NithinCoca.com

I was browsing the blogs this morning, specifically, TalkingPointsMemo, when I noticed this awesome ad from the Obama campaign on TPM’s front page.

Wow! An interactive map targeted to where I live! You can move the Obama “O” to your location, and it then asks you to put in your address and voila! Caucus Location! I was impressed, and began to wonder, are they doing this for every state? And is Hillary doing anything similar? In true blogger spirit, I set out to find out.

Crossposted at DailyKos and OpenLeft

First, a little blurb on online advertising and the sad under-usage of it by political campaigns versus the business world.

Back over the summer, as part of the New Organizing Institute’s intensive summer bootcamp, I was able to attend a seminar on online advertising put together by Google, which highlighted the disparity in ad spending by political campaigns versus business marketing campaigns. According to Google (and the information packet in front of me, sorry, no link :-)), users spent about 30% of their media consumption time online, versus about 60% watching television, a steadily falling amount. Advertisers are slow to catch on, though, and in 2004, business spent only 15% of advertising money online. Campaigns? A paltry 1%, versus almost 90% on television ads. More was spent on Newspaper ads than on online ones!

It was sad, especially when I learned that, with Google Adwords and similar services, you could target a campaign for a specific geographical area, for specific websites, specific keywords, that you could micro-target your message so precisely that the money would be incredibly well spent. Far, far better than you could do with even cable television. This works on not just national races but local ones too. The Google presenters showed us how this had been used in previous races, and the great potential for political campaigns to use the

And only one campaign has seemed to take notice in 2008 (albeit slowly). Barack Obama.

I tested some other search terms in Google and Yahoo! to see what ads would come up, and here is what I found.

“Barack Obama Kansas”

“Barack Obama Minnesota” (another Feb 5th caucus state)

“Barack Obama California” or “Barack Obama” (as well as with other primary states such as Missouri and New York)

I decided to check it Hillary is doing anything similar with her web ads. I typed these search phrases into the two most popular search engines, Google, and Yahoo!

“Hillary Clinton” in Yahoo! = no ads.
“Hillary Clinton Kansas” in Yahoo! = no ads.
“Hillary Clinton” in Google = no ads.
“Hillary Clinton Kansas” in Google = no ads.

One did work though!
Searching for “Clinton” in Google got me this:

With the recent NY Times story, probably not the first thing people should be seeing when they search for Clinton.

Anyone else noticed these ads? I can’t get the graphic ones for other states, please post them if you can clip them. Any similar ones from other candidates? I’ve read McCain was using online ads the most of the R’s, so potentially, we might have the two most online advertising savvy candidates facing off this fall. Does that mean the first online negative ads? Oooo, just imagine!

I was browsing the blogs this morning, specifically, TalkingPointsMemo, when I noticed this awesome ad from the Obama campaign on TPM’s front page.

Wow! An interactive map targeted to where I live! You can move the Obama “O” to your location, and it then asks you to put in your address and voila! Caucus Location! I was impressed, and began to wonder, are they doing this for every state? And is Hillary doing anything similar? In true blogger spirit, I set out to find out.

Crossposted at DailyKos and OpenLeft

First, a little blurb on online advertising and the sad under-usage of it by political campaigns versus the business world.

Back over the summer, as part of the New Organizing Institute’s intensive summer bootcamp, I was able to attend a seminar on online advertising put together by Google, which highlighted the disparity in ad spending by political campaigns versus business marketing campaigns. According to Google (and the information packet in front of me, sorry, no link :-)), users spent about 30% of their media consumption time online, versus about 60% watching television, a steadily falling amount. Advertisers are slow to catch on, though, and in 2004, business spent only 15% of advertising money online. Campaigns? A paltry 1%, versus almost 90% on television ads. More was spent on Newspaper ads than on online ones!

It was sad, especially when I learned that, with Google Adwords and similar services, you could target a campaign for a specific geographical area, for specific websites, specific keywords, that you could micro-target your message so precisely that the money would be incredibly well spent. Far, far better than you could do with even cable television. This works on not just national races but local ones too. The Google presenters showed us how this had been used in previous races, and the great potential for political campaigns to use the

And only one campaign has seemed to take notice in 2008 (albeit slowly). Barack Obama.

I tested some other search terms in Google and Yahoo! to see what ads would come up, and here is what I found.

“Barack Obama Kansas”

“Barack Obama Minnesota” (another Feb 5th caucus state)

“Barack Obama California” or “Barack Obama” (as well as with other primary states such as Missouri and New York)

I decided to check it Hillary is doing anything similar with her web ads. I typed these search phrases into the two most popular search engines, Google, and Yahoo!

“Hillary Clinton” in Yahoo! = no ads.
“Hillary Clinton Kansas” in Yahoo! = no ads.
“Hillary Clinton” in Google = no ads.
“Hillary Clinton Kansas” in Google = no ads.

One did work though!
Searching for “Clinton” in Google got me this:

With the recent NY Times story, probably not the first thing people should be seeing when they search for Clinton.

Anyone else noticed these ads? I can’t get the graphic ones for other states, please post them if you can clip them. Any similar ones from other candidates? I’ve read McCain was using online ads the most of the R’s, so potentially, we might have the two most online advertising savvy candidates facing off this fall. Does that mean the first online negative ads? Oooo, just imagine!

Sorry for the delay, been busy with interview and Feb 5th preparations. You know, it’s only six days to (as I like to call it) Tsunami Tuesday. It seems that lately, we are slowly losing our favorite Republican candidates. Fred, we hardly knew ya. Guiliani, boy, have you fallen hard. Then there’s the others, Duncan Hunter, Tommy Thompson, Jim Gilmore, Sam Brownback, Tom Tancredo, you know, those white guys on the corners at the debates, around all the other white guys?

So, for fun and a little diversion, I thought that I’d put together a few comedic youtube clips together. I call it the Republicans Greatest Hits, 2008 Campaign Edition. Enjoy! Feel free to post anything that I might have missed in the comments (and boy, are there a lot!)

Videos and more below the fold. (more…)

Hillary Clinton vs. John McCain. The most hated, partisan Democrat versus one of the most independent, well liked Republicans. A race we can win?

I’m not talking about the reality of either candidate here. I’m talking public perception. And I’m not talking about ridiculous General Election polls. But we face a real choice soon, so who we want Representing out party this fall, and who can win in the fall. Right now, the two most likely nominees look to be John McCain versus Hillary Clinton. And I see some real problematic issues for Democrats is this is the race this fall, and I will elaborate below.

I believe that Hillary Clinton facing John McCain is a potential electoral disaster for Democrats this fall. And this is why, no GE polls included, just cold, hard facts and projections.

(more…)

In Michigan, it was Democrats for Mitt. Now, is time to back America’s Mayor?

I’ve jumped full hand into the Theory of Republican Chaos. And so far, the numbers were fitting the equation.

First, Mike Huckabee won Iowa. Evangelicals, check.

Then, John McCain won New Hampshire. War-mongers, check.

Then, Mitt Romney won Michigan. Gullible Republicans, check!

Now the cycle had to replicate itself. Romney won Nevada (I was gunning for Ron Paul), so Huckabee had to lay claim to the South and win South Carolina. In a ideal situation, Fred Thompson would have made his comeback, but the theory wasn’t willing to go that far. Crossposted at OpenLeft and NithinCoca.com

John McCain won South Carolina. A dagger to the theory.

Now there’s only one way for chaos to resume control. I think it may be time. Rudy Guiliani must win Florida.

I know. It’s a different situation than in Michigan. Barack Obama and John Edwards are both on the ballot, and even though there are no delegates, the media will take notice as to whoever wins. Though the hotly contested Republican race will probably dominate the media coverage, especially with the latest polls showing a virtual four way tie within the margin of error.

Six points separate John McCain from Mike Huckabee. In reality, any one of the top four can win.

But who would cause the most chaos?

Rudy Guiliani.

Because when the world wavered and history hesitated, he picked up a shovel for a photo-op!

But the real reason is, nothing is better for us than mass chaos on the other side. If McCain wins, he might win it all on Super Tuesday, while the Democrats might continue going for another month. That is unacceptable. So, Floridians, tell all your Republican friends that we fear Rudy Guiliani. That only he can beat the Democrats in November, and that we are so happy to face “Ages three years for every one” John McCain. If necessary, use Chuck Norris.

Rudy! Rudy! Rudy! Lastly, from America’s Top News Source, the real reason that we want Rudy to win.

As we get closer to November, I thought it would be useful to examine the devil in modern politics. The wedge issue. What role will it have this fall, and will it once again doom Democrats chances for the White House?

What is a wedge issue? It’s simple. It’s an social or cultural issue that is meant to galvanize those voters who, based solely on economic factors, would vote Democratic. The wedge issues peels off these voters to the Republican side, scraping and collecting the most vulnerable voters from the working class, traditional Democratic base.

In my opinion, it all started in 1968 with the man who invented modern Republican campaigning (yes, campaigning, not ideology), Richard Millhouse Nixon, in his second attempt to win the White House against Vice President Hubert H Humphrey. In what many consider to be the most important election of the second half of the 20th century, Richard Nixon was able to eek out a small margin of victory and change the course of American history. That is where I’ll begin.

1968 Former VP Richard Nixon (R) vs. VP Hubert H. Humphrey (D) vs. Gov. George Wallace (I)

Wedge Issue(s): Crime and Fear, Busing

Effective: Yes. It was close in the popular vote (.5% difference) but not in the electoral college (301-191). Using the images of the chaos at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, Nixon’s campaigned to prove that Democrats could not keep America safe, whether at home, or abroad with the growing chaos in Vietnam. Nixon siphoned off many disgruntled, Democratic voters especially in suburban area, and kept Humphrey on the defense. Of course, this isn’t the only reason he won, numerous other factors played into this race. But Crime and Fear, and to a lesser extend, the growing controversy over busing, helped Nixon throughout America to win a decisive Electoral College victory.

(more…)

As we get closer to November, I thought it would be useful to examine the devil in modern politics. The wedge issue. What role will it have this fall, and will it once again doom Democrats chances for the White House?

What is a wedge issue? It’s simple. It’s an social or cultural issue that is meant to galvanize those voters who, based solely on economic factors, would vote Democratic. The wedge issues peels off these voters to the Republican side, scraping and collecting the most vulnerable voters from the working class, traditional Democratic base.

In my opinion, it all started in 1968 with the man who invented modern Republican campaigning (yes, campaigning, not ideology), Richard Millhouse Nixon, in his second attempt to win the White House against Vice President Hubert H Humphrey. In what many consider to be the most important election of the second half of the 20th century, Richard Nixon was able to eek out a small margin of victory and change the course of American history. That is where I’ll begin.

1968 Former VP Richard Nixon (R) vs. VP Hubert H. Humphrey (D) vs. Gov. George Wallace (I)

Wedge Issue(s): Crime and Fear, Busing

Effective: Yes. It was close in the popular vote (.5% difference) but not in the electoral college (301-191). Using the images of the chaos at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, Nixon’s campaigned to prove that Democrats could not keep America safe, whether at home, or abroad with the growing chaos in Vietnam. Nixon siphoned off many disgruntled, Democratic voters especially in suburban area, and kept Humphrey on the defense. Of course, this isn’t the only reason he won, numerous other factors played into this race. But Crime and Fear, and to a lesser extend, the growing controversy over busing, helped Nixon throughout America to win a decisive Electoral College victory.

(more…)

Too cool!

You can see the live Caucus results here.