Home > Politics > Matthew Dowd

Matthew Dowd

Matthew Dowd has been a campaign strategist in races throughout the country. In 30 years, Dowd has worked for Democrats and Republicans, most recently serving as chief strategist for President George W. Bush in 2004.

« Previous | Main

Obama Didn't Buy the Presidency

December 08, 2008 6:10 AM

Confirmation bias is  usually defined as when as humans we seek out information that confirms our held beliefs and ignore facts that run counter to those beliefs.  It affects how we make decisions at many levels.   As human beings we do this because we are more comfortable with hearing things that agree with what we already think.

This bias also exists in how pundits and the media examine what goes on in political campaigns, and it usually means that many times we learn the wrong lessons in our observations.

As I have read recent press reports and analysis of Obama’s spending advantage over McCain in this year’s presidential race, I have noted a constant repetition of what I believe is a myth in politics, and this has been done even by my former colleague Karl Rove in the Wall Street Journal analyzing Obama’s advantage in ad spending.

The myth:  Obama won this year’s presidential race in large part because he outspent McCain on television.   By selectively picking facts that confirm a belief, this myth has been told far and wide.   And it is a fiction.

Yes, Obama had a major spending advantage on television.  But as we examine the facts closer, we learn there is no significant relationship to ad buys and vote counts.

This is something I, along with others, studied after the 2004 race, and in that process learned that in a presidential race, paid media buys have little impact on the outcome. 

The only advertising that matters are the spots that get taken up by the media and repeated in a news context over and over again.  Think to yourself about which spots you remember in this campaign.  They are likely the ones that aired very little (Clinton's 3 a.m. ad, McCain's Paris Hilton ad, etc), and these ads had as much recall in places they were never bought as in places they were.

Here are some interesting facts that I hope counter the myth of ad buys in presidential races:

In 2004, John Kerry lost nationally a margin of almost 3 percent.  In 2008, Obama won nationally by a margin of nearly 7 percent.  So the overall national marginal movement was roughly ten points to Obama’s advantage.  Thus, one would conclude that Obama’s movement in states where he overwhelmed McCain with ad spending would be much higher than this 10-point movement, and in states where Obama put little to no ad resources this movement would be less.

Surprise!  That didn’t happen. 

Take the major ten battleground states where Obama put the vast part of his spot advertising buy (such as Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Pennsylvania, etc).  In examining Obama’s movement in those states as a whole versus the other 41 jurisdictions you find that there is no difference in movement between those two places.   Obama’s margin rose on average ten points in these ten battleground states, and rose on average ten points in the other 41 states (with DC). 

Hmmmm.  So Obama outspends McCain in those 10 states in total by about a 2 to 1 margin, but has as much movement in places he had no spending advantage.

In fact, some of the biggest movements to Obama were in places no ads were bought locally like Utah and Vermont and California.  And one of the bottom moving states to Obama was Ohio where he had a significant spending advantage over McCain. 

So that is the broad examination of ad buys, lets take a look at some more interesting specific examples to see if the same pattern is revealed.

Two non-target states provide us with some rather interesting information and those are Delaware and Maryland.  Neither state was on anyone list of targets in this years presidential race and resource allocation to those states was very limited.  However, counties in those states are effected by ad buys in target states (some Delaware counties are in the Philadelphia media market and some Maryland counties are in the Washington Dc market).

If one only relied on bias, we would conclude that movement in the counties within the target media markets in those two states would be dramatically higher than counties that were outside those buys.  Lets take a look at what the facts show.

Obama and his allies outspent McCain by nearly 2 to 1 in the Philadelphia market, but there was no difference in vote movement between non Philly Delaware counties and Philly Delaware counties.    Obama got almost the exact same margin jump in both places!   

And Maryland provides even a more stark example of this explosion of the ad myth.  Obama had a 9 to 1 spending advantage in the Washington DC market!   And there was no significant difference in movement for Obama between Maryland counties in the DC media market and Maryland counties in the Baltimore media market where Obama had no local media buys.  Let me repeat – Obama received no extra jump in these DC Maryland counties even though he had a 9 to 1 ad spending advantage over McCain.

So what’s our takeaway?  Pundits and press and consultants constantly repeat the refrain that spending largely determines Presidential race results and that ad buys have a significant impact on results.  This is simply not born out by the facts. 

As I learned, having been involved directly in 2004 and looking closely at this year, the major impact on vote movement in Presidential races have to do most with the political environment, big events and moments in the campaign, and message discipline primarily as it is revealed in news reporting on television, radio, print and the internet.   While ads and spending can more affect down ballot races or less high profile campaigns, in presidential races their impact is minimal. 

I hope this adds to the discussion and maybe help future conduct in and reporting on presidential races.  Beware confirmation bias.   Just because a belief has been repeated over and over again doesn’t make it true.  A good life lesson, too. 

December 8, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (77)

User Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Yeah sure Matthew - yeah right, uh huh, Just like he quit smoking too..uh huh..sure...stop being Obamas lap dog and take a serious look at his foreign campaign contributions. Talk to the staff members who quit because they became disgusted watching foreign money pour in and then be readdressed in new envelopes with US postage showing on them. He didnt raise almost 700 million legally and if you beleive that then you shouldnt be employed as a journalist.

Posted by: jimbo | Dec 8, 2008 6:25:38 AM

"Jimbo" lol - Hey Parker James Shannon, aka Beckwith, is that you?

I know you're awake, busy putting out junk at FR and other places.

Throwing out more made-up dirt. Get. a. life.

Poor "Jimbo" can't provide a link to a reputable source that "staff members...quit because they they became disgusted watching..." but heck, truth never stopped "Jimbo" before, so why should it now?

Posted by: John Dean | Dec 8, 2008 6:40:21 AM

thanks john..go back to the kool aid fountain and keep drinking..

Posted by: jimbo | Dec 8, 2008 6:44:31 AM

Obama won the election because Independents and true Conservatives voted for him. I left the GOP because of the ignorant NeoCons that took over the Rep. party. They still show up on these boards shaking their limp pom-poms in anger and frustration.

Posted by: Clint | Dec 8, 2008 7:13:24 AM

From my studies, name recogniton is the primary factor in voter decision. Advertising certainly helps with that factor, because many people rely on locally respected leaders to supply political advice. Another major factor is the political affiliation of one's parents. In the hostoric election of a black man, this could have happened long ago if more qualified voters had trounled thenselves to vote. Voter turn-out has been dismal because nothing was in danger of being taken away from the controled, uninformed, and lazy.

Posted by: olin tucker | Dec 8, 2008 7:27:31 AM

Dowdy!

Come on! We ALL know better! No need to
try to sway us now!

Posted by: jeep395 | Dec 8, 2008 7:40:14 AM

Obama didn't do anything that all other presidents haven't done. Whoever spends most, wins. That formula has a 100% success rate. Guys like Dowd labor under some delusion of awe-inspiring hope and brotherly love. We'll all sit around camp fires holding hands singing Cumbaya. Ain't gonna happen. Whoever spends most wins. Every time.

Posted by: Nobody's Fool | Dec 8, 2008 7:40:19 AM

It will be years before we find out the truth. Until then, it will be hard to believe anything the press says about Obama given their uncritical support for Obama throughout the campaign. We are now going through a period where the press is trying to justify its behavior, like Mathew Dowd does here.

Posted by: tina | Dec 8, 2008 7:44:15 AM

"Just because a belief has been repeated over and over again doesn’t make it true."

True enough.

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State." - Joseph Goebbels

http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2008/08/16/black-box/

Posted by: visor | Dec 8, 2008 7:48:42 AM

Whining losers,

In the 2000 election, Bush raised record amounts of money and I heard no Conservative complaining about it. What I see is a bunch of sore losers who think that the only person qualified to be president is a old white male who drinks the neo-con kool-aid and is willing to start wars over anything to prove how tough they are. I like millions of other Americans (DEMs, Reps and Inds) donated money monthly to Obama ($50) and I am a retired veteran who works hard every day for what I earn. You will not accepted the fact that you had no message and that your normal attacks or hatred and intolerance didn't work because the American people saw through your lies.

Posted by: Mike | Dec 8, 2008 8:06:26 AM

I can't see the argument is here.
Ad spend didn't have as nearly as smuch sway as Obama haters claim it did. That's a plain and simple fact through evaluation in hindsight and can't be undone.

However, it did help Obama --maintain--(the key issue) his polls (and votes) where there was no previous clear advantage and he could not afford to lose ground.

Having saud that, I don't think you can rule out or (let's face it) ignore the fact that both John McCain and Hillary Clinton ran - in the main - very negative campaigns in contrast to Obamas key messages.

Sure, there was negativity on all sides but they really outdid Obama in the hating stakes - and seeing as they )JMc & HC) spent so little, those sentiments really did play a part in underpinning key messages in both of their campaigns. Hence why they rightfully lost.

I don't remember Obama pandering to racist sentiments with suggestive and surreptitious language and goading (dangerous!) remarks. Ahem, Palin.

Posted by: M. Connaughton | Dec 8, 2008 8:14:32 AM

If this is true, than why did both campaigns spend the lion's share on TV advertising?

Posted by: PJ | Dec 8, 2008 8:15:22 AM

yes, he did buy the presidency.

Posted by: Tra la la | Dec 8, 2008 8:36:11 AM

yes, he did buy the presidency.
Just like bush did

Posted by: Tra la la | Dec 8, 2008 8:37:35 AM

It isinteresting that at a time of dire financial news everywhere you turn, that anyone can defend the concept of a presedential election costing 1 billion dollars.

With this kind of money being tossed out, there is no way that the winner (No Matter Which Party), can avoid having to return some favors!

The real question you need to ponder is .... do you ant the next one to cost 2 billion, 4 billion, or more
?

Posted by: Mike_C | Dec 8, 2008 8:50:45 AM

Dowd is ABC's Obama liason...if you don't know that by now you lack discernment totally!

Posted by: please! | Dec 8, 2008 9:26:20 AM

Whomever has the strongest support amongst voters, is best able to raise money. Duh.

Posted by: Yukon Sam | Dec 8, 2008 9:31:05 AM

I am very much impressed the way Matthew Dowd writes this article.

The media are claiming that they do not see the change "when Obama picks familiar faces".

I also urge the Media to show us the change. Reporting negatives the way they are used to, does not get us anywhere.

I am happy Matthew Dowd has shown the change, and I hope the rest will follow asuit.

Posted by: FM | Dec 8, 2008 9:40:40 AM

Yep....please is right ..he is ABCs Obama liason like Maureen Dowd is the NY Time's liason. Very few news outlets can be unbaised anymore and just report the facts. Most of them have continued their love affair with Bam Bam and he hasnt even done anything yet. Unending devotion and unconditional love for the Chicago politician. At a time wqhen everyone is complaining that they cannot afford gas, food, mortgages,college etc they think we are stupid enough to believe that average families pumped hundreds into the empty suits campaign. What a fairy tale. We cant wait to see what they will be writing 6 months from now when golden boy falls off his pedestal.

Posted by: jimbo | Dec 8, 2008 9:45:07 AM

Will true journalism EVER see the light of day again in America? Dowd......get off your messiah worshipping knees and report the facts. Let the public decide. I don't care how much you have "studied" spending in elections....you are dead wrong. Hussein bought htis election with $750M. What you and other so-called reporters should do is to investigate where that money came from. Odinga (Kenya), Gadaffi (Algeria), Ali -Muhamad (Syria). The list goes on and on. This is what the public needs to know. This election is so fraught with fraud and NONE OF THE NEWS MEDIA IS WILLING TO GO DOWN THAT PATH>>>>>>>WHY????

Posted by: chotolal7 | Dec 8, 2008 10:26:13 AM

Next Comments »

Post a comment