I'm twenty-two years old. I don't have any kids. I don't even have a boyfriend. Taking care of a family is the furthest thing from my mind. So I fully recognize that this Hillary Clinton ad is not directed at people like me:
My question is: are the people this ad is directed at (mothers) going to find this persuasive? I mean, somebody looking at it from my perspective with my cultural biases looks at this and thinks it's really hokey and dumb. And when I hear Barack Obama respond to it by saying, "I will never see the threat of terrorism as a way to scare up votes," I want to cheer. But, again, I don't have any "children sleeping safely in bed" or whatever. I do live in Washington, DC, and I do go to school down the street from probably the highest-priority target for a terrorist attack in the world (the Capitol Building), but I'm also young and invincible and don't think about stuff like that.
I know there aren't a huge number of parents who read Urbanagora, but for those of you who are out there: does this have any persuasive power at all? If not, is it just because you don't find Hillary's case for why she would be the best person to "answer the phone at 3 am" compelling, or is the ad itself just not persuasive (in other words, if it were a John McCain ad, would you be more persuaded?)? Just curious.
Update: Ezra Klein points out here that the maker of this Hillary ad is the same maker of the famous Mondale "red phone" ad that attacked Gary Hart.
My question is: are the people this ad is directed at (mothers) going to find this persuasive? I mean, somebody looking at it from my perspective with my cultural biases looks at this and thinks it's really hokey and dumb. And when I hear Barack Obama respond to it by saying, "I will never see the threat of terrorism as a way to scare up votes," I want to cheer. But, again, I don't have any "children sleeping safely in bed" or whatever. I do live in Washington, DC, and I do go to school down the street from probably the highest-priority target for a terrorist attack in the world (the Capitol Building), but I'm also young and invincible and don't think about stuff like that.
I know there aren't a huge number of parents who read Urbanagora, but for those of you who are out there: does this have any persuasive power at all? If not, is it just because you don't find Hillary's case for why she would be the best person to "answer the phone at 3 am" compelling, or is the ad itself just not persuasive (in other words, if it were a John McCain ad, would you be more persuaded?)? Just curious.
Update: Ezra Klein points out here that the maker of this Hillary ad is the same maker of the famous Mondale "red phone" ad that attacked Gary Hart.
Labels: 2008, Brian, foreign policy, media, politics
It doesn't do anything for me either, and I've got five kids and four grandchildren.
I'm responsible for keeping them safe, not the government, not the President, not the police.
C-minus
Tom Trumpinski
BJP - Good thoughtful post. I almost did a much less thoughtful post. Here are a few thoughts:
The ad itself is dramatic and reasonably powerful. The writers could have done a better job trying to explain why she is the one we would want answering the phone, apart from her traveling around the world and meeting other leaders. Going negative in this add, like mentioning that Obama is inexperienced overtly would have reduced the ad.
They could have staged this better, having Bill talk about a few crisis moments where Hillary advised him, they could have played grace/courage under pressure better if there was more of an appearance of substance behind it, even if it was partially staged. I think photo ops with other world leaders seems insufficient to back up the message of the ad.
This is just about as strong of an ad on this message as could be constructed. The broader problem is the message itself, which loses.
Penn is assuming that because people might answer a poll question that they are more comfortable w/ her answering the phone at 3 am, that this fear/experience tandem is more powerful than Obama's message of change and unity. The only hope for Hillary would be an aggressive populist message, but it's too late for even that to work.
One other take, all along Penn has looked at her polling strength, experience, and crafted a message around that. Meanwhile, Obama's camp used messaging to create a strength, unity/change, that actually motivates people to vote.
Still not getting it, Augur. There's no way that Obama can get to the nominating convention with enough delegates to win. This means that the Superdelegates are going to end up voting for the person of the two who will guarantee them the most graft if elected--Hillary or Obama. I think the answer to that question is obvious.
Three and a half words--
Chicago-Style Machine Politics.
I'm going to win $50 from you, maybe $100 and your idealism about government shall be shattered, righteously.
Tom
None at all...she doesn't give me any sense of security whatsoever. I think it's laughable that people would be thinking "oh, I hope it's Hillary who answers the phone." It's possible it would work better for McCain, but the ad itself just seems comical to me.
Well, perhaps you'd be willing to increase the amount of our wager, loud mouth?
How about we raise the Hillary v. Obama initial bet to 200
if you're right about Hillary winning and Obama being VP you get 250
If hillary wins and obama is not her VP you get 150
If Obama wins, I get 200?
Deal? I think the whole put your money where your mouth is thing applies here...
or since you're living on retirement paid for stolen tax revenues, maybe it's more appropriate to say put OUR money where your mouth is.
Let's be fair, Augur. Tom's benefits won't have exceeded what he paid in for a few years. He's not a leach yet.
I'd say Hillary is going to win without even factoring in Chicago machine politics. The fact is, super delegates (and normal delegates who are perfectly able to change their votes) are going to be swayed be political favors. The Clintons have had 8 years stocking the federal government with their people who can give those favors out (i.e. a job for a son in the State Dept. etc). Clintons have their own resources, Obama has largely made it being pushed by others.
Obama simply has no cookies to hand out.
And I'd like to say one thing... the Capitol isn't the largest target... in fact, I imagine most Americans wouldn't mind if the Capitol got cratered. If I was a terrorist, my targets would be, White House, Pentagon, Quantico, Sears Tower, Super Bowl...
The Capitol isn't a target. If you had to pick only one branch of government to survive a terrorist attack, and it was the Legislature, you could be assured that the United States would cease to exist.
Obama's response HRC's red phone ad: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Obama_Ringing.html#comments
Does it work? Turn around was impressive.
I was very impressed with the turnaround. I thought they made the argument a bit better than hillary did, but they are climbing against her lead on this point in the polls on the experience narrative. It also undercuts the Clinton campaign's argument that he isn't tough. Firing this back so damn fast is straight up gangsta.
Also, its attacking a strength, which more often than not ends up working.
Kofi, considering my current medical situation and the early age of my retirement, I've got about a 10% chance of taking any tax money out of the pool.
Augur, I'm willing to double my side of the wager if I can pay it off over a four month period if I lose. I never bet more than I can afford, not here and not in Vegas. I don't want the family to come up short on my regular contribution because of politics.
However--If you're so damn confident, why don't we try a real bet: if your dreams of a meaningful government are crushed when the machine defeats Barack Obama, you admit that I am right, that the US government is unsalvageable, and you get into another line of work? Same thing if a madman with a suspicious lineage penetrates lessened security and does a RFK on your man.
Punk.
Tom
I think the Clinton add is pretty good. It has all the classic scare points that have been perfected since "Daisy." The add works.
But I'm even more impressed by the almost instantaneous response from the Obama camp. They hit her in the press for "scare-mongering" and backed it up with an add going right at her perceived strengths.
I'm a little surprised that Tet and John are so convinced she's still going to win this. Sure, I don't think you can quite count her out yet, but on the flip side, I do think you can overestimate her strength.
The superdelagates will not decide this election. If Hillary could lock up the superdelegates, then why hasn't she? And if the unpledged superdelegates wanted to throw this to the Clinton's, why wait? Had the superdelagates closed ranks around Hillary on Feb. 5th, it could have seriously curtailed Obama's momentum and prevented him from winning 10 states in a row.
But now, there's no way that the superdelagates can throw this to Clinton unless she starts winning contests and winning big. Even if every unpledged delegate preferred Clinton to Obama, it would be foolish for an individual superdelegate to throw his or her support to Clinton. Nobody wants to back the wrong horse and risk getting shunned by an Obama administration.
Thus, there is a collective action problem. If there was a meaningful way to enforce pledges to vote, then the delegates could conspire to do what's best for them as a group. However, because there is no way to enforce the pledges, a delegate must fend for herself, which means that she would pick the candidate she finds likely to win not the candidate that she might prefer. Under such a circumstance, Obama, as the front runner, is the obvious choice. Of course, this doesn't even take into account the reputational effects of voting against the ordinary democratic voter.
So here's how i see it playing out. Hillary fails to win both Ohio and Texas. Hillary may concede then. But even if she doesn't, Obama wins the pledged delegate count, and the superdelegates fall in line behind him.
Oh, and just for fun, I predict Obama wins the general.
1) no bet increase b/c you made me feel bad about it
2) i'm not betting on whether or not anyone will be assassinated, what a sick suggestion
3) a bet involving pride might be better, perhaps we could have shirts that say "I should have listened to Josh, for he is the superior political mind" and vice versa...
4) if i lose i change my line of work, well what do i get that i would actually want if i win to make that a bet worth taking?!?!
1) Don't poke your finger at a possum and you won't get bit.
2) It's not that I'm betting that he'll be assassinated. However, the only theories of history that have consistently proven correct are the ones that admit to nefarious goings-on behind the scenes. It's not hard to imagine factions that would be willing to kill the candidate to destroy your hope. I needed to cover that contingency, since it would mean that your candidate would not win.
3) Won't work. Nothing can possibly damage my pride, so I would be giving up nothing.
4) If you won the bet, you'd prove that you're the master of the political scene and keep your money and your Boxter. If you lost the bet, you'd save your soul. It's a win-win situation for you, as far as I can tell.
Tom
I felt guilty for calling you out, not "bit."
my bet was that he is the nominee. if he dies, is arrested, is found to not be qualified for some reason, any reason, he wouldn't then be the nominee, and I would lose. Much like in my bet w/ Billy, even if McCain is unopposed, but if he doesn't live until the convention, billy doesn't win.
bets should have winners and losers, you commie :p