Report: Obama Has Run More Than 100,000 Political Ads
Barack Obama has spent a record breaking $60 million to run more than 100,000 political television ads in pursuit of the Democratic presidential nomination, a new analysis conducted for CNN shows.In contrast, John Kerry ran a little more than 19,000 TV ads four years ago in his successful bid for the Democratic nomination, according to TNS Media Intelligence/CMAG, CNN’s consultant on political television advertising spending...
Clinton, who trails Obama in fundraising by about $60 million, has run just over 60,000 TV ads in her bid for the White House.
Obama has run more than five times as many ads as Kerry did. Hillary has run three times as many. Of course, the primary has dragged on far longer, too.
Keep in mind that this ad blitz is funded largely by what is basically a small donor revolution. Obama is now apparently laying the groundwork to possibly opt out of public financing, saying that the Internet has effectively created a "parallel public financing system."
It can be argued -- and Obama likely will argue -- that his success in bringing small donors into the process has proven at least as democratizing as public financing has, if not more so.
And that's why John McCain will piss all over himself in demanding that Obama stick to public financing.
April 9, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, how dare he want Obama to adhere to a pledge he made last year!
April 9, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
He pledged to consider it. Which he will.
NEEEEXT!
April 9, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Its down payment for the general. New Gallup btw 51-41.
April 9, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
By all means, please expand on this argument.
April 9, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
When you get a large group of people who don't have the means to support their chosen candidate at the maximum amount in a lump sum (i.e. people who have been trampled on by the political process due to money in recent and not-so recent history) to "put their money where their mouth is." It can be argued that this is more meaningful than even having candidates draw from some generic pool (although I'm not yet sure if I buy into this).
These people who are putting up money - which could be used to make their lives better in other areas - are risking a much greater loss than just their vote if their candidate does not win (opportunity cost).
April 9, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I and others I know have been donating to Obama $25 at a time, several times, over a period of months. I've found online other people who say they do exactly the same thing. When you have more than a million such donors -- and growing -- consistently making small donations over time, the campaign's cash flow is more even. Plus, we small donors don't "tap out" at the donation limit, so we keep on giving. What happened to Clinton is that her smaller pool of big-time donors reached their max, and she didn't/doesn't have the large grassroots support that is steady income. Yes, we have a lot more invested in the candidate, but the people who do this regularly believe in him and wouldn't have it any other way.
April 9, 2008 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yup. My wife, daughter and myself are all multiple $25.00 contributors, and we are nowhere near maxed out yet. We will keep giving as long as he needs us, and the same in the general. We are just a few of the millions of people who support Obama with our small donations, and we are proud to be doing it.
Obama has run a stellar campaign, and if that is any indication of how he will run the White House, then we should be in pretty good shape.
We know Obama is not perfect, and we don't expect him to solve every single problem, or even solve problems to our satisfaction, but we believe that he will do his job with our best interests in mind.
More so than we can trust Hillary or Yawn McPain to.
April 10, 2008 6:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
To be fair, Obama has a lot of ground to cover in a very short time. There are still a lot of people who don't know him, and he suffered from that greatly on Feb. 5th. He has to overcome Hillary's 2 decades of limelight. That is no small task.
As for the public financing, that is impressive. I would like to know the mean, median and modal contributions, as those three numbers will give us a better idea of the distribution than the mean alone.
April 9, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
To stYMied:
I think the Obama campaign has stated the average donation (not overall, but in each cycle of reporting) and has said the % of contributors under $100 and under $50. Not the same as median, but still informative. As I remember, it shows that the vast majority of contributors to his campaign in each cycle made donations of under $100.
How that translates over the whole campaign, I don't know. For instance, my husband has given him money in increments smaller than $100, but several times so that his total contribution is well over $100 (but nowhere near the maximum allowed).
April 9, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
He really does need to find a better way to spend his money. Or a better rhythm to the ad campaign. I know for a fact that voters in Wisconsin and Ohio were Obama fatigued by the time the election came around. Hopefully for PA they have figured out the formula where the curve of diminishing returns becomes the point of negative returns with ads.
Even though I've been for him since the beginning I even admit for the last three days of the campaign here in Ohio I was turning the channel when his (and Sen Clinton's) ads came on.
April 9, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know what you mean and I was there too by the time the primaries rolled around in Maryland. But as someone else mentioned, it is important to measure your own level of interest in and attention to this race as something significantly above the baseline of the general population. If you're coming home and turning on MSNBC in the evening, you're going to get a COMPLETELY different set of adverts than you would watching MTV all night or Discovery Channel or American Idol or the NCAA Tournament. If you want to get a flair for how stark these differences can be, turn on your tv this weekend and watch an hour of ESPN and then an hour of the Food Network. The Sportscenter viewer and the Iron Chef viewer are being pitched completely different things, and neither one of them is likely to see a political advert unless the primary is on their doorstep...
April 9, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I don't even get cable. I'm talking about ads during Family Guy and Two and A Half Men on the local Fox and CW at 5-8. Other time too. Sometimes when I was home for lunch, flip on Price is Right, I'd see two or three Obama ads.
He's all over mainstream local radio too. From rock stations to sports radio.
It got really bad. I truly believe this has something to do with the really late trends turning to Hillary.
April 9, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's how it always is. People get sick of political ads because they seem to be endless in the days leading up to elections. In addition to national races, there are usually local races we have to endure ads for. However, it's what is necessary to get through. Voters also get sick of political phone calls, but you can't stop making them.
April 9, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
anyone else wanna expand on it?
April 9, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about this?
It's being reported like this is new money. Her campaign has been selling tickets to this thing for weeks (tickets went on sale 3/19 http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=656... ). So isn't it likely that most or at least a large portion of that $2.5 million was collected last month and already included in the undersized $20 million she raised last month?
The real question on fundraising is the trend. We know she was doing really well in early March, repeatedly raising $1 million a day, and we know that she only raised $20 million for the month ("almost all" for the primary, though not "all"). That suggests the pace slowed considerably toward the end of the month. The question, it seems to me, is how much of the $2.5 million EJ fundraiser is new money?
April 9, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a good point. Greg, maybe you can follow up with the Clinton campaign. Was any of the money reflected in the money raised last month?
April 9, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
That would be a great follow-up question.
April 9, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have trouble understanding how the concert can raise $2.5 million if only 6,000 tickets were sold. That works out to over $400 per person! How much were the tickets?
Maybe the $2.5 million factors in estimated DVD sales.
I know Elton John is contributing his services, but there's also the costs of the venue, security, ushers, etc. The gross must be well over $3 million if the campaign expects to raise $2.5 million.
April 9, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
And the tickets went on sale on 3/19 last month, so wouldn't a major part of the $2.5 million be reflected in the $20 million March fundraising total? The question is, how much of that money currently raised is new?
April 9, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg: I assume you are one of the Elton attendees, have fun!
April 9, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
No need to insult Greg. I'm sure he has quite an eclectic musical appreciation other than Elton John.
:-)
April 9, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
No insult intended. His bias is just very obvious.
April 9, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
And of course, Howard Dean's '04 campaign is really the vanguard here...
When his supporters (including me) voted overwhelmingly to bust the caps during the primary season, it was precisely because we felt that getting hundreds of thousands of people to donate an average of $100 was a far better and more fair system than the public financing system created by Congress.
April 9, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's advertising needs are much bigger than Hillary's. She is the default candidate, everyone knows her, she was "inevitable". Obama needed to make up the difference.
Obama also didn't have a former president campaigning for him full time.
Yet you can be sure Hillary and her supporters will somehow try to make the argument that Obama has an unfair advantage or something...right....
April 9, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
He has an established, powerful political machine (in PA, he's also got the is Dem party machine) to take down with each primary. She just has to keep up with him. He has the harder job and I'm happy to be contributing to his success.
April 9, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
And that would be a great follow-up question.
April 9, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
It can be argued, will be argued, IS BEING argued that the Obama campaign has run circles around the Clintons Restoration 2008 effort and reduced the most awesome political machine in decades of US political history to a stumbling bungling train wreck of an also-ran
April 9, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
No argmument here. Agree wholeheartedly.
April 9, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yup....Obama has had to introduce himself to people in 50 states. Every last man, woman, and child in the US knows who Hillary is. It's a huge barrier to overcome and Obama has done so magnificently, with the help of us million+ small donors.
I'd like to see this framed as a *strength* and a positive, cuz it is.
April 9, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yer right, those ads are everywhere!
In fact, there's one right under the article!
April 9, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also--where are the details on Hillary's finances--debts outstanding, cash on hand for the primary, etc.?
Not to mention her earmark list (remember that?), library donor lists, details on Bill's financial dealings....
April 9, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am interested in the library donors list, Bill's accepting $800,000.00 for four speeches in support of the Columbian trade deal that Penn got roasted over, and his dealings with Kazakhstan; human rights, uranium mining and a huge donation to his foundation. All unanswered questions, and all are important ones.
As much as the trade deal info is circulating around Hillary, Bill and her campaign management, I would not be surprised one bit if Hillary was really for it. I listened to one of her responses when questioned about it, and all I heard was the usual triangulating to all sides of an issue.
April 10, 2008 6:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
He said he would work with the republican nominee in hopes that both campaigns could agree to use public money, but that it was contingent upon reaching some agreement on the use of 427s and other outside groups.
April 9, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
But all that money didn't save Romney. And depending on which source you follow, Obama outspent Clinton in Texas and Ohio by 3 to 1 or 5 to 1. And I remember various campaigns in the past where concerns were raised about various candidates trying to "buy the election". Maybe I've missed it, but I haven't really heard Hillary making that claim against Obama. Some say she's too aggressive. I wish she were more so.
April 9, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
No amount of money could have saved Romney.
April 9, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you trying to say that if Hillary raised as much money as Obama, she would say, "Oh this is just much too much to spend on a campaign; let's return 60 million of it to the donors." That's beyond silly, as I think you must know. For good or ill, elections in this country are about raising huge sums of money. Obama has run circles around Clinton in this absolutely crucial component of building a winning campaign, and he has done so by tapping into a vast reservoir of small donors who are willing to give again and again for as long as it takes. For this reason he has been able to elevate himself from an obscure Junior Senator to the likely Democratic nominee. Now what are you saying? That he's supposed to feel ashamed about this? That Hillary should try to transform her egregious failure to keep up with him into some sort of liability for Obama? Damned odd notion, if you ask me, but fairly in line with the Clinton campaign's long succession of loony strategies and revisionary metrics.
April 9, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is stuff for professionals, but I would say a little more variety of ads. I like the endorsement ads, like with Caroline Kennedy. A different face vouching is a good thing. Obama should use his many high profile endorsements. It definitely gets it away from "all Obama"
April 9, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
One more idea:
Obama should show some ads with only his supporters. talking about issues and why they support him.
MoveOn did some great ads in 2004 with this theme (Iraq vets, etc.
April 9, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the argument goes something like this:
It is a formalist v. funtionalist argument:
Public financing is the solution to a problem of influence-buying by large dollar donors.
If Obama is raising large sums of money from small donors, he has found another solution to the problem. It is unlikely that the public financing system created envisioned the possibility of raising large sums of money from small donors over the internet (indeed, Hillary Clinton didn't envision this possibility until February 6, 2008).
Now, are you going to make Obama comply with the antiquated solution of the public finance system, or are you going to accept that his fundraising methods adequately address the underlying problem?
April 9, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, how can John McCain demand anything when he's thumbing his nose at the FEC and breaking campaign finance laws?
Think that will fly?
Boy you right wingers posing as Hillary supporters sure are gullible!
April 9, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's gangsta.
And he'd be a damn fool to use public financing. His grassroots, small-donor fundraising ability is the definition of small-d democracy. Goodbye fat-cat bundler, hello Regular Joe. Obama's fundraising model makes him indebted to those who funded his campaign alright - you and me, not some corporation.
April 9, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have not been able to envision another potential situation whereby the entrenched power of the few could be successfully countervailed and balanced out by ordinary citizens, except what Barack Obama has been able to achieve with his grassroots campaign in terms of true public financing and in terms of true citizen involvement.
Hillary's message to citizens seems to be 'elect me and I will represent your common interests, I promise.'
Barack's message to citizens seems to be 'join me and we together can change the old power politics to get ordinary Americans a seat at the table.'
They really are different messages with potentially very different outcomes. With Hillary, we are asked to trust her potential. With Barack, we are asked to trust our own potential to stay engaged.
April 9, 2008 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tsk tsk all that money and Barry still can't put Hillary away among Democrats.
How much is Barry gonna have to spend to get all those white Repubs to vote for him?
Even if Oprah liquidates her 2 billion for her beloved, Barry isn't going to beat McCain.
Hello President McCain! Barry can say "Present" a couple hundred times more back in the Senate where he can finish his first term!
April 9, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Tsk tsk all that name recognition and experience and Hillary still can't put Barack away among Democrats.
How much is Hillary gonna have to spend to bribe all those Superdelegates to vote for her?
Even if The Clintons liquidate their offshore accounts, Hillary isn't going to beat McCain.
Hello President McCain! Hillary can change her mind about the Iraq war a couple hundred times more back in the Senate where she can finish reading the NIE!"
Glass houses, eh mate?
April 9, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
What policy is Barry gonna copy next? What other bill will Barry put his name on without actually working on it!
Acting just like Barry: COPYCAT!
Gotcha!
April 9, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
"What lie will Hillary tell next? What other legislation will Hillary take credit for while she was first lady?
Acting just like Hillary: DISHONESTLY!
Snipers in the trees!!!"
Do you see how I did that? I'm gonna head home shortly, but I can pick this up after dinner if you really want to play this game.
April 9, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
So as an alternative to public financing maybe we set some really tight limits on donations: $100/mo max and max $1200 total. If you can't raise what you need with these tiny sums you just can't compete.
April 9, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, yes, yes! Thank you, DonnaG, you've stated it beautifully. This is exactly what inspires me about Obama. He seems to truly represent the people - in spirit, not just in rhetoric.
I've said it before, I have never been willing to actually contribute to a political campaign. But, I did it this year to support Obama and I will do it again. I like what this man stands for. He gives me hope that this political system is not beyond redemption.
April 9, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
The venue where Obama made his argument that the Internet has effectively created a that at a fundraiser in Washington, D.C., at the National Museum of Women in the Arts. It was actually two events: a $2,300-per-person event for 200 people held before a $1,000-per-person reception for 350 people.
So much for his "parallel public financing system." I'm sure the fat cats in Washington stood up and cheered for the little guys.
April 9, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tsk tsk all those comments and gerbil's still nose deep in the cedar shavings.
I can't remember what the name of the disorder is where you fall in love with your own poop, but gerbil is a classic example.
Gonna pass your driver's test this year, kid?
April 9, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
The real question here is: If Obama is so thoroughly outspending Clinton, how come her campaign is the one that's in debt, not his? Plus, he's doing this without PAC money, with less reliance on big-dollar donors, and without having to lend his campaign any of his own money. So what if he's spent so much? He's raised it, he's spent it judiciously, what else is he supposed to do with it? Blow it all on donuts?
April 9, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Could this be one of the worst candidate pools ever? Check out what each of the candidates have done for their campaign and what America's Youth is saying about it.
www.YourThreeCents.com
April 9, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Obama's ad blitz is brilliant! Most of us know about the "Implicit Association Test" (Malcolm Gladwell wrote about it in BLINK), which has shown almost all of us subconsciously harbor unwanted racial biases. But studies show those biases are mitigated when positive images of blacks are shown to participants right before taking the test. I think by running so many ads, Obama, in addition to re-iterating his promises and positions, is actively offsetting the troubling bias the IAT reveals. So I say the more ads the better!
April 9, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
100,000 ads and he doesn't have this thing locked up? Oh and yeah, all paid for by those folks scraping together 10 dollars worth of quaters......Fiction
April 9, 2008 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
So Greg:
How many stories does this make about how much money Obama is spending??
Whose talking point is this??
What is THE point??
What don't you share....
Why is this the ONLY story about the Obama campaign?? Not its quality, nor its success, nor its 21st century agility -
just how many ads he has run.
Is this to shift the emphasis on how poorly Clinton has managed her money?? Are we to conclude that Obama is spending his money just as recklessly??
What, pray tell, is the damn point???
April 9, 2008 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
So what happens when Obama bets the house in Pennsylvania with overwhelming money and ads, but still loses? Beyond the point that he cannot buy the election, doesn't this say something about his electability?
Personally, I do not think he can win with any level of spending in Pennsylvania. Maybe I'll be proved wrong, we'll see in a few weeks. But, if he does, then what about the general election were he to go on to win the nomination? Will he need to spend a billion dollars to buy the election? Is there enough financial support to sustain this approach to winning?
Matthew
http://www.TheProblemWithObama.com
April 9, 2008 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, Matthew, I'm not sure Obama will win PA, and I'm not sure he even expects to win PA. The point is it now looks like Clinton won't squash him like a bug in the way she was hoping to. I think it's pretty impressive that, according to the polls (always to be taken with a grain of salt), he's gone from a double digit deficit to pulling with 3 percentage points, which is generally the margin of error in most polls. That's amazing.
By the way, what does Hillary's having lost all those contests on Super Tuesday say about her electability? See what I did there? It works both ways, my friend.
Besides, the general election will be a whole different ball game. When push comes to shove, Clinton and Obama are very similar in their ideas, and both are quite a contrast to McCain. The general will be all about that contrast, and so the outcomes of states' voting in the Democratic primaries does not predict what those states will do in the general. Heck, Obama trounced Clinton in Wyoming. So, is he likely to win that traditionally red state in the general? No, not likely. The primaries are an apple, and the general is an orange.
April 9, 2008 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
In true copycat style, Barry Obama says he's for boycotting the Olympic ceremony! Because Barry stands for what Hillary stands for!
April 10, 2008 1:45 AM | Reply | Permalink