Smart Blog
In 2012, Mitt Romney lost New Hampshire, Ohio, Florida and Virginia by 429,000 votes collectively for a total of 64 electoral votes. Had the Romney campaign been able to persuade half of the 429,000 voters in these swing states, he would have garnered 270 electoral votes and would be sitting in the Oval Office today.
VIRGINIA
Consider this: Mitt Romney loses New Hampshire, Ohio, Florida and Virginia by 429,000 votes collectively for a total of 62 electoral votes. Three of the four swing states have Republican Governors with the exception of New Hampshire. Had the Romney campaign been able to persuade half of the 429,000 voters mentioned above, he would have garnered 270 electoral voters and would be sitting in the Oval Office today.
This blog series will take a look at VA, OH, FL and NH and consider which counties Romney could have focused on in order to win in the Electoral College. We are interested in uncovering where the key geographic counties are in each of the swing states.
VIRGINIA: 12 KEY COUNTIES
In 2012, Romney lost Virginia by 149,298 votes and needed only 75,000 votes to win the Commonwealth. Where did Romney need to improve his vote performance in order to claim victory in the Old Dominion? We have boiled it down to 12 counties:
NARROW-THE-GAP COUNTIES
Had Romney improved his vote percentage by 1.3 points on average in the 6 counties/cities listed above he would have gained 15,000 more votes. That leaves Romney with 60,000 more votes needed to win the Old Dominion.
MUST WIN SWING COUNTIES
Had Romney won these four counties by an average margin of 8.8 points he would have gained 54,000 more votes. That leaves Romney with 6,000 more votes needed to win Virginia.
IMPROVE-THE-GAP COUNTIES
Had Romney improved his margin by an average of 1.6 points he would have gained 6,000 more votes needed to win the Commonwealth.
CONCLUSION
Romney needed to shift the overall statewide vote by 2 points (or 75,000 votes) in order to win Virginia.
Over $980 million was spent on television and radio advertising during the 2012 Presidential General Election. When the ad spending from the GOP Primary is included, this total surpasses $1 billion spent on television and radio advertising. Political ads dominated the airwaves in the battleground states throughout the election. Who paid for all of those ads?
Of the $980 Million Total Spent: Candidates (56%) vs. Issue Groups (44%)
Not surprisingly, the two advertisers who spent the most money on political ads were the two candidates themselves: Barack Obama was the biggest spender at $335 million and Mitt Romney was the second biggest spender at $213 million. Between the two of them, the candidates spent $548 million on ads – but that only counts for a little over half (56%) of the total amount spent on presidential-related ads this election cycle. The remaining 44% (another $434 million) was spent on behalf of the candidates by 23 different Super PACs and issue groups.
Of the $980 Million Total Spent: Team Romney (60%) vs. Team Obama (40%)
Sixty percent of the money spent on presidential ads came from Pro-Romney advertisers ($583 million) and 40% of the money spent on ads came from pro-Obama advertisers ($400 million).
The majority (63%) of Team Romney’s ad spend came from issue groups who spent $370 million on behalf of Romney, while the candidate spent $213 million (37%).
On the other hand, the majority (84%) of Team Obama’s buy came from the candidate himself ($335 million), while issue groups only made up 16% of Team Obama’s spend ($64 million).
Of Team Romney’s $583 Million: Issue Group (63%) vs. Candidate (37%)
There were 12 major issue groups that placed ads on behalf of Mitt Romney during the election.
Who won the ad war?
Team Romney outspent Team Obama in terms of pure dollars. This is largely due to the multiple issue groups that advertised on behalf of Romney. But in political advertising, more money does not always equal more ads reaching more voters.
While issue groups indisputably played a significant role in Presidential advertising this election, it is important to consider the difference between the worth of a candidate’s media buy in comparison to the worth of an issue group’s media buy. Federal Communications Commission law guarantees candidates the best prices for purchasing ad time, but these laws do not apply to political issue groups. This means that issue groups often end up paying double, triple or even quadruple the market rate that candidates pay for the same advertisement. This ratio varies across different markets and time periods, and many issue groups successfully negotiate competitive rates, but these advertisers do not receive the same price protection that political candidates enjoy. Candidates can reach voters at a lower price.
Even though Team Romney outspent Team Obama by $183 million, does that mean that Team Romney won the ad war? After all, the majority (63%) of Team Romney’s media buy came from political issue groups (who most likely paid higher rates), while the majority (84%) of Team Obama’s total spend came from the candidate (who most likely paid lower rates). There are several major factors to consider when approaching this question.
In the next few weeks, I will be exploring these questions through more in-depth posts on each subject.
Presidential Race Heats Up Online After Supreme Court’s Latest Decision
When the Supreme Court voted to uphold Obamacare, it’s no surprise that this became an immediate game-changer in the 2012 race to the White House. In terms of support and fund-raising both campaigns can report successes. Also not surprising was the instantaneous response that came from both sides of the political spectrum online. As soon as the Supreme Court decision was public both Romney and Obama’s campaigns got to work revising online messaging on their websites and social media pages, implementing fundraising online and using their already established email and cell phone databases to infiltrate their supporters immediately with relevant messaging about the decision.
Because of the impact (positive or negative depending on whether you sit on the left or the right) that is set to take place with the decision of the health care law; it’s now become one of the most important points of contention in this already heated race to the White House. Both campaigns have leveraged this to bring in fundraising dollars following the decision. CNN reported that Mitt Romney’s camp had raised $4.6 million online alone by the Friday morning following the decision. Likewise, Obama’s operation, while not revealing specific numbers, said they had surpassed Team Romney’s announced total. Through traditional methods of fundraising neither side would have been able to raise that amount of money in that short a period of time. While most online donations are smaller on average the scale of reach of online allows for campaigns to connect with more supporters, more quickly.
Beyond scale of reach, the internet allows for quick adjustment of messaging which helps to keep things relevant and timely. Both campaigns were able to promptly change messaging on their websites and social media pages so that the minute a supporter heard of the decision they could unite with their party through their candidate online. Romney’s campaign changed the homepage of their website to reflect the court’s decision, writing “Obamacare Upheld: Elections have consequences,” underneath was a large red “donate” button. More than a week later, Romney is still riding the wave of the decision to uphold Obamacare. Check out his website here. http://www.mittromney.com/forms/real-reform. In addition both campaigns utilized Facebook to garner support following the decision, again Romney still pushing the need for reform in this space as well (http://www.facebook.com/mittromney).
Emails and text messages, now a part of everyday life in America, were leveraged as well in an effort to take advantage of this game-changing Supreme Court decision. Romney’s campaign emailed and sent text messages to supporters asking for campaign contributions with language addressing the recent decision. They said, “The stakes couldn’t be higher. Donate $10 or more to put a stop to the policies of Barack Obama and the liberal Democrats.” Obama’s campaign manager fought back on the online space sending an email to supporters with the subject line “Let’s win the damn election.” The email drove home their point as to why it’s necessary to keep Obama in office.
Because both campaigns were able to quickly adjust their campaign messaging and effectively reach millions of supporters within minutes of the Supreme Court decision the end was result was increased support and increased fundraising dollars. When we have the technology of the internet at our fingertips we are not limited to positive results it can achieve for any campaign.
The White House’s early stance antagonized Catholics and could cost Democrats in November.
The Obama administration’s support for mandatory contraceptive coverage has put the Catholic Church in a quandary: sacrifice beliefs or face having its schools, charities and hospitals under government sanction.
It was an odd strategy by the White House. Politically, there appears to have been a short-term gain in that it helped stir the pot in the GOP presidential primary. But long term, it may serve to antagonize Catholic voters, even after the White House’s compromise position was announced on Friday. Come November, the issue could hurt Obama and his fellow Democrats.
Obama can’t win reelection with 2010 levels of support among white Catholics. Last cycle, Republicans won the white Catholic vote by a 59-39 margin. Sweeping GOP victories in crucial swing states such as Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin could only have occurred with strong support from white Catholics. It was the best Republican year for white Catholic support since the 1920s.
It’s true that overall Catholics are a vote. Obama won 54 percent of all Catholic votes in 2008, while President George W. Bush won 52 percent of them in 2004. But the white Catholic vote is no longer a swing vote on the presidential level. Since 1972, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were the only Democrats to have won the white Catholic vote.
It’s notable that Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was able to win white Catholics 52-48 even while Obama won them overall by a solid margin. The controversy over contraceptive coverage won’t help Obama chip away at that margin and could propel Republicans into a larger share of the overall Catholic vote in November.
Moreover, liberal Catholics are now upset with the administration like never before. Some of the most active Catholic supporters of Obama, such as former Ambassador Doug Kmiec and author Michael Sean Winters, now say they cannot vote for him. Media allies including E.J. Dionne, Mark Shields and Chris Matthews criticized Obama’s early stance and it’s unclear how they’ll react to the Friday announcement. Catholic allies of the president such as former DNC Chairman Tim Kaine and Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) have also expressed disagreement with the mandate.
None are going to become Republicans any time soon, but for Catholics who are less tied into Democratic Party politics, the alienation from Obama is even more pronounced. The controversy over Obama’s commencement address at Notre Dame in 2009 and the gutting of the Stupak Amendment already isolated liberal Catholics from the mainstream of Church life. Any Catholic involved in a pro-Obama effort in 2012 is going to lose any remaining credibility even among less devout Catholics.
Chris Palko works as an assistant media analyst at Smart Media Group, a Republican political media buying agency in Alexandria, Va. He is a graduate of American University and George Washington University’s Graduate School of Political Management.
A version of this post was also published on Campaign and Election’s blog, Campaign Insider.
As the 2010 Midterm Election heats up, so does the arena of political advertising. Candidates’ campaign budgets for purchasing media are beginning to balloon as races become more competitive across the country. Looking back to October 2008 then, candidate Barack Obama, became the first presidential candidate in the United States to purchase advertising space in the video game market. According to the Obama campaign’s pre-general election filing records, Obama spent $44,465.78 for online video game advertising with the Massive Corporation—a very affordable expenditure for a presidential campaign with deep coffers. Clearly not a keystone of the Obama media campaign, the video game advertising exploration was notable as well as novel however to the political world.
Certainly criticism exists. Granted the purchase was well timed (October 6-November 3, 2008) during a critical month of the election. The timing of the ad purchase also leads you to believe that the funds were used after ad purchases of a far higher priority took place. Regardless, the purchase begs several questions. Could that $44.5k been spent more efficiently on a television buy in a competitive swing-state market? The purchase was specifically targeted to include ten battleground states (Ohio, Florida, Iowa, Colorado, Indiana, Montana, North Carolina, New Mexico, Nevada, and Wisconsin). However, by law a citizen must be 18 years of age and registered to legally vote in the United States. What percentage of audience met those criteria in an online gaming community? Massive Corporation, the in-game ad firm places restrictions on various advertisements, such as tobacco or alcohol related ads due to the age restrictions of the specific games in question, providing further hesitation to legitimize the target voter demographic in question.
Interestingly, this week the Nielsen Company released the findings of a study regarding the effectiveness of in-game advertisements. This was the first time that a study of this kind was performed. The analysis included more than 100,000 U.S. households and focused on many of the same game titles that were purchased by the Obama campaign back in 2008. The study found that “in-game advertising increased household dollars spent on Gatorade by 24%, and offered a return on investment of $3.11.” These results are extremely energizing and enlightening. Whether or not political advertisements will be met with the same success as retail advertisements is still open for debate, research, and review. Another unknown is whether or not voters will see an increase in in-game ads in upcoming elections. Certainly the presence of in-game ads is directly proportional to the size and scope of a particular campaign budget. This being said, the past decade has been witness to an explosion of new mediums of political advertising, as well as the continuous growth of campaign funds. One thing is for sure, political advertising in future elections will continue to take voters by surprise by appearing in unexpected forms.
814 King St. Suite 400 Alexandria, VA 22314 | 703.518.4747 
Keep in Touch!
