Get Ready for Round 2

We now stand in the aftermath of one of America's most memorable and ground-breaking elections. While some cheer at Obama's unprecedented victory and others threaten to move to canada, it is easy to forget that the battle is not over yet. The Georgia Senatorial race, which has progressed to a runoff election, holds influence that will reach far beyond the state's borders. With the recent defeat of republican Ted Stevens in the Alaska, the democrats need only two more senate seats to obtain a filibuster-proof majority in the senate. Georgia has now become the focus of both political parties, as key leaders such as John McCain and Bill Clinton spend time campaigning in the state. Just like in the presidential election, the attack ads continue to fly back and forth as the parties fight for that final seat in the US Senate.

Because of their lower visibility and more grassroots nature, local elections are often decidedly more negative than national ones. These candidates have been strikingly bold in making exaggerated accusations about their opponents, often making attacks with little or no truth behind them. Take this ad run in North Carolina by Incumbent senator Elizabeth Dole: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AM-7Itc3kTo Later refuted by Dole's challenger this ad represents the kind of attack that would never fly in a national election, but commonly occurs in senatorial races.

So far, both candidates have taken the example of their party's presidential candidate and run negative campaigns. However, Chambliss has a past reputation for such attacks, due to a particularly controversial ad run in his 2002 campaign against Incumbent democrat, Max Cleland: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AM-7Itc3kToThis Harkens back to a time when voting against bush was actually a bad thing, and the fear of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein was fresh in the minds of the american people. By showing images of America's enemies, the Chambliss campaign was able to successfully play off of fears of islamic terrorism, newly brought to the forefront by 911. Several congressmen, including John McCain, would describe the ad as "reprehensible" and "worse than disgraceful" for casting a veteran and triple-amputee as unpatriotic.

Though allegations of racism were not made, the Chambliss-Cleland ad can be seen as an implicit appeal to racist sentiments against Arabs and Islam. The images of Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein effectively primed fears of the Arab world and Islam, whom many whites held responsible for 911. Although the Chambliss campaign probably did not intend racism, the ad's effectiveness is amplified by racial resentment of the arab community.

Chambliss' 2008 campaign has been equally negative, making accusations that his opponent has worked against family interests by voting down specific versions of a child prostitution law: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AruQy6GLDiw This particular ad carries specific weight for Jim Martin because his own duaghter was once abducted for a period of time. The Martin campaign has responded by saying that he voted down those particular laws only so that a different version could later be passed. However, the ad gives the effect that Martin opposes child prostitution laws, an allegation twhich is obviously untrue.

The democratic candidate has also run negative ads, casting his opponent as unpatriotic for voting down parts of the GI bill, and criticizing his lack of armed service while bringing Martin's to the forefront:
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/11/attack_ads_flying_in_home_stre.php

If the ad reaches enough voters, it could severely undermine the "Protect America" image that chambliss is trying to convey.

Apart from those ads, there has also been a prime focus on the economy coming from both candidates. In an exchange that is strikingly similar to the presidential debates, both candidates have accused the other of raising taxes. just like the presidential race, both sides have existing bot contrasting evidence for these accusations, making it very hard for the voter to decipher who actually hasthe better record on lowering taxes.

It will be interesting to see whether Martin can must enough visibility to succesfully dethrone the incumbent. If he is successfull, and the Minnessota race also turns out in the democrats' favor, Obama will be backed by a supermajority in congress. Whether or not this would be a good thing, there is no doubt that this may be one of the most nationally inluential choices that Georgia voters will ever make.

'

'

For Further Reading:

'

Kleefeld, Eric. 2008. "Attack Ads Flying in Home Stretch" Talking Points Memo retreived from: http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/11/attack_ads_flying_in_home_stre.php

dec. 1st, 2008

'

Armbruster, Ben. 2008 "Chambliss Defends 2002 Attack Ad That John McCain Called ‘Disgraceful’ And ‘Reprehensible’" Think Progress. retreived from:http://thinkprogress.org/2008/11/12/mccain-chambliss/

dec. 1st, 2008

'

Barr, Andy. 2008 "Cleland Ad Causes Trouble for Chambliss" Politico. retreived from: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15561.html

dec. 2nd 2008

In this year’s flurry of political smears, the Obama campaign has attempted to cast itself as above such tactics. His image of the Washington outsider with a new approach to politics lends itself to a down-to earth, positive campaign. However, in reality, few attacks on him have gone unanswered, and Obama essentially equals McCain in number of negative ads aired. Despite his public image as running the “nice” campaign, Barack Obama has shown from the start that he is not afraid to go negative.
Obama’s first televised attack ads appeared early on in the primaries, aiming criticisms at his fellow democrats Edwards and Clinton. These ads focused largely on one of the most salient issues in this year’s democratic primary; healthcare reform. Obama was able to establish himself as a relative moderate on the issue, criticizing the other two for including mandates in their plans which would have required people to buy healthcare. This was part of a decidedly negative race for the nomination, including especially nasty exchanges between Obama and Clinton, which many thought would tear a rift in the Democratic Party as it went into the primaries. However, in looking back it seems that Obama has been able to unite the party very well.
The ads did not let up once the general election began, and Obama has found a great deal of success in casting McCain as a rich, out-of touch old timer who will continue Bush’s policies. Take the below ad, which capitalizes on a recent gaffe by McCain in which he “couldn’t remember” how many houses he owned:
The ad not only criticizes the republican’s economic policies, but deliberately attacks his substantial wealth. He attempts to cast McCain as the “rich, white republican”, ruining his reputation with the middle and lower class, a group which makes up the bulk of Obama’s supporters. This ties into Obama’s use of Bush as a negative comparison to Senator McCain, citing his voting record as a definitive tie to the president:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/05/obama-strikes-back-with-negative-ad/

The president’s approval numbers are so low that he was not even allowed to speak at his own party’s convention for fear of associating him with McCain. Using bush’s image to attack his opponent has become a central element in Obama’s campaign strategy.
Despite the appearance of blatantly negative ads such as these, Obama has been able to appear as the “nice guy. Although negative ads usually do work, the public holds a general distaste for negative campaigning. By using ads which criticize his opponents’ negativity, Obama has quite successful to this end, despite the obvious contradiction of an “attack ad attacking an attack ad”. Obama first used this strategy against the Clinton campaign, in which he referenced public resentment to her “overly negative” campaign, even in her own hometown. This would be a precursor to his “Low Road” ad, which condemns McCain’s attacks for being false and overly negative:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHN9bLCgF7k

While both sides have accused the other of being too attack-oriented, Obama’s that seem to be resonating more in the eyes of the public. Obama’s considerable funding advantage has allowed him to positively inundate the press with advertisements; some estimates say that Obama can play nearly seven ads for each one of McCain’s. Obama seems to be winning this ad-war, and it is highly likely that his negative ads will ultimately doom McCain in the eyes of the public as he surges to a near ten-point lead going into Election Day.


For further reading:


“Obama Launches First Negative Ad” NBC. Retrieved from : http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/12/obama-launches.html november3rd 2008

Alexovich, Ariel . 2008. New York Times . retrieved from: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/05/obama-strikes-back-with-negative-ad/ November 3rd 2008

http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/media_entertainment/obama-and-mccains-ads-equally-negative/

Robocalls
Since the last presidential debate, there has been a significant resurgence of automated phone calls as a campaign tool. Although these “robocalls” have been used by many local and presidential campaigns in recent years, they are often seen as a method of desperation as their legitimacy and effectiveness is highly questionable. Although they will likely have very little impact in the grand scheme of things, the role of automated telephone campaigning should not be ignored.

Most notably, news networks have picked up on a number of highly negative calls disseminated by the McCain campaign, which seem to have been put into use directly following the October 15th debate. These calls utilize several of the main issues McCain has used been raising, including Bill Ayers, “socialistic” tax policies, and an alleged lack of experience. Because robocalls are relatively sheltered from the press in comparison to televised ads, they are able often take on a decidedly more negative tone. One recent call even goes so far as to falsely accuse Obama of denying care to babies. The call also references Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, and criticizes the entire party for being “too extreme for America”. To hear the call: http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/10/latest_mccain_robocall_alleges.php
Another call harkens back to the “Paris Hilton” ad; criticizing Obama for “spending just 20 minutes with economic advisers, but hours at a celebrity Hollywood fundraiser”. This is an attempt to undercut Obama’s advantage on economic issues, which largely accounts for his significant lead over the past several weeks. This call is meant to not only question Obama’s commitment to the economy, but to once again cast Obama as a celebrity. To listen to the call:
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/10/new_robocalls_from_mccain_and.php
The Obama campaign, though often just as negative as McCain, has circulated only one robocall in many of the same states as the McCain calls. This call, which criticizes McCain’s negative calls, was likely devised as a response to the smears, meant to appeal to those who were annoyed by the calls.

Unlike television ads, Negative robocalls usually have little effect and often, in the words of Sarah Palin “irritate people who are just inundated”. A recent study has shown that phone calls neither mobilize nor convince people, and usually have little or no effect on public opinion in comparison with more personalized campaign methods. The average person is usually annoyed by a negative political call interrupting their daily life, especially considering the barrage of telemarketing calls that many Americans receive. The only benefit to these ads is their cheapness; robocalls can be employed at a very low cost to the campaign. This would be very appealing to a chronically underfunded McCain campaign, which on October 30th, started running robocalls in his home state of Arizona. Many have seen this as an act of desperation when McCain’s lead in his home state has narrowed to just 2 points.

While calls are shown to be ineffective, Obama has found a more effective alternative in texting.Obama is the first candidate to use texting for campaign purposes, and it could prove to be an incredibly effective mobilization method. Since people rarely receive texts from anybody not on their contacts list, a text message is generally not met with the same annoyance as a randomized call from a stranger. Also, the campaign uses texts more as a means to remind people to watch debates, vote, etc, than to deliver political messages. This could be a crucial measure in mobilizing young people, who make the most avid use of text-messaging.

I predict that Obama will actually benefit from this wave of robocalls; attacking obama in this manner is likely a method of last resort for an underfunded campaidn. However, considering the unpredictable nature of not only this election but all American elections, we will not know for sure until the numbers come in on election day.



For Further Reading:


Sargent, Greg. 2008. "Latest McCain Robocall Alleges That Obama Denied Babies Medical Care". Talking Points Memo. retreived from:
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/10/latest_mccain_robocall_alleges.php
november 1st, 2008


Sargent, Greg. 2008. "New Robocalls From McCain Campaign And RNC Slam Obama's Patriotism, Charge He Put "Hollywood Above America" ". Talking Points Memo. retreived from:
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/10/new_robocalls_from_mccain_and.php
november 1st, 2008


Manjoo, Farhad. 2008. "Texts You can Beleive in " Slate. retreived from: http://www.slate.com/id/2203146/ november 1st, 2008


Wilson, Reid. 2008. "McCain Launches Defensive Robocalls" Arizona Capitol Times. retreived from: http://www.azcapitoltimes.com/story.cfm?id=9716 november 1st, 2008