The RNC has a new commercial out that attempts to hit Barack Obama on the energy issue:
This is not a terrifically effective spot. It makes McCain's platform seem haphazard and contradictory. (Conservation. Drill! Drill! Drill! Alternative Fuels. Oil! Oil! Oil!).
Nevertheless, I do tend to agree with Larry Kudlow that the offshore drilling debate could be a wedge issue if framed effectively. Kudlow's framing, which rah-rahs the profit motive and calls for deregulation, is precisely 180 degrees removed from where the Republicans want to go with this one. But by couching their argument in more populist, Hillary Clintonesque tones, they might be able to portray Obama as being overvague and out of touch.
To that end, it is interesting that both this commercial and Kudlow's column call Obama anti-nuclear. Obama's position on nuclear power has been a little amorphous, but it is not clear that he is anti-nuclear. On the contrary, he took some flack from progressives on the nuclear power issue during the primaries, and his position -- sometimes hedged more than others -- has generally been that nuclear power is "worth considering".
It seems to me, then, that the Republicans are trying to preempt Obama from getting behind nuclear power more seriously. The problem with offshore drilling -- apart from its environmental impacts -- is that it will likely take at least 20 years before it adds materially to our refinement capacity. By contrast, although it depends significantly on reactor design, a nuclear power facility could come online in perhaps half that time. So nuclear power is a pretty interesting trump card to the offshore drilling issue: greener, faster, and for the first time in a while, supported by pluralities or majorities of the public.
The Republicans seem interested in taking the nuclear card off the table. That does not necessarily mean that Obama should play it. But I do think he'll need a little more substance on this issue, be it by embracing nuclear power, engineering some sort of targeted transportation tax credit that helps lower-income families with long commutes to work but also incentivizes mass transit, embracing RFK Jr.'s plan, or simply deciding that this will be the issue where he takes a tough love stance and uses that as a branding parlay. The Republicans will eventually put together a better commercial on the issue, and Obama will need some kind of reply.
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Nuclear Deterrence?
Saturday, July 5, 2008
Why are New Jersey Politicians Always Rich? An Analysis of TV Markets.
When you hear about a certain state being expensive to advertise in, what exactly does that mean? To a certain extent, the cost of advertising on a per-eyeball or per-ratings point basis varies a bit from market to market. TV time is proportionately more expensive where there are more upwardly-mobile customers, for instance, and seems to be slightly more expensive in the Sunbelt than in other regions of the country. But these differences aren't that great. Mostly, North Carolina is a lot more expensive than North Dakota simply because there are a lot more people there.
There is, however, one peculiarity to advertising for political campaigns, which is that states differ in their electoral importance, and that some fraction of Americans -- I would guess about 10 percent -- have their TV originate from a different state. To reach Northern New Jersey, for instance, you'd have to run advertisements in New York, wasting money on viewers whose votes will make no difference in the electoral math. It's these bleeds and overlaps in the nation's 210 Designated Market Areas that account for most of the difference in the de facto cost of targeting voters in particular states.
With that in mind, let's review the advertising situation in the 22 most important states as according to our tipping point ratings. I have assigned each state an 'Efficiency Rating' from 0 to 10 based on the forgivingness of its particular geography. You can also view maps of each state's media markets by clicking on that state's name.
1. Ohio. A great state to advertise in. Ohio's markets generally bleed into other states rather than the other way around, and the bleeding isn't much. Also, the number of markets is a plus: there are 12 different ones covering every corner of the state, making it easier to target swing voters. Efficiency Rating: 9.
2. Michigan. Another pretty clean state; about 98 percent of Michiganders get their TV from markets originating within the state. The biggest logistical annoyance is that the Detroit market covers both the very poor inner city, and the very wealthy collar suburbs; you'll generally be more interested in reaching the former than the latter, but will have to pay to do both. But advertising time in Detroit is quite cheap, rendering this somewhat moot. Efficiency Rating: 8.
3. Pennsylvania. The problematic market is Philadelphia, which also covers about half of New Jersey's geography and most of Delaware's. There are also six counties on the periphery of the map that get their TV from a neighboring state. Efficiency Rating: 6.
4. Colorado. Extremely straightforward, although the Denver market reaches substantial portions of Wyoming and Nebraska. Efficiency Rating: 9.
5. Virginia. Total mess. To reach Northern Virginia, you absolutely have to buy up Washington DC (only ABC has a subregional station in Virginia proper). But then you're also paying to reach eyeballs in Maryland and in DC itself, which you have no interest in whatsoever. Washington DC is the most problematic market in the country in this sense, since Maryland and Virginia will rarely be competitive in the same election. Also, the panhandle area in Western Virginia gets its TV from Tennessee, but TV is so cheap there that that isn't really a problem. Efficiency Rating: 3.
6. Iowa. Some overlaps, but not bad. The main issue is the Council Bluffs region in the southwest corner of the state, which gets its TV from Omaha. However, since the electoral vote in Omaha's congressional district is up for grabs this year, that is not really a problem at all. Efficiency Rating: 8.
7. Wisconsin. Another very good state -- importantly, the Chicago market does not bleed into Wisconsin at all. You do lose a few counties to Minneapolis and Duluth, but they are not very populous. Efficiency Rating: 9.
8. Indiana. About 20-25 percent of the state gets its TV from Chicago. It's hard to imagine that purchase being worth it, and I certainly do not recall seeing any Obama or Clinton ads here in Chicago in the run-up to the primaries (although I also do not watch a lot of local TV). Cincinnati and Louisville also present problems in the Southern portion of the state, although since you'll be advertising in Cincinnati anyway, the latter isn't such a issue. Efficiency Rating: 4.
9. New Mexico. Most of it is just one huge market covering Albuquerque and Santa Fe. A handful of counties are covered by Texas, but this is not a major problem. Efficiency Rating: 8.
10. Florida. Pretty favorable terrain, although TV time tends to be quite expensive in Florida. The only real challenge from a geographical standpoint is that Pensacola overlaps with Mobile, AL. Efficiency Rating: 8.
11. Oregon. Extremely straightforward, and smaller cities like Bend and Eugene have their own markets, making targeting easier. You do lose one county apiece to Boise, ID and Spokane, WA, but that's easy enough to live with either way. Efficiency Rating: 9.
12. New Jersey. Why does it seem like politicians from New Jersey -- like Jon Corzine and Frank Lautenberg -- are always rich? Because it's completely impossible to advertise in New Jersey cheaply. The top half of the state is covered by New York and the bottom half by Philadelphia. That's it -- there are no markets that are native to the state, and both New York and Philly are horrifically expensive. For this reason, I would not expect the McCain campaign to make any sort of cute play for New Jersey. Efficiency Rating: 0.
13. Missouri. All but two counties get their TV from inside Missouri, but the St. Louis market bleeds quite a bit into southern Illinois, and naturally Kansas City bleeds into Kansas. Efficiency Rating: 7.
14. New Hampshire. Looks worse than it is. Technically speaking, 84 percent of New Hampshire's population is covered by the Boston market, and the rest by Maine or Vermont. But there is a bit of a market-within-a-market, as both ABC and NBC have New Hampshire-based affiliates, whose very existence might owe itself to New Hampshire's importance in presidential politics. Efficiency Rating: 4.
15. Nevada. Almost perfect. Three eastern counties get their TV from Salt Lake City, but nobody lives out there. Efficiency Rating: 9.
16. Minnesota. Only minor problems; parts of the state get their TV from North Dakota, South Dakota or Wisconsin, whereas the Minneapolis market bleeds into Wisconsin. However, since both Wisconsin and North Dakota should also be in play this year, you don't mind reaching those eyeballs. Efficiency Rating: 8.
17. North Carolina. The western quarter of the state shares its TV with South Carolina, Tennessee or Georgia, and much of the Inner Banks from Virginia. But these are manageable concerns. Efficiency Rating: 7.
18. North Dakota. Couldn't be much simpler, as the state's population is about evenly divided between the Bismarck and Fargo markets. Fargo overlaps a bit into Minnesota and Bismarck into Montana, which are the only things preventing a perfect score. Efficiency Rating: 9.
19. Montana. Not only is TV time very cheap out here, but you can be picky and choosy, with six distinct markets originating in Montana, and just a few tiny overlaps to worry about. Efficiency Rating: 9.
20. Delaware. It's a little odd that Delaware is showing up on the swing state list, but it hasn't been polled in forever, producing more uncertainty around our estimate. But the fact is that if the campaigns are advertising in Philadelphia, they are covering two of Delaware's three counties anyway. The third Delaware county, Sussex, gets its TV from Maryland. Efficiency Rating: 2.
21.Washington. Very simple. Five counties are covered by Portland, Oregon, but if you're advertising in Washington, you're probably advertising in Oregon anyway. Efficiency Rating: 9.
22. Alaska. Finally, our first perfect score. Because of its geographic isolation, there is no overlap between markets in Alaska and those in any other state. Efficiency Rating: 10.
So to sum up, the big problem is in New Jersey, where the lack of native TV markets completely alter the political dynamics of the state. Other challenges are presented by Indiana, Virginia, and New Hampshire. Oh, and Delaware, if you ever felt the need to target it.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Return on Investment
Our continuously-updated list of Tipping Point States -- recently represented with a snazzy new map -- tells you which states are most likely to determine the outcome of this year's election. As described in the FAQ:
'Tipping Point States' are those states that tip the outcome of the election from one candidate to the other. In each simulation run, the states are lined up from best to worst for each candidate. The states are marked off sequentially until the candidate reaches 270 electroal votes. The state responsible for putting the candidate over the top to 270 electoral votes is the tipping point state for that simulation run.Naturally, Tipping Point States are usually going to be those associated with large electoral vote counts. It's much more likely that a state like Pennsylvania, which has 21 electoral votes, will make the difference between winning and losing the election than something like Montana, which has 3. The goal of the Tipping Point States metric is to balance which states are closest to the median of the electorate with the value of each state in the Electoral College -- and it generally comes up with pretty intuitive results.
However, it is not necessarily the case that the states with the highest Tipping Point number will represent the best return on investment for the candidate. While Pennsylvania is more likely to swing the election than Montana, it is also many times more expensive. Of course, a campaign will still want to invest more in Pennsylvania than it does in Montana in the aggregate. But which state is better on a dollar-per-dollar basis?
To get at this, what we can do is divide a state's Tipping Point percentage by its population (more specifically, it's eligible voter population). What this implicitly assumes is that the expense of competing in a state is proportional to its eligible voter population. Strictly speaking, this is not true, especially when it comes to television buys, where there are a lot of idiosyncrasies related to the geography of different TV markets (something I'll be writing more about in the near future). But it's a reasonably safe and neutral assumption for our purposes here.
This calculation produces a ratio, whose value is meaningless in the abstract, but which can be compared to the ratio in the country as a whole (in other words, we're taking the ratio of the ratios). The ratio figures, for instance, that a dollar spent in Pennsylvania is about 3.5 times more likely to influence the outcome of the election than one spent in the nation as a whole. This is what we call the "Return on Investment Index". Which states have the highest ROIs?
The top state is New Mexico, which produces an ROI almost 6 times higher than the nation at large. Why New Mexico? We project it to be very close to the median of the electorate. Right now, we are predicting a 2.7-point victory for Barack Obama in New Mexico, versus a 3.7-point victory in the national popular vote. Strictly speaking, the states that deserve the most attention are not those that are closest at any given moment, but rather those that are closest to the national average. If, say, Barack Obama has built a 12-point lead in August, you will probably start to see some weird things like Mississippi being a toss-up. But that doesn't mean the Obama campaign should at that point begin to invest heavily in Mississippi, because the only time the decision to invest in an individual state matters is when the election is close. If that hypothetical 12-point lead in August reverted back to a 1-point lead in October -- the only contingency that matters, it is very likely that Mississippi would no longer be one of the closer states. Likewise, even though Obama has a "safe" lead in Pennsylvania now, he cannot stop campaigning there (nor can McCain), because if the election tightens, Pennsylvania is liable to be within a couple of points.
The other small advantage in an investment in New Mexico is that small states have more electoral votes per eligible voter: New Mexico offers one electoral vote for every 274,000 eligible voters, whereas Pennsylvania offers one per 449,000.
Overall, the map suggests a slightly more defensive-minded resource allocation strategy than the one that the Obama campaign is employing currently. It doesn't look like states like Oregon and Iowa are going to be all that close now, for instance, but it also doesn't look like the election is going to be all that close; if the polls tighten, they may be vulnerable. At the same time, the calculation validates the Obama campaign's decision to put resources into states like North Dakota (which ranks 10th by this metric), Montana (14th) and Alaska (17th). By contrast, Florida ranks just 25th. It's running about 6 points behind Obama's national averages, and it's extremely expensive to compete in.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Steve Schmidt Gets It
Whether it's related to the McCain team's shake-and-bake or not I don't know, but tonight comes word that McCain is purchasing ad time in Virginia. Halperin puts the media CW thusly:
"Suggests the McCain camp could be worried Obama has a shot in the historically Red state"The McCain camp could be worried that Obama has a shot? I could be worried that I'll have to pay taxes next year. Obama leads in all three recent public polls of the state (albeit by tiny margins). The state has a popular Democratic governor and a popular Democratic senator, and will soon have a second, because the best candidate the GOP could recruit against Mark Warner was Jim Gilmore, who was last seen sitting at the Tancredo/Brownback table at the Republican Debate afterparty. The good thing about a staff shake-up is that it can give you an excuse to swallow your pride and do some things that an underdog needs to do -- like playing defense in Virginia.
EDIT: After reading Jonathan Martin's description of the McCain campaign's shake-up, it's a bit harder to attribute this decision specifically to Schmidt, since the official line out of Crystral City is that Schmidt is responsible for communications and message control, while Rick Davis retains responsibility for strategy. That may be being said out of politeness to Davis, though. At the very least, there was a certain nonchalance in the way that Davis had been handling the campaign that this decision marks a reversal from.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
The Road Veers Right
Why did Barack Obama appear on Fox News Sunday this morning? For the same reason that Hillary Clinton (see video below) is campaigning on a proposal originally introduced by John McCain: a summer holiday from the federal gas tax.
The reason is that the remaining primary calendar veers decidedly right of center. Below is a graph of the 50 states, sorted by the percentage of the vote that George W. Bush received in 2004. The states that have yet to vote are highlighted in red.
With the exception of Oregon, which is more conservative than is generally acknowledged, the other six states all fall within a relatively narrow band toward the right-center of the political spectrum. And four of those six states (Kentucky and South Dakota are the exceptions) have open primaries.
So have the Democrats begun to pander to the right? It depends on your definition of pander, I suppose. But on balance, it is probably helpful to them to have these right-center states on the docket as we transition gradually into the general election cycle.
It does seem to me, however, that their respective actions are illustrative of the different approaches they might take toward courting the political center in a general election campaign. Obama will have a conversation with a right-of-center news outlet, which asks a series of questions framed from a right-of-center point of view, but will not actually espouse any particularly right-of-center policy proposals. Clinton, on the other hand, will take on a position that taken criticism from both the left-wing and the right-wing establishments, but which probably plays relatively well on the stump.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
It's 3 AM: Time to Fire Your Creative Director
See if you can pick out the four real advertisements from the four parodies. Tougher than you'd think!
Friday, March 28, 2008
McCain's first target: New Mexico
Another advantage of being the first to tie up your party's nomination: John McCain is now running his first general election commercial. It's a bit of an abstract, aloof commercial, likely designed with longer-term branding stratagems in mind.
The ad is running in New Mexico -- a pretty safe choice considering that the election was decided by less than 6,000 votes there last time around.
79 comments
Post a Comment