Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Prohibited: "electronic advertising that reaches a significant percentage of the voters..."

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 06:17 PM
Original message
Prohibited: "electronic advertising that reaches a significant percentage of the voters..."
.. in the aforementioned states"

That is part of the pledge that Obama, Edwards and Clinton signed.

It specifically mentioned electronic advertising in the pledge.

Prohibited: "electronic advertising that reaches a significant percentage of the voters in the aforementioned states."

Cable television and satellite reaches 92% of Florida households.

What part of this is hard to understand?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
AX10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 06:18 PM
Response to Original message
1. It's very clear.
Obama is breaking the rules.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Proud2BAmurkin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 06:19 PM
Response to Original message
2. He was to incompetent to figure out how to avoid it and then he lied about getting approval
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Levgreee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 06:22 PM
Response to Original message
3. My argument is
Edited on Sun Jan-27-08 06:23 PM by Levgreee
They didn't consider national ads when they wrote up the pledge, they didn't differentiate between national ads, and ads specific to Florida, and catered toward Floridians.

I'm not arguing against you in saying the pledge, WHEN TAKEN LITERALLY, doesn't ban national ads. I agree with you there.


But, the pledge is brief, and non-specific. Pledges like this can be clarified and modified.


Assuming the people WHO WROTE IT now approve of the national ads, that means they didn't make the clarification that they should've between national ads and Florida specific ads when they wrote the agreement, and are now clarifying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. But that hasn't occurred
the Obama campaign went to one state party chair and got an answer from her they liked and unilaterally went ahead with the buy.

In specific violation of the pledge. The pledge banned electronic advertising if it reaches a significant portion of a state. It doesn't give any loopholes for cable or for anything else. It's there in black and white and Obama violated it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Levgreee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. The loophole is that it was a pledge written up relatively casually and without
Edited on Sun Jan-27-08 06:33 PM by Levgreee
extensive thought about extenuating circumstances. It was said by one of the DNC chairs that "unequivocally" it is not within the power of the pledge to ban national ads.

you DONT think it's a little silly to say he can't play an ad to reach the other 49 states, because it reaches one? That is just ludicrous to say that's reasonable, in my opinionn. It would SERIOUSLY hurt his ability to reach audiences in the Feb. 5 states, which is pivotal to the election.

The pledge was not meant to be that extensive, in considering electronic advertising it meant ads catered towards Florida, or sent to Florida when there was an option of not sending them.

Send an e-mail to some of the DNC state chairs, before you consider your judgment on the issue to supersede the SC chair's decision.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 06:24 PM
Response to Original message
4. How dare you accuse Obama the Almighty with an infraction!
He has to advertise. How else is Dr. Obama's Traveling Salvation Show going to sell more tonic?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. If he's advertising
then Clinton and Edwards have the right to campaign there.

It also means the results matter. Delegates or no delegates, the state has now officially been contested.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 06:35 PM
Response to Original message
8. You can buy a cable spot that covers a single area.
Edited on Sun Jan-27-08 06:35 PM by rucky
is that what happened?

My wife buys cable spots for 1-5 bucks each that covers our county of 60,000 or so viewers.

I don't even really know what this one's about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Levgreee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 06:38 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. No, he bought an ad on the CNN and MSNBC channels
Edited on Sun Jan-27-08 06:39 PM by Levgreee
which play nationally, and the channels weren't able to omit only Florida. So taken literally, the pledge bans any ads playing on CNN, MSNBC, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Obama camp wanted to do a national cable buy
but the networks told him that they couldn't run it and exempt Florida. If you do a national buy, it's a national buy - Florida is included.

The pledge, signed by all the candidates, explicitly banned Florida advertising.

So Obama went to the South Carolina Party Chair, Carol Fowler, who told him she didn't see a problem with it, and he went ahead and broke the pledge.

Both CLinton and Edwards, to date, have honored the pledge.

Hence the controversy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pdxmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 06:41 PM
Response to Original message
11. Wait. Wouldn't that include ad spots on their own websites? Those
are "electronic advertising" as well. Don't all the candidates run their ads on their own websites?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 16th 2024, 05:58 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC