HA!  Why does this not surprise me?  Some people have a natural aversion to understanding facts and figures.

The Vorlon actually said:


The value of the RNC and DNC money is about 80% of that in the campaign.  It is a rough figure, but that that is in the estimate.

Conversely, yes there are other expenditures out there on both sides, that I'm not counting.

It still doesn't really explain why it wasn't released much sooner.

Yeah, they're totally right.  You don't understand what The Vorlon is saying here.  The Vorlon did not say that 80% of the committee funds are going to the Presidential race.  He said that, hypothetically, even if the committees wanted to spend 100% of their funds in the Presidential race, those funds would only be worth $0.80 on the $1 compared to direct contributions to McCain and Obama.  The funds don't convert 1:1 over from the committee fund to Presidential spending.  Obviously, neither committee is going to spend 100% of their funds in the Presidential race.  Whatever amount (much lower than 100%) they decide on will only be, according to The Vorlon, 80% as effective as money directly in McCain's or Obama's warchest.  When you take into account that the DSCC and the DCCC are in much better shape financially this election cycle than the NRSC and the NRCC, and that the Republicans are in trouble in so many places, it stands to reason that the RNC will be forced to use a much higher amount of their funds to bail out the NRSC and the NRCC than the DNC will have to with the DSCC and the DCCC.  In other words, you're missing two critical figures in your calculations:  the actual amount that the RNC and DNC plan to spend in the Presidential race from now until Election Day.

Obviously, we don't know what those two figures are, but the signs are good that Obama will be able to swamp McCain in spending, while the RNC is busy bailing out vulnerable Senate and House members.

I looked at the last cycle and only about 10% went to the other committees, from both parties.  The bulk gets spend on the presidential races (or on "Party Building" which indirectly affects the presidential races).

You looked at one election cycle and claim a trend?  How well off were the DSSC and DCCC compared to the NRSC and NRCC in 2004?  How well off were Kerry:Bush compared to Obama:McCain?  These ratios were way different, so why would you expect  Presidential:Congressional spending to be even roughly equal between 2004 and 2008?

Yes, I looked at both parties in one election.  [/i]Both[/i] parties congressional committees have been borrowing in this cycle; I got a call from the Democratic congressional committee this morning, emphasizing how much they were borrowing.

Again, you're ignoring a very important piece of the puzzle.  How much did each have/raise besides what they borrowed.  Last time I saw the numbers, DSCC and DCCC were way ahead of NRSC and NRCC

The senate committee was close and most candidates have there own campaign committees.  The House committees were not.

I'm not sure what you consider close, but these are the latest numbers:

DSCC
Total Raised 3rd Q: $24 million
Total Raised in September: $14.4 million
Total Raised this cycle: $117.3 million
Cash on Hand: $26.3 million

NRSC
Total Raised 3rd Q: $15.5 million
Total Raised in September: $6.6 million
Total Raised this cycle: $74.3 million
Cash on Hand: $17.4 million

As you can see, the DSCC raised over twice as much as the NRSC in September, and they've raised almost $40 million more this election cycle.  The DSCC has a 3:2 CoH advantage over the NRSC.  If they want to compete, they're going to need help from the RNC.  The fact that most candidates have their own campaign committees is irrelevant because it applies to both sides.  Unless of course you have some evidence that individual Republican Senators are out-raising individual Democratic Senators...

You really can't go on "raised in September."  COH is $9 million apart, not a lot.  Just to make double parity, it's just over the RNC's COH at the start of the month.

You can go on "raised in September."  You can go on "raised in the 3rd quarter."  You can go on "raised this election cycle."  Any way you look at it the DSCC has solidly outperformed the NRSC in fundraising.  $9 million is over half the NRSC's CoH.  It's $9 million that the RNC will have to make up if they want their Senate candidates to stay competitive in campaign spending.  It's $9 million the RNC won't be able to spend helping out McCain when they're already in the hole compared to Obama.  It's also $9 million the RNC won't be able to use propping up the NRCC, which is even worse shape.  And that's just the cash disparity as of October 1st.  Considering the trend in fundraising so far, the DSCC is likely to outperform the NRSC again in October, which is increasing the disparity as we speak (or type).

You are making an assumption that RNC will primarily fund Senate candidates.  They don't.

Uh, no, I didn't, but if the NRSC is at least $9 million behind the DSCC (which they are), and assuming that fundraising among individual Senators averages out as roughly equal on both sides (since we don't know all of the actual numbers there), the RNC will have to make up the difference or suffer the consequences of their vulnerable Senate candidates getting outspent in the final weeks.

I hate to tell you this, but candidates, especially incumbents, raise their own money.

I am willing to bet that Obama will raise upwards of $250 million to $300 million once fundraising reports come out for the month of October. 

He may have, but that isn't the congressional races.

BTW, how much has Obama raised overall, thus far?  $500 million?  $600 million?

I think it was over $500 M by the end of August.

It's 640 million I think now.  (604 by October 1st. 36 million first two weeks of October)

Do you think it was a good idea of rhim to opt out of public financing, then?

It was a gamble, but it paid off.

About time you admitted that.

I said that from the start, that it could pay off.  It's like Palin.  We're at the point where she might pay off, but she might not.

I think we're well past that point.  Palin has been dragging McCain down and is going to cost him dearly a week from Tuesday.

Maybe, maybe not.  Shades of Mypalfish.

I agree. JJ is looking awfully like this election's mypalfish, except not in a close race.

No, I'm saying, let it play out.  I've called Palin a gamble since the announcement.  If anything loses this election for McCain, it's the economy.

So whats with mypalfish?? What did he do?

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=12005.0

ouch

Don't count you chickens until they are hatched.  :)