Could President Obama buy 30 minutes of ad time again this election?

[johnnya2k6]

Last time, Barack Obama ripped a page out of Ross Perot's 1992 playbook and hit almost all the major networks for a good half-hour (ABC thought Pushing Daisies was more important) one week before he would become our President. But...will he do it again second time around?

With the stakes at its highest and Mitt Romney trying his damnedest to prevent Obama from earning another four years...he might (with ABC involved this time). But knowing that he may have this won before we even head to the polls, occupying a half-hour of primetime isn't necessary.

By the way, I'm old enough to remember George H.W. Bush's 1988 election informercial being on ABC, NBC, and CBS simultaneously.

 

[bigman2005]

Or he could take a page out of the Reagan playbook and do this on the eve of Election Day

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoYEKvtC-WU&feature=plcp

 

[PandoraLover]

It was a waste when Obama did it in 2008 (it didn't move the needle) and cost too much. Since there is no real need to introduce himself to the public this time around, it's even less of a good idea. Romney might go for it, but it doesn't strike me as his style. Could come across as desperate if he starts to trail Obama in October, but if he takes the lead or stays competitive it might help him a bit. He should have the cash to do it, at least on one network.

 

[sandiegoinexile]

It's more likely that there will be infomercial-type ad buys on stations in the half-dozen swing states, particularly in the last week before November sweeps begin, when much of prime time network TV goes into a brief rerun cycle.

 

[PandoraLover]

It's more likely that there will be infomercial-type ad buys on stations in the half-dozen swing states, particularly in the last week before November sweeps begin, when much of prime time network TV goes into a brief rerun cycle.

November sweeps is 26October to 22November (early Thanksgiving this year), so any October lull is unlikely as many programs are starting last week of September or first week of October. October has 4 debates, wrapping up on the 22nd.

 

[arnoldevns]

I think it's unlikely either candidate will do that this time. As noted earlier, Obama's 30 minute show in 2008 didn't do much.
I think they'd do even less this time around. I do think most candidates miss the mark by relying so much on local TV ad buys.
I'd buy national ads on the most popular shows on TV - particularly sports - to get my message out. This was done some during the Olympics by Obama, but that may have been a tad too soon.

Now is the time to get up on TV and have a real impact. At last count, Romney had a lot more money in the bank to pay for things like that than Obama. Will be interesting to see what the two of them do.

 

[LKellerIII]

I think it's unlikely either candidate will do that this time. As noted earlier, Obama's 30 minute show in 2008 didn't do much.
I think they'd do even less this time around. I do think most candidates miss the mark by relying so much on local TV ad buys.
I'd buy national ads on the most popular shows on TV - particularly sports - to get my message out. This was done some during the Olympics by Obama, but that may have been a tad too soon.

Now is the time to get up on TV and have a real impact. At last count, Romney had a lot more money in the bank to pay for things like that than Obama. Will be interesting to see what the two of them do.

Tip O'Neill's statement - "all politics is local" - applies in this case. Should have been "are" local, but we'll forgive Tip's improper grammar. Most political advertising is naturally done in swing states, where it can actually affect the outcome of the election. I live in California, and neither the Republicans or Democrats will waste money here - the state will go to Obama. Same with New York. I can't imagine a lot of ads in Texas or Utah - those states will go for Romney.

Don't consider us Californians lucky though - the airwaves will be filled with political ads for local politicians and state propositions.

 

[justpassingthough]

I think it's unlikely either candidate will do that this time. As noted earlier, Obama's 30 minute show in 2008 didn't do much.
I think they'd do even less this time around. I do think most candidates miss the mark by relying so much on local TV ad buys.
I'd buy national ads on the most popular shows on TV - particularly sports - to get my message out. This was done some during the Olympics by Obama, but that may have been a tad too soon.

Now is the time to get up on TV and have a real impact. At last count, Romney had a lot more money in the bank to pay for things like that than Obama. Will be interesting to see what the two of them do.

Tip O'Neill's statement - "all politics is local" - applies in this case. Should have been "are" local, but we'll forgive Tip's improper grammar. Most political advertising is naturally done in swing states, where it can actually affect the outcome of the election. I live in California, and neither the Republicans or Democrats will waste money here - the state will go to Obama. Same with New York. I can't imagine a lot of ads in Texas or Utah - those states will go for Romney.

Don't consider us Californians lucky though - the airwaves will be filled with political ads for local politicians and state propositions.

As antiquated as the Electoral College seems, its nice to be in California and not be bombarded with ads. My friend is visiting from Orlando and says they are being slammed with ads. It would certainly be interesting to see what would happen if the Electoral College wasn't in existence, because in a close race like this year's race, many more places would be in play.

 

[FreddyE1977]

Why not? If they've got the time and he's got the money, the First Amendment says
he's entitled.

 

[PTBoardOp94]

As antiquated as the Electoral College seems, its nice to be in California and not be bombarded with ads. My friend is visiting from Orlando and says they are being slammed with ads. It would certainly be interesting to see what would happen if the Electoral College wasn't in existence, because in a close race like this year's race, many more places would be in play.

If the electoral college didn't exist and were replaced with direct popular election, the campaigns would actually have an easier job - buy as much national advertising as possible. The campaigns only need one account executive at each of the major networks instead of dozens of AEs just in Ohio. Side effect: rather than the political money going to LIN, Belo and Nexstar, it would go to NBCUniversal, Viacom and Disney.

 

[Board Editor]

MOVED: Re: Could President Obama buy 30 minutes of ad time again this election?

Some posts in this thread have been moved to Take It Outside.

[iurl=http://radiodiscussions.com/smf/index.php?topic=219376.0]http://radiodiscussions.com/smf/index.php?topic=219376.0[/iurl]

 

[fybush]

If the electoral college were replaced by direct popular vote, you'd still see an emphasis on regional ad buys, just in different parts of the country. The argument in this case (primarily offered by opponents to direct election) is that sparsely-populated rural areas will be largely ignored as candidates seek to run up their popular-vote totals in the biggest and most lucrative markets. So it's potentially a big boon to stations in New York City, Los Angeles and Chicago, and potentially a big letdown for stations in smaller markets in Iowa or Ohio or Virginia or North Carolina.

 

[justpassingthough]

If the electoral college were replaced by direct popular vote, you'd still see an emphasis on regional ad buys, just in different parts of the country. The argument in this case (primarily offered by opponents to direct election) is that sparsely-populated rural areas will be largely ignored as candidates seek to run up their popular-vote totals in the biggest and most lucrative markets. So it's potentially a big boon to stations in New York City, Los Angeles and Chicago, and potentially a big letdown for stations in smaller markets in Iowa or Ohio or Virginia or North Carolina.

From a voter's perspective, though, the candidates time and effort should be more focused on places where people actually live. The electoral college essentially forces the candidates to battle it out in the swing states, and essentially ignore the safe states. Sure, it saves those of us in the safe states from hearing an onslaught of election ads, but it also serves to force the candidates to focus on issues like saving the American auto industry because Michigan and Ohio are swing states, while essentially ignoring the needs of places like California and New York, which contribute much greater to GDP and have much larger populations.

 

[FreddyE1977]

This is very interesting because it essentially mirrors the initial debate between large state and small state representatives
that took place back when they were drafting the Constitution.

I remember in the wake of Bush v. Gore I ended up spending a heck of a lot of time trying to explain the
Electoral College to people I knew who were foreigners, immigrants, or just asleep at school when the day taught about it.
A lot of people who immigrated here from other countries seemed to have a particularly hard time grasping the concept.
I suspect therefore it is unique or quite rare amongst the world's democracies.

Jimmy Carter actually had a campaign plank in '76 that he wanted to do away with the Electoral College and
go with the popular vote. Someone in the Democratic Party though figured out that might not necessarily always
work out to their advantage, and they never went ahead with the proposal.