There's a new report out from the U. of Wisconsin on the advertising battle there. Obama outspent Clinton 5-to-1 ($1.5M vs. $300K). But more interesting to me is what the report reveals about the differing strategies of Obama and Clinton:

- In what most political strategists consider a "change" election, Clinton ads never mentioned the word "change." Obama ads mentioned change 1,824 times.

- Clinton never mentioned experience in her ads, either.

- Except for the BCRA disclaimer taking responsibility for her ad, Clinton did not speak in any of her ads — all were by voiced over by a narrator. Meanwhile, virtually, all Obama ads featured the Illinois senator speaking on his own behalf.

Ken Goldstein, director of the Wisconsin Advertising Project which produced the report, has some unkind things to say about Clinton's ad strategy:

The fact that Clinton was outspent so significantly speaks to the financial situation she faces. Furthermore, her late entry and the inconsistency in the messages conveyed through advertising and in her speeches speaks to some confusion among Clinton strategists. Clinton needed to define Obama, and for first time we saw significant negative advertising. Half of Clinton's ads were contrast, and they were largely attacks on Obama. That said, most observers believe that for Clinton to have a chance, she needs to disqualify Obama on the experience issue. Going after Obama for not debating or not being liberal enough on health-care reform simply did not resonate with Wisconsin voters.

These words probably sound familiar to a number of TPM posters who made the same arguments at the time. Looking forward, her TX and OH ads so far have been less directly critical of Obama, but they still suffer from inconsistent messaging. No "change", no "experience". We get Hillary the hard worker, and Hillary the working class warrior. "Hard work" we've heard before, but "fighting for the middle class" is yet one more new message tailor-made for a specific demographic.

Here's an article about the report:
http://www.news.wisc.edu/14802

Josh aptly noted that "Obama has clearly improved as a debater and seemed to embody the frontrunner mantle." What changed? Well, obviously the frontrunner thing, but what else?

In the early debates, Obama tried to debate the way I think candidates should debate--thinking on his feet and specifically answering every question in detail. Unfortunately, he wasn't very good at it. His answers tended to be longwinded and fumbling. Clinton, by contrast, has been consistently sharp on her feet.

In this debate, Obama fell back on what he does best--public speaking. His most compelling responses seemed to be scripted snippets from his stump speech. I still remember feeling infuriated by Reagan debates: the way he would ignore the questions and respond with prepared speeches. Obama didn't go to quite that extent, but there are similarities.

It's too bad in a way, but it was effective for Reagan, and it was effective for Obama tonight. Some of his answers, though scripted, were nonetheless moving. I expect that we'll see a lot more of it against McCain, so I'm glad at least to see Obama come into his own in the debate format.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/02202008/news/regionalnews/mike_claims_vote_fraud_98436.htm

Anyone one have a thought on this? I had assumed that the discrepancies were errors, as the papers presented them. But Bloomberg is not the kind of guy to throw charges like this around lightly.

The Hillary Clinton campaign has reportedly thought up a new strategy for winning the Democratic nomination that is even more divisive than the super-delegate route: Poisoning Obama's elected delegates so that they cannot appear at the convention. "I swear it is not happening now, but as we get closer to the convention, if it is a stalemate, everybody will be going after everybody’s delegates," a senior campaign official told the Politico. "All the rules will be going out the window."

There are several problems with this strategy, including the fact that DNC rules prohibit delegate poisoning. Beyond that, such a strategy would increase the perception among voters that the nomination does not represent the will of the voters and that Clinton is a mean, calculating b-word. It's worth noting that the Politico story quotes a Clinton official predicting that both campaigns will poison the pledged dels, which could result in a delegate-less convention. While the state of Colorado may sigh in relief, such an eventuality could pose further problems for the Democrats. In the event that no delegates show up for the convention, DNC rules require the nomination be determined by Rochambeau, a.k.a. Rock-Scissors-Paper. Clinton is widely reknowned as an expert Rochambeau player, and the Obama camp is already complaining of unfairness. A high-ranking Clinton strategist smirks, "These were the rules that all the candidates agree to. You can't change the rules in the middle of the game."

Late update: Hillary spokesperson Phil Singer is adamantly denying a report this morning in The Politico quoting an anonymous campaign official suggesting that the Clinton campaign will poison Obama's pledged delegates. According to Singer:

We have not, are not and will not pursue the pledged delegates of Barack Obama. It's now time for the Obama campaign to be clear about their intentions.

The Obama camp has not yet put out a statement on whether they'll poison or otherwise incapacitate Hillary's pledged dels, though they very likely will soon.

This post started as a comment, but due to popular demand, it's getting its own post. (Does one request constitute popular demand?) Much ado has been made in recent years about which presidential candidate voters would prefer to have a beer with, but we all know that beer buddiness is a poor measure of electability. I love my beer buddies, but I wouldn't vote any of them for city council, let alone president. Think about it: getting someone's vote is about closing the deal, so if you're hanging out with presidential candidates at a bar, the measure of electability is obviously not, "Who would you like to hang out with for a couple hours?" but rather, "Who would you like to go home with?" Thus, I present the most critical question of this election: Which candidate has the best pickup line? Using the latest in surveillance technology, this intrepid blog poster has surreptitiously recorded actual pick-up lines used by actual presidential candidates over the course of the primary season. Personally, I like Mike Gravel's approach best, but decide for yourselves...

McCain: Hi sweetheart. You remind me of my first wife. Want to go neck in the back of my car. C'mon honey, I'm all shook up, you know, like the Elvis song. No, Elvis Presley, darling. Who's Elvis Costello? Ow. No, it's nothing, nothing. Just an old war wound. I don't like to talk about it. They gave me the Silver Star, but I was just doing my duty like anybody else. Yeah, it hurts right there. Oh that feels good. Yeah, a little higher. Hang on one sec, sweetheart. I just need to take a little pill, doctor's prescription for my injury.

Romney: Hi beautiful. What's your sign? Really? I'm a Capricorn too. Quel coincidence! Well, no, I was born in March, but Capricorn is my adopted sign. I'm way more Capricorn than any of the other guys. My friends call me "Mittricorn". You can't get more Capricorn than me. Let me buy you a drink. No, I don't drink myself, but drink up. Have another one. Yes, this is my real hair. That's a weird question; of course it's real skin. Wait, where are you going? Why do you want to talk to that old guy? He's so un-Capricorn. Oh well. Hey, she's cute. Hi beautiful. What's your sign? Really? I'm a Virgo too. Quel coincidence!

Giuliani: Hi doll, I'm Rudy. You got nothing to worry about when I'm around. I'll be your big daddy. Remember 9/11? Little known fact: there were actually 30 planes. I saw them coming, pulled out my NYPD Glock, and took 20 of them out with 15 rounds. The others came at me, and I wrestled eight of them to the ground. The last two got scared and went after soft targets. Stick with me, I'll keep you safe. Look around, there are lots of bad guys hanging out there. See that dark skinned man? Terrorist. If he doesn't blow up your building, he'll take your job, steal your purse, and prank call you with funny voices. Don't you worry, I can intercept the call. Back to 9/11, I was being modest before. There were actually 300 planes, 4 surface-to-air missiles, and a giant, heat-seeking ferret...

Huckabee: Pardon me ma'm, you look like a nice wholesome girl. Want to come back to my pad and read Bible by the fire? I'll fry you up somethin' tasty in my popcorn popper. Of course not, I would never take advantage. I'm a gentleman. Though I'll tell you a little secret. I've got stayin' power. After the other guys have put on their pants and hightailed outa there, I'm still goin'. And then, just when you think it's never gonna happen, BOOM! Hello, Mike Huckabee.

Obama: Hey baby. What's your name? I'm Barack Obama. You look like you could use a little Obama-magic. I'll make your toes tingle, electricity up and down your leg. I don't even have to touch you, just whisper a few words in your ear. Just words, you say? Are these just words? [Whispers in her ear] Really, you've heard those word before? Why are you so cynical, baby? We've got potential. We can do incredible things together. Yes, that's what I like to hear. Yes, baby, yes. Feel the hope. Yes we can. Yes we can. Yes we can!

Clinton: Hi handsome. Do you have brains behind those beautiful eyes? What's your position on universal health care coverage? I'm a senator, you know, going to be President soon. Ever slept in the White House? Do you like domination games? I'll whip that sweet ass of yours until you cry. Yes, I have a husband, but he won't mind, it's an open marriage.

Edwards: Hi sugar. I'm John Edwards. [flashes smile] Uh, yeah, we met before. No, I'm not stalking you. Look, I know that I may have seemed a little shallow before, but I've changed. I've discovered my passion. You're it. I want to devote my life to you. Don't worry, it's cool with my wife. She's doing a lot better. She wants me to do this. [Thinks to self: Who's her friend? She's hot too. Tough decision. If I go for the friend, I'll look like a shmuck, but she might give me more play. Be cool, John. You're the man. You can date both of them for a while.]

Kucinich: C'mon, sweetie. Why are you talking to all the other guys. I've got game. My wife's a model. Hey, are you listening to me? Whatever. I'll try someone else. Hey there good looking? Hey! Hey! Why is everyone ignoring me?

Gravel: [Says nothing. Just stands very close and stares.]

Due to his experience, military record, media popularity, reputation as a straightshooter, and appeal among independents, McCain is regarded a strong contender for the Presidency in 2008, and he may well be, but it's too early to know. We can speculate endlessly about what attributes are most important to voters and how McCain's strengths and weaknesses match up against those of Obama and Clinton, but it's mostly guesswork. In this post, I will instead focus on McCain's record. Not his voting record, his campaign record. Obama has recently made the argument that a well-run campaign augurs a well-run government. I propose a slightly less provocative thesis: a well-run primary campaign augurs a well-run general election campaign, and the inverse, a poorly-run primary campaign augurs a poorly-run general election campaign.

This election, the Democrats have competed in the equivalent of NCAA Division I, whereas the Republicans were demoted to Division II. Whoever wins the Democratic nomination will have beaten two very strong candidates and a few others that were none too shabby. McCain's competition has been pathetic to the point of comedy. As he himself aptly put it, "I feel like Will Smith in 'I Am Legend' - I'm the last guy standing that's not a zombie." Moreover, the last time McCain competed against a strong candidate, G.W. Bush, he only won New Hampshire. In short, Obama and Clinton have been well-tested in a bruising race, whereas McCain's ability to win the primary demonstrates little about his electability.

A look at the specifics of the race bolsters this high-level argument. Obama and Clinton have run very strong campaigns. Both have shattered previous records for fundraising and primary votes. Many criticize Clinton's campaign strategy for blowing her lead against an inexperienced challenger, but take a look at the polling trends at http://www.pollster.com/08-US-Dem-Pres-Primary.php. Clinton has shown steady growth for her entire campaign. Obama has overtaken her, not because her popularity has collapsed, but because he has surged in the past two months. Moreover, though his inexperience is a handicap, Obama has by almost all accounts conducted a brilliant and groundbreaking campaign. Clinton's current difficulties are more a measure of his campaign strength than her campaign weakness.

Compare the Republicans. The campaign strategies of McCain's two main rivals, Romney and Giuliani, ranged from ill-conceived to hallucinogenic, and McCain's own campaign has been notable only for its tenacity. His fundraising has been far less successful than that of the top Democrats: he raised only $41M in 2007, compared to Clinton's $116M, Obama's $102M, and Edwards' $44M. The money that he did raise, was poorly managed:

And the campaign had burned through most of the $24 million it had raised in the first half of the year on hefty salaries for staff members and consultants, a heavy travel schedule and all manner of other expenses, leaving it with less cash at the end of June than even the bare-bones presidential campaign of Representative Ron Paul, Republican of Texas. Aides said that the problems started to peak two weeks ago at a meeting with Mr. McCain and about 100 contributors in 100-degree weather at his home in Sedona, Ariz. It was just before that meeting, aides said, that Mr. McCain and his wife, Cindy, were told how bleak the campaign’s financial situation was. They said the McCains were startled and enraged. Aides said Mr. McCain expressed concern that the image of his campaign overspending would invite mockery from opponents at a time when he is attacking excessive government spending. One McCain associate said the senator expressed astonishment at the Sedona meeting that he had spent so much money without putting a single advertisement on television. (NYT 7/11/07)

Part of the problem was an overly optimistic expectation of success and the lack of a backup plan. (Sound familiar?) The NYT article continues:

Last November, Mr. Davis, with the assent of Mr. Nelson and Mr. Weaver, argued that Mr. McCain would have no trouble supporting a political machine on the scale of the 2004 Bush campaign, presenting himself as the president’s anointed heir. From that perspective, Mr. Davis argued, the campaign should expect to raise $120 million this year, including $50 million in the first six months, about twice as much as what turned out to be true. "We had false assumptions about how much money could be raised,” said Mark Salter, a senior aide to Mr. McCain. "It's not fair to pin it on anybody. We all had this expectation that money was going to be very easy for us to raise."

Finally, the result of McCain's financial disaster was a staff blowout that makes Clinton's recent shakeup look modest.

Some of Mr. McCain’s associates described the campaign as wracked by infighting, with Mr. Davis, who was with Mr. McCain when he ran for president in 2000, butting heads with Mr. Nelson, who was the political director for President Bush’s 2004 campaign. The associates said the infighting intensified in the aftermath of the announcement last week that the campaign had just $2 million left after spending at a rate of $1 million a week. At the time, Mr. McCain was forced to lay off 80 of the campaign’s 120 staff members. Mr. McCain’s associates said that more senior officials were expected to leave in the coming days as part of the upheaval. (NYT 7/10/07)

For more evidence of a struggling campaign, take a look at the Republican trends: http://www.pollster.com/08-US-Rep-Pres-Primary.php. Belying the received wisdom that McCain has always been unpopular with the Republican base, he began the race neck-and-neck with Giuliani and well above everyone else. Then his popularity steadily declined by half until the end of 2008. Now that's blowing a lead. But what reversed the trend? There is no evidence of anything that McCain did at the end of 2008 to change the course of the race, but two events worked in his favor. First, the surge in Iraq showed signs of success. McCain had championed the surge earlier in the year, and as his campaign faltered, his pro-war stance was cited as a strategic misstep. When the surge gained favor, his position was vindicated. Second, and perhaps more importantly, Giuliani's campaign took an historic nosedive. Looking at the trendlines, all the Republican candidates benefited from Giuliani's decline but none more than McCain. His popularity surged inversely to Giuliani's fall, suggesting that Giuliani supporters simply switched to McCain as their candidate became unviable.

The general election may be different. McCain has demonstrated resilience, and he may yet produce a smart, disciplined, and effective campaign. But in closing, I'd like to recall another presidential nominee who early in the primary season "struggled in fundraising, languished in polls and fired top aides" (AP 7/10/07) before coming back to win the primary and then ultimately running another weak campaign that resulted in a loss in the general election: John Kerry.