By most metrics, the "are you better off than you were four years ago" question plays heavily in President Obama's favor. Indeed, it's not even close -- the economy was shrinking, now it's growing; the economy was hemorrhaging jobs, now it's adding jobs; the stock market was going down, now it's going up; the auto industry was collapsing, now it's thriving; etc.
But to borrow a line from Bill Clinton's DNC speech, too many people "do not feel it yet."
Hoping to change some minds, the Obama campaign unveiled a minute-long ad over the weekend on this very subject.
For those who can't watch clips online, the spot shows Mitt Romney arguing that we're not better off than we were in January 2009. The ad then shows the crises underway when Obama took office, and the transition to a healthier economy now.
The voiceover then looks ahead: "We're not there yet, but the real question is: whose plan is better for you? The President's plan asks millionaires to pay a little more to help invest in a strong middle class, clean energy, and cut the deficit. Mitt Romney's plan? A $250,000 tax break for multi-millionaires. Roll back regulations on the banks that cratered the economy, and raise taxes on the middle class."
Viewers then see Clinton say, "They want to go back to the same old policies that got us in trouble in the first place," and Obama conclude, "We're not going back, we are moving forward."
It's a spot that checks off a lot of boxes in 60 seconds -- it points to economic progress; it reminds voters that they prefer Obama's agenda to Romney's, it connects Romney to the Bush-era debacles, and it connects Obama to Clinton, who, thanks in part to Romney, is the most popular political figure in America.
And perhaps most importantly, the spot concedes that the media and the public will not simply ignore the "better off" question, and that Team Obama has to present a compelling answer. This spot suggests they have a story worth telling.
There's ample evidence that Romney's advantage on the economy has slipped badly, and the point of an ad like this one is to further level the field. If you live in a battleground state, expect to hear this message quite a bit over the next 50 days.
Leave a Comment:
This ad has played where I live in Ohio. I found it quite effective, but I'm not the target audience. What I liked most is that the ad talks to the viewer like a grown up. it says you have a choice and here's why you should choose Obama. It doesn't try to scare the viewer.
It was a very effective and grown-up ad in my opinion as well. But the kid in me still wants to see a mashup of Clinton and Bill Maher slamming the GOP position with "We aren't happy with how fast Blackenstein is cleaning up our mess. So fire him and put us back in charge".
To add a little more,what shape is your 401K in now as compared to 4yrs.ago?
My IRA accounts have regained all of the value they lost, plus a little bit more.
Obama/Biden 2012!
The Romney campaign's pitch was decided a long time ago, and was predicated on the consensus that the economy was "bad." Without credible details about how his plans would be better than the President's, Romney can only pound on the same tired "better off" argument.
It is similar to his stance on foreign policy. He says the administration "lacks resolve" but to me it sounds like the neocons dislike any policy more diplomatic than "Hulk smash."
For much of the current menu of Koch-backed pro-Rmoney ads, I hear a vicious corruption of FDR's gem: "All we have to offer is FEAR itself". This new Obama ad does do a lot to address the lies of those superpac ads that are Rove-ing all over the airwaves. Facts, when well presented, are powerful allies. More like this, please.
It's not just ironic, but accurate that the "better off than 4 years ago" question took a new direction in early September. Republicans would like to forget that Lehman Day (Sept 15, 2008) happened on their watch.
Romney's claim that one is not better off now, only works for those who aren't. Most of us are. So, whom is it really aimed at? It seems to me to be a very narrow cast at the low information undecideds.
While we are not wildly better off, we are a few steps back from the abyss.
I've seen the ad here in Florida and it's a nice response and effective.
Romney's new add that is running is about jobs going to China and keeps mentioning "cheaters". For someone who has been in the center of a storm regarding his taxes it strikes me as very strange term to use as I think of Romney as a cheater and hearing him say that keeps reminding me of that fact. Am I missing something deeper in Romney's messaging?
I think it all the confusion on Mitt's message is because his true platform is unspeakable. Any anti-Obama message will do, truth be damned, because the GOP is reaching for the John Birchers and the KKK vote. He can't say vote for me I'm white, his supporters can't say it's racial, but any other reason, no matter how patent a lie, will do for the GOP as a stand-in. Watch the clip of Santorum on the other link. The right can keep telling the big lie that Obama is a practicing Muslim, but the far right is pushing the Taliban platform here at home.
That same ad is running here in NH as well, Ankhtraveler, and I had the exact response you did.
We all know that Rove's only game plan is to accuse one's opponent of that which you are vulnerable. This time it doesn't work as well (since we're onto it, no doubt). But I bet they continue to have Romney say the word, "cheater" many more times: it's the only plan they have.
This is like touting being in a life boat after the Titanic went down. Yes, you're better off than you were, but not by much. Four years and a compliant Congress for the first two hasn't shown well compared to other recessions...
http://dailybail.com/storage/chart-jobs-recession.JPG?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1320814372329
Damn it, Bull, if you're going to put stuff like that up at least warn us. That was good coffee I have to clean up now.
So you're saying that the Bush Administration sunk the nation?
For someone who doesn't care about what he says as long as people get mad at him so he can masturbate, you're not doing yourself any favors...
http://moelane.com/2012/06/09/troll-hunting-101/
It's not quite as dumb as suggesting the Titanic should have been repaired by now. Especially by the guy who doesn't see anything wrong with the way the Titanic was captained.
So in this analogy, GWBush was the captain of the Titanic, pushing the ship to break the record for a trans-Atlantic crossing. Urged on by the owners (capitalists), who removed half the lifeboats because they cluttered the decks. Blaming the lookouts (regulators) for the incident, after depriving them of their binoculars.
Obama got the people into the life boats, radioed nearby ships, etc etc.
Now you want to put the captain and the owner back in charge, and their prescription is what? Declare icebergs illegal. Oh, and make sure lifeboats are provided according to ticket price.
Still using this argument, despite the fact that it has been debunked many times over (on this blog, nonetheless)?
http://www.thepragmaticpundit.com/2012/09/president-obama-had-filibuster-proof.html - Here's a time line if you need a refresher. He had 72 days.
Hemorrhoid is retreating. Do not scratch hemorrhoid. Do not mention hemorrhoid's name. Use space to make jokes.
You're right, Shooter. Bush sunk the economy and Obama sent us lifeboats to bring us to shore. Romney would have let us drown.
Do not mention hemorrhoid name.
Do not mention hemorrhoid name.
Do not mention hemorrhoid name.
Do not mention hemorrhoid name.
...
I'm still waiting to see Romney's taxes because I bet he is a lot better off than he was 4 years ago.
It is quite obvious that the far right is just dancing around the real issues of A)Obama is a democrat who worked for the poor in Chicago and B)Obama is black.
Every time they try to find a talking point that avoids their true problem with him they shoot themselves in the foot.
Oh and there is a big C) C being that they want the government to become a theocracy dictating their religious dogma while letting big business get away with murder.
I am still amazed at how a handful of wealthy scumbags are able to get such a crowd, of what might be reasonable people otherwise, to leave reason behind as they march to the beat of Madison avenue drummers.
You presume "otherwise reasonable" I presume "otherwise racist". I wonder which of us is statistically less correct?
This whole line of attack is such a gift to the Obama campaign. It was actually hard for them to make this argument--telling people now, four years later, how bad things were back in 2008 was starting to get stale no matter how true it was. It opened Obama up to the "You're still blaming things on Bush" response.
But now the R's have given him his opportunity on a platter. You want to contrast today with four years ago? Fine, let's talk about what was going on four years ago. He's responding to their attack, so he has an excuse to make the whole argument he wanted to make anyway.
Mitt should sue his campaign for political malpractice.
I hope Obama asks Romney in the debates: "Are YOU personally better off than you were four years ago?"
What could he say? Yes, I've made out like a bandit. No: then how much did you lose and how?
Follow-up question: "Care to show us your tax returns to prove it?"
Trust me, I'm Mitt, and he isn"t !!!!!
Good spot, money well spent. As for the comments above, anyone fortunate to still have a 401k/unemployment insurance; yes, things have definitely turned aound since the Bush cabal raided the till.
Every time I hear about one of these poll questions of "are you better off?," I wish one would ask "if you could switch how you are now with how you were four years ago, would you?" "Are you better off?" lets people focus on now and whether things are currently going well, rather than asking them to really think about exactly what was going on four years ago.
No more comments for this Blog - Back to the Constitutionalists - If this blog gets any more left, it will fall off into the pacific ocean