Campaign ads already having an impact in swing sta

[pixy0stix]

Campaign ads already having an impact in swing states

news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/campaign-ads-already-having-impact-swing-states-141911496.html

With four months to go until Election Day, more than $150 million has already been spent on campaign ads in key swing states, and a new poll suggests that spending is already having an impact on voters' views of the campaign.

A new USA Today/Gallup poll of swing state voters finds most of those polled remember seeing campaign ads over the last month. Most voters—70 percent—say the ads have confirmed their views about the candidates.

But roughly one in 12 say the ads have prompted them to change their minds about a candidate. As USA Today's Susan Page notes, that's a small number, but with President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney statistically tied in most polls, that percentage could prove to be crucial heading into November.

So far, Obama's negative ads against Romney appear to be working. Among those polled who say the ads have changed their minds, 76 percent now support Obama compared to just 16 percent who back Romney.

In a memo to reporters, the Romney campaign discounted the impact of Obama's negative ads, noting that Obama's polling numbers haven't changed since his campaign launched a nearly $50 million ad spree last spring.

[secretlyevil]

There you have it folks - politics in America.

[Deleted]

Freakanomics argues that money spent didn't actually change the outcome of votes in elections. Of course, all their data was based on the candidates not having unlimited money. It will be interesting to see who wins, because if Romney, (who I think will easily beat Obama in funding) loses, it will underscore that money doesn't actually buy elections. But if he wins...

[basilosaurus]

People who are actually convinced by an ad are too dumb to vote. Unfortunately that doesn't prevent it from happening.

We only get local ads. There's a pretty contentious mayoral and senatorial race.

[y4m]

Jul 9, 2012 11:54:13 GMT -5 @reeve said:

Freakanomics argues that money spent didn't actually change the outcome of votes in elections. Of course, all their data was based on the candidates not having unlimited money. It will be interesting to see who wins, because if Romney, (who I think will easily beat Obama in funding) loses, it will underscore that money doesn't actually buy elections. But if he wins...

Like how Obama bought the 2008 election against McCain?

[escrow]

Jul 9, 2012 12:48:39 GMT -5 y4m said:

Jul 9, 2012 11:54:13 GMT -5 @reeve said:

Freakanomics argues that money spent didn't actually change the outcome of votes in elections. Of course, all their data was based on the candidates not having unlimited money. It will be interesting to see who wins, because if Romney, (who I think will easily beat Obama in funding) loses, it will underscore that money doesn't actually buy elections. But if he wins...

Like how Obama bought the 2008 election against McCain?

Sarah Palin. That is all.

[y4m]

But seriously though.

You can't argue that if Obama wins this year, it proves money doesn't win elections, but if Romney wins that's obviously because money bought the election, without at least acknowledging that in 2008 Obama massively, massively outspent McCain, and that was before outside groups could make up some of the difference. So if Romney ends up "buying" this election, how did Obama not in 2008?

[dev22]

Jul 9, 2012 13:49:22 GMT -5 y4m said:

But seriously though.

You can't argue that if Obama wins this year, it proves money doesn't win elections, but if Romney wins that's obviously because money bought the election, without at least acknowledging that in 2008 Obama massively, massively outspent McCain, and that was before outside groups could make up some of the difference. So if Romney ends up "buying" this election, how did Obama not in 2008?

I totally get what you are saying, but I think the difference would be due to Citizen's United. SO I guess it doesn't change the fact that money influences elections, but it does change WHOSE money influences elections.

[y4m]

Jul 9, 2012 13:57:05 GMT -5 dev22 said:

Jul 9, 2012 13:49:22 GMT -5 y4m said:

But seriously though.

You can't argue that if Obama wins this year, it proves money doesn't win elections, but if Romney wins that's obviously because money bought the election, without at least acknowledging that in 2008 Obama massively, massively outspent McCain, and that was before outside groups could make up some of the difference. So if Romney ends up "buying" this election, how did Obama not in 2008?

I totally get what you are saying, but I think the difference would be due to Citizen's United. SO I guess it doesn't change the fact that money influences elections, but it does change WHOSE money influences elections.

Unions AND corporations, instead of just unions as it was in 2008. I weep for our future.

[lys]

Sadly, those Obama adds that received 4 pinnochios, and basically called lies by Politico do have an impact. Gibbs was distoring what the Washington Post had to say (Lying) about the adds when he was on CNN with Candy Crowley on Sunday. So we are off to the races.

Final tally for June was Obama riased 71million and Romney raised 106 million. Romney has more to spend and will save most of it for later in the campaign.

[secretlyevil]

I find it very loltastic when during a commercial break there are back to back political ads, each one contradicting the previous one.

[Deleted]

Jul 9, 2012 12:48:39 GMT -5 y4m said:

Jul 9, 2012 11:54:13 GMT -5 @reeve said:

Freakanomics argues that money spent didn't actually change the outcome of votes in elections. Of course, all their data was based on the candidates not having unlimited money. It will be interesting to see who wins, because if Romney, (who I think will easily beat Obama in funding) loses, it will underscore that money doesn't actually buy elections. But if he wins...

Like how Obama bought the 2008 election against McCain?

I wasn't being partisan. I don't know when the data they used ended. Maybe Obama did win because of money. It seems likely - after all the old man and the mental patient following the thick warmonger were a shoo in, really! There, I made it partisan for you! You're welcome.

[y4m]

Jul 9, 2012 16:04:31 GMT -5 @reeve said:

Jul 9, 2012 12:48:39 GMT -5 y4m said:

Like how Obama bought the 2008 election against McCain?

I wasn't being partisan. I don't know when the data they used ended. Maybe Obama did win because of money. It seems likely - after all the old man and the mental patient following the thick warmonger were a shoo in, really! There, I made it partisan for you! You're welcome.

If you don't see the logical fallacy in Democrats spend more and win fair and square, Republicans spend more and they bought the election, I'm not sure I can make you understand it.

[dev22]

Jul 9, 2012 15:37:23 GMT -5 lys said:

Sadly, those Obama adds that received 4 pinnochios, and basically called lies by Politico do have an impact. Gibbs was distoring what the Washington Post had to say (Lying) about the adds when he was on CNN with Candy Crowley on Sunday. So we are off to the races.

Final tally for June was Obama riased 71million and Romney raised 106 million. Romney has more to spend and will save most of it for later in the campaign.

Campaign ads twist the truth? Holy crap! What a revelation! I am shocked.

Look, I don't like the fact that he misrepresnts things in his ads, just like I hate how Romney does the.same.exact.thing. Hell, I hate political ads in general. But it is par for the course, and certainly not an Obama thing like you try to paint it.

[Deleted]

Jul 9, 2012 16:08:50 GMT -5 y4m said:

Jul 9, 2012 16:04:31 GMT -5 @reeve said:

I wasn't being partisan. I don't know when the data they used ended. Maybe Obama did win because of money. It seems likely - after all the old man and the mental patient following the thick warmonger were a shoo in, really! There, I made it partisan for you! You're welcome.

If you don't see the logical fallacy in Democrats spend more and win fair and square, Republicans spend more and they bought the election, I'm not sure I can make you understand it.

If you don't see that I was agreeing with you, followed by sarcasm, you can go jump off a cliff.

[KateAggie]

Y4M, looks like elections have started full force. You do inspire people, though, don't you? From name calling to invites to throw yourself off a cliff? Well done.

[caden]

Jul 9, 2012 16:39:16 GMT -5 @reeve said:

Jul 9, 2012 16:08:50 GMT -5 y4m said:

If you don't see the logical fallacy in Democrats spend more and win fair and square, Republicans spend more and they bought the election, I'm not sure I can make you understand it.

If you don't see that I was agreeing with you, followed by sarcasm, you can go jump off a cliff.

Reeve, that post looked more like a tantrum than agreement.