McCain On Defense In Indiana
Tweet
Now, they’ve got to spend money there due to a stronger than expected showing for Sen. Obama.
RELATED: Obama Dramatically Ramping Up Overall Ad Spending; Now Outgunning McCain
20 Responses to “McCain On Defense In Indiana”
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
What Time Is Super Bowl 2012 (Super Bowl XLVI)?
Republican Senate Candidate To Run Racist Ad During Super Bowl
Romney Biographer: Candidate Grew Up In A “Series Of Bubbles”
Latest Entries
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
C.K.: November 22, 1999 – January 7, 2012
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
Obama spends resources in 50 states = grand strategy!!
McCain spends resources in 50 states = desperation!!
Yes, you are correct. Forcing your opponent to react is a great move. Especially when you have more money than your opponent does.
JWG, this is the equivalent of Obama having to buy advertising in Massachusetts because of a tightening race. I really don’t know why you’re being so wilfully obtuse.
Did I miss something? Smith’s update says they’re RNC ads, not McCain campaign ads, and he’s waiting for a callback.
Tyro, JWG’s not being willfully obtuse. The answer is much simpler. He’s a dumbass.
Obama, before the race was fully engaged, spent money in some non traditional states to see if he could make inroads. That didn’t work in places like North Dakota, but it seems to be working in Indiana, Virginia, and North Carolina – states where Sen. Obama is close, tied or even slightly ahead. Sen. Obama is not having to defend any very blue states as the election comes to a head, while Sen. McCain is.
they’re RNC ads, not McCain campaign ads
AFAIK, for all intents and purposes that is the same thing right now. The RNC is advertising on behalf of Sen. McCain. There’s no congressional or gubernatorial races going on there of note.
The combined RNC/McCain have more than the combined DNC/Obama.
Since Oliver is pointing out that RNC ads are “the same thing” as McCain spending money, Then McCain has the cash advantage.
BTW, I am a Hoosier. McCain will air some ads just like Bush aired ads. Every president spends money on advertising. Let me know when the McCain campaign starts spending more money in Indiana than usual. You’re dreaming if you think an Obama win in Indiana is realistic.
McCain shouldn’t have to be spending anything in Indiana. As indicated above, this is like Obama advertising in Massachusetts. At the end of the day, I think Indiana will go for McCain, but the idea that he has to defend it is the problem here. I guarantee you McCain and the RNC would rather spend that money in FL/CO/VA.
According to the cite:
The RNC has a huge cash advantage. Obama is burning money at a much higher rate to lose a state and cause the RNC to spend money on advertising they do every election anyway.
Furthermore, are you saying that Obama is not going to run ads in Massachusetts?
You seem to think it is wise to throw “full-scale” money at a state you are going to lose. Your own logic dictates Obama would be better off flooding his campaign money into FL/CO/VA.
McCain and the RNC are not short on cash. They can certainly afford to advertise like they always do in red states.
Obama is playing offense. He’s pushing McCain in a state McCain shouldn’t have to be playing in. I highly doubt Sen. Obama is going to run ads in Massachusetts for that very same reason. In the last 10 years political campaigns rarely advertise nationally. They advertise in states they’re trying to win or trying to defend. Indiana, as these polls show, is not a lost cause for Sen. Obama in the way his early attempts in places like North Dakota are (and that’s why they got out of there). The history is against Sen. Obama, but the polls show that his efforts there are moving the dials, and the GOP is reacting. This is not complex stuff.
Furthermore, are you saying that Obama is not going to run ads in Massachusetts?
Unless something really crazy happens, no, he isn’t. In the same way that Sen. McCain won’t be running ads in Texas because Obama has no shot there.
McCain is playing defense here. Why is this so hard for you to get?
Because ads for Bush ran all the time in Indiana during 2004. It’s not surprising that there would be ads for McCain during 2008 one month before the election.
If you support Obama spending massive amounts of money in order to get the RNC to spend a few bucks they’ve always spent in the past anyway, then who am I to argue? Keep that full-scale campaign going, Obama! Don’t stop the cash flow into Indiana!
There should be no reason for John McCain to advertise in Indiana. None. Bush won there by double digits.
Since you are incapable of understanding this basic dynamic, I present what this argument has been like for me.
JWG, you’re an idjit.
um. JWG… I live in California. I haven’t seen an ad for either candidate yet. Why? Because Obama will win California handily. Boo-yeah.
“The combined RNC/McCain have more than the combined DNC/Obama.”
Not for long. McCain can’t raise any more money and the DNC is raising nearly the same as the RNC, perhaps a little more. Obama might be able to raise $84 million in a single month. (That would be impressive, but not Earth-shattering.)
“You’re dreaming if you think an Obama win in Indiana is realistic.”
pollster.com/polls/in/08-in-pres-ge-mvo.php
fivethirtyeight.com/
Two states that seem to think it is realistic. McCain has the edge, no doubt about that, but it will be relatively close.
Remember, Bush won in 2004 by 21%. 538.com have McCain winning by 1.3%. Even double that would force McCain to spend money he can’t afford to spend.
Yet Bush ran ads in 2004. And 2000. And every republican before that has run ads in Indiana. For some reason they just keep doing it even though Indiana keeps voting republicans for president. It’s like the campaigns don’t know what they’re doing or something. I guess they just never bothered to get the better strategy advice from the geniuses at OW’s blog.
“Yet Bush ran ads in 2004. And 2000. And every republican before that has run ads in Indiana.”
And McCain said he wouldn’t.
If he runs ads now, it is a change in strategy. A change brought about by his weak poll numbers.
Further, Bush was tryiing to help downticket candidates in those elections. He certainly did in 2000, and less so in 2004. Now, he’s political poison, and he obviuosly isn’t running (thank the Lord).
Maybe you should just let the adults discuss this, mkay JWG?
Time Magazine, last week.
So using this guy’s logic: The RNC putting money = Indiana is a battleground state, when it’s been traditionally Republican-safe.
“So using this guy’s logic: The RNC putting money = Indiana is a battleground state, when it’s been traditionally Republican-safe.”
That’s the key. It’s a change in policy that matters.
On the other hand, Obama moving resources from North Dakota to Minnesota means he thinks North Dakota is out of reach while Minnesota is closer than he wants.
See, I can take evidence that is bad for my guy and analyze it in an unbiased way.