Luntz: Ads about disappointed Obama voters work best with swing voters

posted at 4:01 pm on August 27, 2012 by Mary Katharine Ham

Maybe this Romney guy is onto something.

Conservatives have to grapple with the fact that, whether we agree or not, many people find President Obama likeable. Yes, those likeability numbers have dipped recently, as they should have while Obama was launching a $120 million barrage of negative ads on Mitt Romney and refusing to denounce the idea his opponent might cause cancer in former employees.

But, the fact remains, many people think he’s a nice guy who inherited a pretty bad economic mess. Many of those voters took a chance on a relative unknown in 2008 and don’t feel he’s handled the job well, but they’re also not carrying protest signs into the fray against him. Hence, a handful of ads from right-leaning groups which take a “more in sadness than in anger” tone. I was glad to see one of this style from the RNC in Virginia in July, and now there’s some data to show the approach may work.

Americans for Prosperity’s ad in this mold has been focus-grouped among swing voters in Florida:

With swing-state denizens facing 10 more weeks of campaign ad bombardment, the conservative advocacy organization Americans for Prosperity may be cutting through the clutter most effectively with its relatively low-key attacks on President Obama.

That, at least, was the clear verdict offered by 23 Florida voters on Sunday during a focus group convened by Republican pollster and strategist Frank Luntz.

Almost everyone in the group said they voted for Obama in 2008, but they were about evenly split between Obama and Mitt Romney in the 2012 race, with several still undecided.

Luntz showed the group more than a dozen negative TV ads funded by both presidential campaigns and outside groups and asked participants to rate on a scale of zero to 100 the impact of each ad, regardless of which candidate they are leaning toward.

A majority pointed to a 60-second AFP spot — which has been running in swing states as part of a reported $27 million advertising blitz by the Koch brothers-backed group — as the most effective ad of the current cycle.

Here’s the AFP ad, called “Has President Obama Earned Your Vote?”:

The last line gave me an actual emotional reaction, which doesn’t happen to this jaded consumer of political ads very much: “I don’t feel that I helped my grandchildren by voting for President Obama, and I regret that.”

The story on this focus group goes on to say only four of the 23 swing voters found ads from Obama and his allies more convincing than those from Romney and his allies.

The RNC ran a similar ad in Virginia starting in July. The $5 million buy also ran in Colorado, Iowa, Nevada, North Carolina, and Ohio. It’s called, “It’s OK.” The kicker: “He tried. You tried. It’s OK to make a change.”

These ads wrestle with Obama’s likeability and give swing voters a way to validate a vote against him this time around. They felt good about their votes in 2008. These ads say, “Look, changing your mind about him doesn’t make you a bad person. Everyone gets it. He was exciting and fresh. But now, what are you going to do?” Given the near-constant, heavy implication in the media that opposition to Obama is mean-spirited and/or racist, countering that message with this soft touch is important.

A Crossroads GPS ad running in Florida has a darker feel, but similar message, when the voiceover plaintively says, “It wasn’t supposed to be this way.” The ad is entitled, “Tried.”

This approach may also have the benefit of closing the Romney-Obama likeability gap. A Gallup poll on attack ads this week found that 44 percent of Americans think Obama’s attacking Romney unfairly while only 40 percent believe Romney’s attacking Obama unfairly. Among independents, the number who think Obama’s attacking unfairly rises to 46 percent while Romney’s number falls to 38 percent. Up against a guy with Obama’s charisma cachet and media protection, this is an encouraging sign.

In writing this post, I found a Jonathan Capehart piece from July calling the “It’s OK” ad the “most dangerous for Obama’s reelection efforts.” He obviously comes at it from the left, and it’s rare I find myself in such close agreement with him, but I think he’s dead-on about this kind of advertising, and that’s why you’re seeing more of it.

We’ll hear plenty about Romney’s or Rove’s predilection for political hardball, but these sly curveballs may have a bigger impact.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

The ad attacks the bargainers greatest strength. The bargain having been fulfilled in 2008 leaves a white person available to vote against him in 2012. The left knows this and will play the role of challengers in the media.

Theworldisnotenough on August 27, 2012 at 4:06 PM

Obama is about as likeable as my bout with stomach flu earlier this year. Just another bull$hit lie put out there by the media along with saying the word ‘recovery’ as many times as possible as the economy remains barely above recession level.

gsherin on August 27, 2012 at 4:07 PM

Wow. that’s a pretty powerful ad that uses Obama’s own voters to question his record directly. They state their reasons for voting for him, but show where he has come up short on the economy, jobs, hopenchange (TM). I thought there was a subtle symbolism there with the one lady with glasses and the blue top—she had a star of David necklace. Significant? Maybe so….

ted c on August 27, 2012 at 4:07 PM

Email I sent to Rush limbaugh:

Obama’s “liability”

It stems from the fact that he is a bargainer instead of a challenger. That is his appeal to whites. That is why the Romney ad that communicates “its okay to vote against a black man and not be racist” strikes fear into the heart of the left. They know without that leverage they lose a large chunk of voters. So likability = I don’t want to vote against the black guy. Understand that and communicate it is okay to vote against him and watch the left go crazy

Theworldisnotenough on August 27, 2012 at 4:08 PM

Look out if Romney got a significant portion of those voters, or if they stay home and not vote. Either of those two will do.

bayview on August 27, 2012 at 4:08 PM

A majority pointed to a 60-second AFP spot — which has been running in swing states as part of a reported $27 million advertising blitz by the Koch brothers-backed group — as the most effective ad of the current cycle.

This will really drive the Left nuts. An ad by a Koch brothers (Koch brohters!!!!Eleventy!!!!) backed group being the most effective.

Bitter Clinger on August 27, 2012 at 4:08 PM

That is what I have been saying all along! And it wouldn’t hurt to have not just the light shade but some dark shade doing these ads either if they voted bho last time? I know, here I go with the ‘race’ thing? NO, just telling the truth. Every shade, person, income has been hurt by bho’s policies and their face needs to be in an ad?
L

letget on August 27, 2012 at 4:09 PM

these sly curveballs may have a bigger impact.

I agree. While political pugilism may be satisfying to some of us junkies, it is quite a turnoff to some. A subtle message of, “Hey, it’s okay, you’re not a racist if you change your mind”—just might be all that is needed for some of these swing voters.

ted c on August 27, 2012 at 4:09 PM

It’s called, “It’s OK.” The kicker: “He tried. You tried. It’s OK to make a change.”

Yes, folks. It’s ok to vote out a (half)black President when he’s an unmitigated disaster. Sad that we have to craft some soft-spoken, reassuring ad to make people wake the F up.

Doughboy on August 27, 2012 at 4:10 PM

I don’t understand the attraction. Let me go look at his stirring tribute to Neal Armstrong again, maybe I’ll be able to understand.

Cindy Munford on August 27, 2012 at 4:11 PM

I don’t understand the attraction. Let me go look at his stirring tribute to Neal Armstrong again, maybe I’ll be able to understand.

Cindy Munford on August 27, 2012 at 4:11 PM

I guess if you’re not politically engaged and you only catch an occasional MSM evening news broadcast, maybe he seems more likeable. I don’t know.

Bitter Clinger on August 27, 2012 at 4:15 PM

Great ads…

… Get them to the Death Star, STAT!

Seven Percent Solution on August 27, 2012 at 4:19 PM

The likability thing is a media created myth started by the media, given legs by the media, and compounded by the likes of John McCain. Yes quite a few do like the marxist I’m sure, but when all is said and done it’s more hype and BS created by a lapdog press.

bgibbs1000 on August 27, 2012 at 4:22 PM

But, the fact remains, many people think he’s a nice guy who inherited a pretty bad economic mess.

And we call those people “morons“.

squint on August 27, 2012 at 4:23 PM

I support this approach.

You aren’t going to win too many swing voters with ads that beat them over the head with, “You friggin’ idiot! You put a Marxist in the White House last time! Fortunately, you have a chance to undo your stupid mistake of 4 years ago. Vote Romney-Ryan on November 6.”

JimLennon on August 27, 2012 at 4:24 PM

People don’t like to be told they did something wrong, they prefer to arrive at that decision on their own.

We might not like the ads, but that is not the point. The only thing that matters is whether they are effective.

As to “effective,” there are two good outcomes: the voter either pulls the lever for Romney, or stays home. If they were leaning Obama, either alternative works.

matthew8787 on August 27, 2012 at 4:26 PM

Everyone gets it. He was exciting and fresh.You wanted to feel good about yourself by voting for the Black guy. But now, what are you going to do?”
you’re saying to yourself “I’d be crazy not to vote for the White guy, but like, am I allowed to do that? Is that okay? Or will Brian Williams be ashamed of me?”

ardenenoch on August 27, 2012 at 4:27 PM

I like this ads, but if anyone tells me they find Obama to be likable, I immediately question their judgement. Even if they are hardcore conservatives. Not good judge of character — IMO.

earlgrey133 on August 27, 2012 at 4:27 PM

The likability thing is a media created myth started by the media, given legs by the media, and compounded by the likes of John McCain. Yes quite a few do like the marxist I’m sure, but when all is said and done it’s more hype and BS created by a lapdog press.

bgibbs1000 on August 27, 2012 at 4:22 PM

100% correct but cannot be changed by November 6. It’s exactly analogous to trying to rehabilitate Akin.

matthew8787 on August 27, 2012 at 4:27 PM

I’ve seen both of those ads in Philly, the AFP one just last night. I saw the RNC ad a few times during the Olympics, and during the day when lots of unemployed young people were probably watching. Though I saw something on Twitter saying AFP was pulling its advertsing from PA. That would be a mistake, because this ad hits right in the suburbs where I live and lots of people voted for Obama. Even my husband was riveted by it and affected by it.

rockmom on August 27, 2012 at 4:28 PM

Rush was all over the GOP convention organizers today for using this “Obama’s a nice guy, but…” approach. He said it was stemming from Bob Dole. It sounded like Frank Luntz’s reponse group’s reactions to this ad to me. Huh. I hope it works.

parteagirl on August 27, 2012 at 4:28 PM

I’m all for the ‘anti-obama’ vote going to Romney. I’m also glad this “I don’t feel that I helped my grandchildren by voting for President Obama, and I regret that” pap plays well with the squishy middle, but when I hear citizens voice an Obama buyer’s remorse, I simply want to grab them by the lapels and shake the snot out ‘em.

What the heck did candidate Obama say to make you think that you would help your grandkids by voting for him??!

Hope?
Change?
Si se puede?

locomotivebreath1901 on August 27, 2012 at 4:29 PM

Racist is now the worst insult in the English language and wielded like bludgeon by the left. The only reason people claim that the worst President in the history of the United States is “likable” is that they’re afraid of being tagged racist.

I’m skeptical that the “It’s OK” ads and the “he’s a nice guy” stuff will work in 2012. We know for sure it didn’t work in 2008. Just hammer the idiot hard on foreign policy, economic policy, and everything else…keep the pressure on him, even the birth certificate, teleprompters and his lack of Americanness, because this gets under his skin. When the usurper starts to whine and play the race card, you know you’ve made your mark.

Please, please please don’t repeat the McCain “he’s a nice guy” campaign.

sauldalinsky on August 27, 2012 at 4:31 PM

100% correct but cannot be changed by November 6. It’s exactly analogous to trying to rehabilitate Akin.

matthew8787 on August 27, 2012 at 4:27 PM

I agree to a certain extent. Still though this “he’s a nice guy but…” BS from some in the GOP has to stop.

bgibbs1000 on August 27, 2012 at 4:31 PM

Bitter Clinger on August 27, 2012 at 4:15 PM

I guess, and those nice movie stars seem to like him pretty well.

Cindy Munford on August 27, 2012 at 4:32 PM

People don’t like to be told they did something wrong, they prefer to arrive at that decision on their own.

matthew8787 on August 27, 2012 at 4:26 PM

I for one am long past coddling idiots.

squint on August 27, 2012 at 4:33 PM

Swing voters are usually idiots and Obama knows this.

Corporal Tunnel on August 27, 2012 at 4:34 PM

Conservatives have to grapple with the fact that, whether we agree or not, many people find President Obama likeable.

I’m with Ace on this one:

when voters make their decision — whether they announce it or still claim to be “waiting for all the facts” — they begin saying the candidate they favor is better in all ways, even ones you wouldn’t expect. Like when Obama was beating McCain, the public was saying Obama would be better on the deficit (!), terrorism (!!), and even taxes (!!!).

Expect Obama’s likeability numbers to change as the cascade preference begins. At some point voters will decide that not only is Obama in over his head, he’s kind of a jerk, too.

Caiwyn on August 27, 2012 at 4:34 PM

It’s a spike, that’s all, hardly a theme to base a 2 month political campaign on…

right2bright on August 27, 2012 at 4:34 PM

I don’t think Obama is likable at all. But the good point of these ads is that we don’t have to convince the swing voters that Obama is a bad man. We just have to convince them that he is a bad president, much like Jimmy Carter from a generation ago.

jwolf on August 27, 2012 at 4:35 PM

Obama is not a nice guy, he is trying to kill grandma. The GOP should use any tactic against Obama that works, and they should use them a lot.

Rest in Peace, and may God embrace you Neil Armstrong.

SWalker on August 27, 2012 at 4:35 PM

Rush was all over the GOP convention organizers today for using this “Obama’s a nice guy, but…” approach. He said it was stemming from Bob Dole. It sounded like Frank Luntz’s reponse group’s reactions to this ad to me. Huh. I hope it works.

parteagirl on August 27, 2012 at 4:28 PM

Rush is wrong on this. The only way Romney wins this election is by peeling off a sizable number of people who voted for Obama in 2008. He can’t do this by blaming them and telling them they were stupid and fooled by a SCOAMF; he does it by telling them that Obama let them down. It’s not their fault, it’s his.

The people most likely to switch their votes this time are upscale suburban voters, like the people in that AFP ad. The inclusion of the black guy was genius because it also tells those voters, “look, even some black people feel let down by this guy so it’s OK for me to feel that way.”

rockmom on August 27, 2012 at 4:37 PM

Racist is now the worst insult in the English language and wielded like bludgeon by the left. The only reason people claim that the worst President in the history of the United States is “likable” is that they’re afraid of being tagged racist.

I’m skeptical that the “It’s OK” ads and the “he’s a nice guy” stuff will work in 2012. We know for sure it didn’t work in 2008. Just hammer the idiot hard on foreign policy, economic policy, and everything else…keep the pressure on him, even the birth certificate, teleprompters and his lack of Americanness, because this gets under his skin. When the usurper starts to whine and play the race card, you know you’ve made your mark.

Please, please please don’t repeat the McCain “he’s a nice guy” campaign.
sauldalinsky on August 27, 2012 at 4:31 PM

Agreed 1000+ %. All this “nice guy”, “it’s ok”, and other psycho babble BS is just that psycho babble BS, Hammer the guy on everything, make more jokes about the BC, make Alinsky and marxist jokes relative to his philosophy and policies also, get under his damn skin whatever color it is. Get rid of the scum bucket for good.

bgibbs1000 on August 27, 2012 at 4:38 PM

Expect Obama’s likeability numbers to change as the cascade preference begins. At some point voters will decide that not only is Obama in over his head, he’s kind of a jerk, too.

Caiwyn on August 27, 2012 at 4:34 PM

I think this will start next week at the DNC convention. The speeches are going to be bitter and mean, with too many of them about abortion and none about fixing the economy, and Obama cannot give a really memorable speech anyway. He’s going to look bad following Bill Clinton too.

Then people will start notcing that Obama IS kind of a jerk in his stump speeches, they will start noticing how nasty Stephanie Cutter and DWS are on the TV shows, etc.

rockmom on August 27, 2012 at 4:40 PM

That AFP ad is REALLY good.

Kudos. Run it.

MikeknaJ on August 27, 2012 at 4:40 PM

We know for sure it didn’t work in 2008.

sauldalinsky on August 27, 2012 at 4:31 PM

Unlike 2008, however, the average Joe Schmo who’s never heard of Hot Air, Andrew Breitbart, etc. actually has three and a half years of his own personal experience and hard economic times under an Obama presidency to influence his decision.

Just hammer the idiot hard on foreign policy…

sauldalinsky on August 27, 2012 at 4:31 PM

Foreign policy…
…like the killing of Osama bin Laden?
…like the fact he waged an illegal war in Libya, but no Americans were killed, so that makes it okay?
…or the fact that our men and women in the Armed Forces are no longer dying in Iraq?
Other than the fact the War in Afghanistan is going nowhere anymore, your average low-information voter is going to think Obama has done a pretty good job on foreign policy.

I guarantee you they haven’t noticed the bowing, the apologies, the “flexible” remark to the Russians, or the shafting of our allies in Eastern Europe.

Hitting him on the economy and fiscal condition of our country is the way to go.

JimLennon on August 27, 2012 at 4:41 PM

The entire Republican Jewish Coalition campaign this year is on the same model. The ads are excellent, please take a look if it interests you. I think they deserve kudos for their strong efforts to bring in American Jewish voters. Pls share these ads with friends too, every vote counts. Shalom from Israel.

mybuyersremorse.com

saus on August 27, 2012 at 4:43 PM

I am certain there is a higher level of the Wilder/Bradley Effect with Obama’s personal likability numbers than his job performance. (“Of course I like him – he just hasn’t done a very good job. Just don’t confuse me for someone who dislikes him because he’s black.”) But, I am also certain that 2008 Obama swing voters are reluctant to fire a black guy because they want him to succeed.

The fact is if Obama weren’t black, he would have been pushed off the ticket. He’s been that bad, but the black sympathy vote is the only thing keeping him barely afloat right now. And, as much as I hate the idea of trying to find a sympathetic way of telling someone that the guy they voted for is destroying their future, I’m for whatever works.

The Count on August 27, 2012 at 4:43 PM

Rush is wrong on this. The only way Romney wins this election is by peeling off a sizable number of people who voted for Obama in 2008. He can’t do this by blaming them and telling them they were stupid and fooled by a SCOAMF; he does it by telling them that Obama let them down. It’s not their fault, it’s his.

The people most likely to switch their votes this time are upscale suburban voters, like the people in that AFP ad. The inclusion of the black guy was genius because it also tells those voters, “look, even some black people feel let down by this guy so it’s OK for me to feel that way.”

rockmom on August 27, 2012 at 4:37 PM

But that is exactly what he is doing with this “it’s ok” psycho babble BS. Jeesh am I the only one who sees this? Come on people, just the facts of what has happened over the last 4 years is sufficient. All this other crap carries huge unnecessary risks for Romney that he doesn’t need or have to resort to.

bgibbs1000 on August 27, 2012 at 4:46 PM

People do not like being told they were snowed or fooled or just plain dumb…these kinds of ads can reach people without insulting them. Tempting as it is to tell former Obama voters that were idiots, that is not going to help win their votes.

Terrye on August 27, 2012 at 4:48 PM

Put me in the “he’s NOT likeable” category. Has he ever really pulled off a joke? McCain was funnier. How many times has he brought up the fact that he’s the President? That’s so annoying.
If these ads change some votes I’m all for them. No need to spend money trying to sway me.

tj4osu on August 27, 2012 at 4:48 PM

as much as I hate the idea of trying to find a sympathetic way of telling someone that the guy they voted for is destroying their future, I’m for whatever works.

The Count on August 27, 2012 at 4:43 PM

Does it work? Has it worked? When has it ever worked? I’m asking.

squint on August 27, 2012 at 4:49 PM

I for one am long past coddling idiots.

squint on August 27, 2012 at 4:33 PM

Careful. That’s the same attitude a lot of libs had in 2004 when it came to convincing people who voted for Bush in 2000 to vote for Kerry in 2004.

It wasn’t exactly a winning strategy. Sad to say, but we’re going to need a few idiots to see things our way (which won’t make them idiots anymore! Hopefully.)

JimLennon on August 27, 2012 at 4:49 PM

I for one am long past coddling idiots.

squint on August 27, 2012 at 4:33 PM

Regardless of whether one personally thinks that Obama is a jerk out to destroy the country, or that Obama voters are idiots, this is all about results and winning the presidency (and senate), not about how bad we should bash Obama.

If research indicated that swing voters were most persuaded by a 30 second spot of a ham sandwich on a plate just sitting there, with “Vote for Romney/Ryan” at the end, Romney and the PACs would be stupid not to run ham sandwich ads.

right of the dial on August 27, 2012 at 4:49 PM

See question above.

squint on August 27, 2012 at 4:49 PM

The fundamental strength of the approach in this particular ad is it puts the focus on the disastrous policy of the O. It isn’t a game-changer by itself, but it plants the seed. We’ll need to see reinforcement of this theme between now and November, especially as the O and his minions go more and more personal.

It’s a tool that can be used, so why not use it?

either orr on August 27, 2012 at 4:50 PM

…wish DWS was one of the ladies in the ad!

KOOLAID2 on August 27, 2012 at 4:55 PM

And we call those people “morons“.

squint on August 27, 2012 at 4:23 PM

I for one am long past coddling idiots.

squint on August 27, 2012 at 4:33 PM

squint while I understand your frustration at these people not seeing the truth that is staring them in the face, the fact is that they DON’T SEE IT. The morons and the idiots vote! If we want to win we will have to deal with them on their level — not on the level we want them to be or the level with think they should be. Their level is that they voted for the black guy because, to them, he represented a way to feel good about themselves and a way to bring hope and change to America. Yeah it was stupid, yeah they were voting with their emotions not from facts, yeah it has costs this country way too much in blood gold and pride. However, if we want to have the exceptional America we inherited to pass on as an inheritance to our children — we need to win this election!!!

Winning this election means getting the morons and idiots to vote for R2. Getting them to vote for R2 means giving them comfortable reasons that do not make the feel stupid or raciest. These ads give them those reasons.

Yes I fully understand wanting to knock their heads together yelling “See he is killing the ideals that makes us great while selling our children into generational slavery — you were a fool to vote for this lying dogturd in the first place”. But that will not get them out to vote on Nov. 6 for R2 .

talking_mouse on August 27, 2012 at 4:58 PM

It’s a tool that can be used, so why not use it?

either orr on August 27, 2012 at 4:50 PM

I agree, let’s use all the tools at our disposal. But while our side is the only one committed to lobbing softballs, my question above remains unanswered.

squint on August 27, 2012 at 4:59 PM

I don’t understand the attraction. Let me go look at his stirring tribute to Neal Armstrong again, maybe I’ll be able to understand.

Cindy Munford on August 27, 2012 at 4:11 PM

Yeah. Even if I were a Marxist, and agreed with every word he said, I still couldn’t stand the way this smug punk be-bops around, playin’ all cool, while constantly dissing our boys in uniform. The Armstrong thing is bad enough; the leaks are unforgivable.

SailorMark on August 27, 2012 at 5:00 PM

I may not know a lot but I am positive that these ads are racist. I can’t explain how or why, they just are.

Cindy Munford on August 27, 2012 at 5:00 PM

the leaks are unforgivable.

SailorMark on August 27, 2012 at 5:00 PM

Yes but he had nothing to do with them and it is racist of you to suggest it. //////

Cindy Munford on August 27, 2012 at 5:01 PM

Given the near-constant, heavy implication in the media that opposition to Obama is mean-spirited and/or racist, countering that message with this soft touch is important.

And THAT is what I think is keeping the race close in the polls. 0 should be tanking. But the Bradley Effect is keeping him afloat, nobody wants to be called a racist, even if it means lying to a pollster to hide opposition to Obama.

iurockhead on August 27, 2012 at 5:02 PM

squint while I understand your frustration at these people not seeing the truth that is staring them in the face, the fact is that they DON’T SEE IT. The morons and the idiots vote! If we want to win we will have to deal with them on their level — not on the level we want them to be or the level with think they should be. Their level is that they voted for the black guy because, to them, he represented a way to feel good about themselves and a way to bring hope and change to America. Yeah it was stupid, yeah they were voting with their emotions not from facts, yeah it has costs this country way too much in blood gold and pride. However, if we want to have the exceptional America we inherited to pass on as an inheritance to our children — we need to win this election!!!

Winning this election means getting the morons and idiots to vote for R2. Getting them to vote for R2 means giving them comfortable reasons that do not make the feel stupid or raciest. These ads give them those reasons.

Yes I fully understand wanting to knock their heads together yelling “See he is killing the ideals that makes us great while selling our children into generational slavery — you were a fool to vote for this lying dogturd in the first place”. But that will not get them out to vote on Nov. 6 for R2 .
talking_mouse on August 27, 2012 at 4:58 PM

But that is exacly what these “it’s ok” ads are doing. These ads basically say ‘it’s ok, yes you were fooled and you were stupid, don’t make that mistake again’. Can you not see that? They are not necessary, and could end up doing more harm than good.

bgibbs1000 on August 27, 2012 at 5:07 PM

Get clips of Souza’s 2016: Obama’s America into the hands of these nitwit voters. FWIW: I’ll never see Jake Tapper in the same light again. My response to the part of the movie showing Tapper denigrating Souza: STFU, Jake. Start scrutinizing this Obama charlatan, and stop complaining when others do your job.

BuckeyeSam on August 27, 2012 at 5:07 PM

For Mary Katherine Ham (and anyone foolish enough to cite Luntz):

Luntz video

Luntz has been censured more than once for his unethical practices. Luntz manipulated polling for his client, Nanny Bloomberg, to make it appear that NRA members supported gun control. The NRA came out strongly against his lies.

Dante on August 27, 2012 at 5:14 PM

Yeah – they’re running that AFP ad here in NC and it does hit home. Obama’s ads here are nothing but negative about Romney without even trying to convince anyone that HE himself has done anything worth a darn in his time in the WH but divide the country and run up unprecedented debt. Unprecedented, right? Obama’s buzzword for the first half of his failed presidency? Why don’t we hear it anymore I wonder?…

GuitarSlinger on August 27, 2012 at 5:19 PM

‘Toon of the Day: Obama Akbar!

http://predicthistunpredictpast.blogspot.com/2012/08/toon-of-day-obama-akbar.html

M2RB: Robert Palmer

Resist We Much on August 27, 2012 at 5:22 PM

I get it. It’s ok that you voted for an unqualified moron. Don’t do it again!!

I prefer to say, “I told you so!” Bawawahhhhhaaa!! And I will every chance I get after he loses in Nov!!!!!

JAM on August 27, 2012 at 5:23 PM

Rush is wrong on this. The only way Romney wins this election is by peeling off a sizable number of people who voted for Obama in 2008. He can’t do this by blaming them and telling them they were stupid and fooled by a SCOAMF; he does it by telling them that Obama let them down. It’s not their fault, it’s his.

The people most likely to switch their votes this time are upscale suburban voters, like the people in that AFP ad. The inclusion of the black guy was genius because it also tells those voters, “look, even some black people feel let down by this guy so it’s OK for me to feel that way.”

rockmom on August 27, 2012 at 4:37 PM

And rockmom nails it once again.

Caiwyn on August 27, 2012 at 5:24 PM

It stems from the fact that he is a bargainer instead of a challenger. That is his appeal to whites. That is why the Romney ad that communicates “its okay to vote against a black man and not be racist” strikes fear into the heart of the left. They know without that leverage they lose a large chunk of voters. So likability = I don’t want to vote against the black guy. Understand that and communicate it is okay to vote against him and watch the left go crazy

Theworldisnotenough on August 27, 2012 at 4:08 PM

I think you may have a point. I can’t believe I never thought of it before. I’ve never even remotely considered the possibility that people say Obama is a likable person because they don’t want to say otherwise about a black President. They don’t want to appear “racist”. I’ve been wrongfully called racist since 2008, so I’m immune to those charges and have never had anyone back up their charges. So I never had a reason to say Obama is likable… because he isn’t. But yeah, the general public might have misgivings about stating publicly they don’t think Obama is a nice guy. This would necessarily translate to the polls as well, no?

MrX on August 27, 2012 at 5:31 PM

This started with different “You didn’t build this” ads. People staring back at the camera, at Obama, deadpan, with the “oh, yeah, I didn’t build this?” look on their faces. And it really caught on. Obama gave us a gift with that one, yes he did.

Paul-Cincy on August 27, 2012 at 5:38 PM

But that is exacly what these “it’s ok” ads are doing. These ads basically say ‘it’s ok, yes you were fooled and you were stupid, don’t make that mistake again’. Can you not see that? They are not necessary, and could end up doing more harm than good.

bgibbs1000 on August 27, 2012 at 5:07 PM

I disagree. The impactful part isn’t so much the economic or likability one, but, the racial one. It tells them we understand they had good intentions in voting for a black man about whom they knew very little, but that white guilt thing doesn’t have to be a factor this time around. It shouldn’t make them feel we think they are stupid,..in a way, we are complimenting them for trying to do the right thing. The economic and wealth redistribution issues are icing on the cake.

a capella on August 27, 2012 at 5:43 PM

In writing this post, I found a Jonathan Capehart piece from July calling the “It’s OK” ad the “most dangerous for Obama’s reelection efforts.”

It’s like Sarah Palin said the other day. Obama had his chance, 4 years, thank you for your service, but he didn’t get it done. Bless his heart.

Paul-Cincy on August 27, 2012 at 5:44 PM

I get it. It’s ok that you voted for an unqualified moron. Don’t do it again!!

I prefer to say, “I told you so!” Bawawahhhhhaaa!! And I will every chance I get after he loses in Nov!!!!!

JAM on August 27, 2012 at 5:23 PM

LOL. That may be a wee bit harsh as an ad.

a capella on August 27, 2012 at 5:45 PM

We have been blanketed with these commercials in Ohio and in one, a woman says “he came in with new ideas…” I always scream at the tv “WHAT IDEAS DID HE HAVE?!” Hope and change is not an idea. I volumteer for the Romney campaign and have talked to so many Obama voters that are angry that they voted for him and are voting for Romney. They feel they were lied to and are p###ed about it. I love hearing that and tell them to tell their family and friends. They assure me they are doing just that.

megthered on August 27, 2012 at 5:50 PM

I think you may have a point. I can’t believe I never thought of it before. I’ve never even remotely considered the possibility that people say Obama is a likable person because they don’t want to say otherwise about a black President. They don’t want to appear “racist”.

MrX on August 27, 2012 at 5:31 PM

Millions of liberals believe any criticism of Obama is rooted in his skin color.

(also brings to mind Rush Limbaugh’s Monday Night Football comment about black quarterback McNabb, that got Rush fired:
“I don’t think he’s been that good from the get-go. I think what we’ve had here is a little social concern in the NFL. I think the media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. They’re interested in black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well. I think there’s a little hope invested in McNabb and he got a lot of credit for the performance of his team that he really didn’t deserve. The defense carried this team.”)

It’s a very touchy subject. So the soft tenor of these ads.

Paul-Cincy on August 27, 2012 at 5:51 PM

We have been blanketed with these commercials in Ohio and in one, a woman says “he came in with new ideas…” I always scream at the tv “WHAT IDEAS DID HE HAVE?!” Hope and change is not an idea. I volumteer for the Romney campaign and have talked to so many Obama voters that are angry that they voted for him and are voting for Romney. They feel they were lied to and are p###ed about it. I love hearing that and tell them to tell their family and friends. They assure me they are doing just that.

megthered on August 27, 2012 at 5:50 PM

I don’t doubt what you are saying at all. And I would also submit that most people who are pissed at someone, especially a politician they previously voted for, don’t want to here from the person challenging said politician that said politician is a nice guy because to most of them he no longer is.

bgibbs1000 on August 27, 2012 at 5:59 PM

Does it work? Has it worked? When has it ever worked? I’m asking.

squint on August 27, 2012 at 4:49 PM

According to Luntz it does.

The Count on August 27, 2012 at 6:00 PM

According to Luntz it does.

The Count on August 27, 2012 at 6:00 PM

Well that convinces me!

bgibbs1000 on August 27, 2012 at 6:04 PM

But, the fact remains, many people think he’s a nice guy who inherited a pretty bad economic mess.

Yes, it’s a fact that many people think he “inherited” a pretty bad economic mess, but the truth is that when Obama became part of the majority party in Washington, D.C., and George W. Bush was no longer part of the majority party in Washington, D.C., the date was NOT January 20, 2009…

It was January 3, 2007, when Democrats, including Senators Obama, Biden, Clinton, Reid, and others, along with new Speaker Nancy Pelosi in the House, took over majority control of both houses of Congress, and therefore majority control of all spending.

The last budget passed by a Republican House, Republican Senate, and signed by George W. Bush, was for Fiscal Year 2007, and Fiscal Year 2007 produced a deficit of less than $161 Billion (less than $0.161 Trillion). A mere two years later, the Democrats had created a deficit over $1,412 Billion (over $1.412 Trillion)!

And the Employment-population ratio had tanked from 62.9 at the fiscal year-end September 2007 down to 58.7 at the fiscal year-end September 2009.

HSP | Year | E-P%* | Receipts | Outlays | Deficit (–) … All #s in MILLIONS of $
——————————————————
RRR | 2007 | 62.9% | 2,567,985 | 2,728,686 | -160,701
DDR | 2008 | 61.9% | 2,523,991 | 2,982,544 | -458,553
DDD*| 2009 | 58.7% | 2,104,989 | 3,517,677 | -1,412,688
DDD | 2010 | 58.5% | 2,162,724 | 3,456,213 | -1,293,489
DDD | 2011 | 58.4% | 2,303,466 | 3,603,061 | -1,299,595
DDD | 2012*| 58.4%*| 2,468,599 | 3,795,547 | -1,326,948 (2012* is estimated.)
——————————————————

Party Control (HSP) =
1) The House of Representatives
2) The Senate
3) The President

E-P%* = Employment-population ratio in September of that year. Data from: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000

Receipts, Outlays, and Deficit #’s are according to http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/hist01z1.xls

It was Democrats, not Republicans, who were in the driver’s seat when the economy was driven into the ditch!

I’ve had enough of people wrongly thinking that Obama “inherited” a bad economy from Bush. That is simply not true! Senators Obama, Biden, Clinton, etc. inherited a GOOD economy from the Republicans in January 2007, and THEY drove it into the ditch!

ITguy on August 27, 2012 at 6:06 PM

I think that a lot of this “likeable” rating has a good measure of a Bradley effect about it. People don’t want to be viewed as raaaacist for saying that they dislike the 1st black Prezizzle. I get a strong feeling that in the privacy of the voting booth a lot of that “likeability” will be missing come election day.

MJBrutus on August 27, 2012 at 6:08 PM

ITGUY is right on. Businesses collapsed when Democrats in 2007 raised the minimum wage along with Jennifer Granholm doing the same plus hiking Taxes.

Taxation with Michigan Business tax destroyed businesses as well.
It is amazing that liberals think job creation through higher taxation is a working plan.

Varchild on August 27, 2012 at 6:10 PM

Again, the last budget passed by a Republican House, Republican Senate, and signed by George W. Bush, was for Fiscal Year 2007, and Fiscal Year 2007 produced a deficit of less than $161 Billion (less than $0.161 Trillion).

For the last three years in a row, the Democrat majorities have refused to pass a budget, and for the last four years in a row, they have created annual deficits averaging $1,333 Billion ($1.333 TRILLION) per year. That means that the average annual deficit under Democrats for each of the last four years has been 8.3 times the size of the deficit from the last budget passed by a Republican House, Republican Senate, and signed by George W. Bush.

Let that reality sink in. Democrat majorities are creating annual deficits that are OVER EIGHT TIMES the size of the last Republican majority deficit.

Had enough?

ITguy on August 27, 2012 at 6:15 PM

What’s the saying? Hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue.

“Obama’s a nice guy” is sort of the reverse: the tribute that knowing folk pay to naked emperors.
Like the Jackie O accolades the press heaped on Michelle.

de rigueur on August 27, 2012 at 6:24 PM

HSP | Year | E-P%* | Receipts | Outlays | Deficit (–) … All #s in MILLIONS of $
——————————————————
DDD | 2011 | 58.4% | 2,303,466 | 3,603,061 | -1,299,595
DDD | 2012*| 58.4%*| 2,468,599 | 3,795,547 | -1,326,948 (2012* is estimated.)
——————————————————

There’s a significant error in there regarding Party Control. It should show the Republicans in control of the House for part of FY 2011 and all of FY 2012. I.E.:

HSP | Year | E-P%* | Receipts | Outlays | Deficit (–) … All #s in MILLIONS of $
——————————————————
RRR | 2007 | 62.9% | 2,567,985 | 2,728,686 | -160,701
DDR | 2008 | 61.9% | 2,523,991 | 2,982,544 | -458,553
DDD*| 2009 | 58.7% | 2,104,989 | 3,517,677 | -1,412,688
DDD | 2010 | 58.5% | 2,162,724 | 3,456,213 | -1,293,489
RDD | 2011 | 58.4% | 2,303,466 | 3,603,061 | -1,299,595
RDD | 2012*| 58.4%*| 2,468,599 | 3,795,547 | -1,326,948 (2012* is estimated.)
——————————————————

Party Control (HSP) =
1) The House of Representatives
2) The Senate
3) The President

E-P%* = Employment-population ratio in September of that year. Data from: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000

Receipts, Outlays, and Deficit #’s are according to http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/hist01z1.xls

But the party with Majority control has remained the Democrats since January 3, 2007. Hopefully that will change come January 3, 2013, as a result of the November elections.

ITguy on August 27, 2012 at 6:24 PM

Huge group of people who know by now Obama is a jerk and a liar, but they voted for him and they used to think he was pretty cool. They aren’t real eager to admit that they were totally wrong. They need at least one good thing about Obama to hang that bad decision on – and then move on.

Millions of people out there who need the soft sell.

forest on August 27, 2012 at 6:29 PM

ITguy on August 27, 2012 at 6:06 PM

Good numbers, but the Dems no longer control the House, so those last two should be RDD.

strictnein on August 27, 2012 at 6:30 PM

strictnein on August 27, 2012 at 6:30 PM

Oops… and they were. My eyes are broken.

strictnein on August 27, 2012 at 6:32 PM

I can understand the point being made against these ‘soft’ ads. They make me a little nervous, too. But two things I have to consider:

The people to whom these ads are directed were at one time hard-core Obama supporters. They may be disappointed now but getting them to back down from their defensive positions is not going to be accomplished by shouting ‘facts’ and opinions at them. They need to be coaxed out – ‘pss, pss, pss, here kitty, kitty.’

Secondly, these are not the only ads these people will see. If they can be softened up and their minds opened, the other, harder-hitting ads may get through to them.

timmytee on August 27, 2012 at 6:46 PM

Luntz has been censured more than once for his unethical practices. Luntz manipulated polling for his client, Nanny Bloomberg, to make it appear that NRA members supported gun control. The NRA came out strongly against his lies.

Lew Rockwell Junior on August 27, 2012 at 5:14 PM

“I don’t believe the Judge.”

lol! How do you “censure” a pollster? Take away his milk and cookies?

First of all, Luntz was apparently “censured” by two “polling group” organizations that he doesn’t even belong to, so those “censures” are totally meaningless except to his Leftist critics, and don’t prove he was or is unethical in his methods.

Additionally, the NCPP (one of those organizations that “censured” Luntz) has a Board of Officers that’s a Who’s Who of Democrat-Biased Political “Polling”…remember, these are the “pollsters” who over the past 4 years have routinely over-sampled Democrats from anywhere from 5% to 200% in order to get the results they desire. They are, in fact, contributors to the Democrat Party. http://www.ncpp.org/?q=node/2

Nowhere on NCPP’s website do they ever claim to be “non-partisan”, which means what they say is totally meaningless, except to their own Democrat Media Echo Chamber. They also refuse to identify who they get their funding from, which alone is a major tipoff.

wiki makes a big deal about Luntz getting the “PolitiFact Lie of the Year Award” in 2010; they got their Pampers in a bunch because of how he worded his questions. But PolitiFact’s own Far Left Bias has been Settled Science for years.

Now, as for your silly claim about Frank Luntz being criticized by the NRA. I just did a Google search and found no evidence to support your claim. Can you give us some credible and multi-sourced cites to prove what you’re babbling about? And no links to your father’s website, please.

F-

Del Dolemonte on August 27, 2012 at 6:53 PM

“I’ve seen his definition of Hope and Change. It’s not the Hope and Change that I want.”

Could have seen it before 2008 if you had bothered to look.

While I’m glad that they are disgruntled with Zero, I htink these people represent the major part of the populace who do not do their “due diligence” when it comes time to do their constitutional priviledge, yes, but also responsibility, of voting.

Living next door to Illinois, and in the greater Chicago region, I knew enough of who he was to be disgusted with his fake message of Hope and Change from the get-go. But anyone who listened should have realized that he was selling smoke and mirrors, ’cause it was always so ephemeral, never clearly defining what he would do. The reason is clear: he would never have been elected in the first place, first black President or not.

IrishEyes on August 27, 2012 at 7:33 PM

Now, as for your silly claim about Frank Luntz being criticized by the NRA. I just did a Google search and found no evidence to support your claim. Can you give us some credible and multi-sourced cites to prove what you’re babbling about? And no links to your father’s website, please.

F-

Del Dolemonte on August 27, 2012 at 6:53 PM

Here’s one

Dante on August 27, 2012 at 8:31 PM

Good numbers, but the Dems no longer control the House, so those last two should be RDD.

strictnein on August 27, 2012 at 6:30 PM

Oops… and they were. My eyes are broken.

strictnein on August 27, 2012 at 6:32 PM

You were right. I made a cut-and-paste error in my original portrayal of 2011 and 2012. I caught my own mistake and corrected it in a follow-up comment. You caught the original mistake, and then saw the correction. Your eyes are not broken. :-)

ITguy on August 27, 2012 at 9:22 PM

Living next door to Illinois, and in the greater Chicago region,

IrishEyes on August 27, 2012 at 7:33 PM

Just curious. Are you from Da Region (like me!) or are you behind the cheddar curtain?

JimLennon on August 27, 2012 at 10:01 PM

You say they were wrong,
You’re calling them idiots.
you can’t win that way.

If you start your argument with “You’re a Moron, and here’s why…” you will lose every time. Because people do not want to believe they were morons. They will stick to their vote for Obama, and vote for him again, before they will admit they were stupid.

This is just human nature. But we need former Obama voters to win, so we have to argue that it was smart to vote for him then, but stupid to vote for him now. These ads give the former Obama voter a way out.

Haiku Guy on August 28, 2012 at 5:52 AM

“He was exciting and fresh.”

“Exciting”? w\What kind of racist remark is that?

“New”? Did you say new? I can’t hear you clearly when you’re under that hood.

Nosli W. Nevets on August 28, 2012 at 6:40 AM