A recent story tells about McCain's focused ad spending in battleground states, and Obama's broader spending pattern. McCain is focusing on battleground states, while Obama is spreading resources more broadly.

Why the mismatch in strategies? I think it makes sense in terms of optimal resource allocation. Both patterns of behavior make perfect sense, given what the campaigns may consider to be their best strategies.

[Cross-posted at election.princeton.edu]

Watching John McCain's increasingly flailing and negative ad campaigns in recent weeks, it's been difficult for many -- myself included -- to figure out exactly what he and his advisors have been trying to get at. Looking across the ads, there has been no unifying message save for the fact that Barack Obama is bad (and even that doesn't always shine through -- calling him popular and running footage of people cheering for him doesn't necessarily make for the strongest attack), and there hasn't been much of anything positive said about McCain's own efforts or platform.

But the more I have thought about it, the more it seems to me that McCain's efforts do have a unifying quality to them, even if a misguided one: Influencing those inside the Beltway. These ads aren't directed at Missouri or Ohio or Pennsylvania, or voters in the other key states who will help decide the outcome of this election. Instead, they are directed at the political establishment, and the establishment media in DC, in particular.

Don't get me wrong, every successful campaign has a strategy for handling the media and spends a significant amount of time, effort and even money to try to cajole the media to relay the message the campaign wants to get out. But I don't think I have ever seen a campaign so exclusively focused on the media. It is as if the McCain campaign is being run not to win over the hearts and minds of the American public but rather to affect the views of the talking heads on MSNBC, CNN and Fox News. As one high-level Republican Party operative said to Chris Cillizza about the latest McCain ad, which quizzically and quixotically tries to turn Obama into Paris Hilton, "It seems like they are talking to the press pack, not voters."

Part of this likely stems from the fact that McCain views, or at least viewed, the media as his base. But I think it goes beyond that. The McCain campaign is a creature of Washington, DC. It is chock full of lobbyists. McCain himself has been in Washington for more than 25 years. And even the fact that the campaign is physically located in DC has an effect. Markos has written at length on this issue, and I'd recommend you taking a look at what he has to say in full, but in short, running a DC-based campaign leads to a bubble mentality, less loyal staffers, and a reinforcement of the notion that a candidate is too DC at a time when Washington is less popular than it has been for years and even decades.

In short, the McCain campaign increasingly looks like a one by the Beltway, in the Beltway, of the Beltway, and for the Beltway -- and I can't see how that makes it more likely that he is going to be able to connect with the average voter.

Update [2008-7-31 7:33:56 by Jonathan Singer]: Color The Politico impressed. The strategy must really be working now...

Barack Obama.

Yep. The Obama campiagn is purchasing a 5 million dollar Olympic package.

http://adage.com/article?article_id=1298 53

Folks,

I understand the need for advertising on a place like this. But this morning, I see an ad for Pat Robertson's Regent University. And yesterday, there was the ad for the identity theft company endorsed only by right wingers (Lifelock - ref Limbaugh, Hannity, Harvey).

They've been shown as a bunch of scam artists who can't even protect their own identities. http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2007-06-2 1/news/slapstick-scammers

I suppose it's OK it they want to give MyDD money. But at best, it gives power over this site to - ah - undesirable elements.

Early reports a week ago had the Obama campaign outspending the Clinton campaign in advertising in Ohio and Texas by close to a 2-to-1 margin in both states. New reports from Chuck Todd and the folks at First Read estimate the ratio to be even larger.

*** Obama's financial advantage: Watching local TV here in Ohio, it feels like Obama has a 4-to-1 advantage -- with SEIU, UFCW and Obama just blitzing the airwaves compared with Clinton. It's happening in all four states. In fact, per TV ad expert Evan Tracey, Obama has outspent Clinton $23 million to $14 million in the last 30 days. How is she expected to hold a big lead if she gets outspent this badly? The third party groups are like salt in the Clinton wound.

The Clinton campaign seems to confirm this:

On the Clinton side, Mandy Grunwald that between Obama's own spending and two unions spending on his behalf, Clinton is being outspent four-to-one in Ohio and between two-to-one and three-to-one in Texas.

With numbers like these, it's little wonder that Barack Obama has taken a lead in Texas and has been curtailing Hillary Clinton's once very large Ohio lead. Then again, with Obama having cut Clinton's Pennsylvania lead from 16 points two weeks ago to 6 points today (per Quinnipiac) without the help of advertisements, perhaps the movement in these March 4 states is less about the massive amounts of money the Obama campaign is investing than it is about a genuine shift within the electorate away from Clinton towards Obama...

For all of the talk of the Clinton campaign catching up to the Obama campaign's fundraising abilities -- and Hillary Clinton's take since February 5 has been remarkable -- it looks like it's not enough. According to reports out of both Ohio and Texas, the Obama campaign is significantly outspending the Clinton campaign on advertising ahead of the March 4 primaries.

Barack Obama is blanketing Ohio with campaign ads in a huge media buy that appears to double that of Democratic presidential rival Hillary Clinton.

Obama appears set to vastly outspend Clinton in Texas, as in Ohio.

Word from the world of media buying says Obama has $1.25 million behind his ads there, to $770,000 for Clinton.

These numbers -- along with reports of the $10 million plus pro-Clinton/anti-Obama 527 already running ads -- belie the notion that the Clinton campaign is keeping pace with the Obama campaign in terms of fundraising. If it were, it would be matching the Obama campaign dollar-for-dollar, which it is not. And with the Obama campaign apparently on track to raise $35 million in February after having taken in $36 million last month, it could be increasingly difficult for the Clinton campaign to even keep up this level of spending relative to the Obama campaign, making the path to 2,025 delegates that much more arduous.

Update [2008-2-20 16:23:50 by Jonathan Singer]: Obama's fundraising prowess is important for another reason as well:

Mr. Obama has done just a few traditional fund-raising events in January and none in February, in contrast to the Clinton campaign, which has been keeping up a steady diet of fund-raisers with either Mrs. Clinton or her husband, former President Bill Clinton.

Being able to campaign rather than just raise money really frees up a candidate to connect with voters. There's a reason why Obama was campaigning and Clinton was raising money this morning, and it's not because she likes the rubber chicken dinner circuit...

I don't think I've seen anything like this.

Mark MacKinnon, who designs Mr McCain's advertisements, said he could not face being part of a campaign that "would inevitably be attacking" Mr Obama.

"I have met Barack Obama. I have read his book. I like him a great deal. I disagree with him on very fundamental issues but it would be uncomfortable for me and it would be bad for the McCain campaign," he told National Public Radio.