Posted on 02/01/2012 8:11:23 AM PST by Starman417
I heard this data read on Mark Levin yesterday afternoon, and picked it up from the CNN PoliticalTicker blog by way of Lucianne.
I'll provide the nothing shy of jaw-dropping stats below... how you choose to absorb this ugly reality about election campaigns and negative advertising is, of course, completely up to you.
Me? To use the "he who dies with the most toys..." old saying, paraphrased, obviously he who has the most money for a campaign, combined with the least scruples, wins.
Statistics provided by the Campaign Media Analysis Group (CMAG).
"I spent much of my academic career telling reporters, 'Relax, this is not the most negative campaign ever,'" CMAG President Ken Goldstein said. "Well, this IS the most negative campaign ever."Numbers from CMAG show a total of 11,586 television spots aired in Florida between January 23 and January 29. [Mata Musing: that's 1655 per day, or close to one every minute of a 24 hour period... no wonder my relatives were complaining...] Of those spots, 10,633 were negative and 953 were positive.
Of the 1,012 spots Newt Gingrich's campaign ran, 95% were negative. Mitt Romney's campaign ran 3,276 ads and 99% were negative.
The two super PACs supporting the top candidates were more divergent in their ad strategies. Restore our Future, supporting Romney, ran 4,969 spots, all of which were negative. The Gingrich-backing Winning our Future ran 1,893 spots, and only 53% were negative.
Correspondingly, the bulk of ads in Florida - 68% - were negative toward Gingrich. Twenty-three percent were anti-Romney spots. Gingrich got support from 9% of ads while pro-Romney spots accounted for less than 0.1%.
With these stats, the lesson learned is that Romney never won by positive campaigning... only by tearing down his opponent. How Obama'esque of him.... I've already got a POTUS with this version of ethics. Do I really want to replace him with another, just because he fakes an "R" behind his name?
Romney, of course, was busy playing the victim, whining like a little kid to his Mom, pointing fingers saying "he started it!" in reference to Newt. Unfortunately, that's not how it went.
It was Romney's well timed onslaught of SuperPac spending in Iowa that crashed Newt's momentum there. Romney also outspent Newt 2 to 1 in South Carolina. Florida? Well, the above tells the story.
Needless to say, Romney's feigned innocence and cries of "victim", after outspending Gingrich four to one, are somewhat disingenuous to put it mildly.
(Excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net...
Romney will NOT be able to out spend Obama. The Obama machine (and his buddies at the free press.. Free to Obama anyways) will crush Romney.
Mark nailed it with a simple question.
“Whats good about Romney care?”
Every Romney supporter dodged the question.
I’m starting to think of Mitt as “Romnocchio”. I’d like to see an ad with him wearing a Pinocchio hat telling one lie after another in his own words (perhaps on Romneycare) and showing his nose growing correspondingly. Ridicule works.
I am really becoming concerned that we are trading one Obama for another Obama, or even worse to keep the current Obama. What is the answer? Donate to Newt's campaign? I had already planned on donating to Allen West and Bill Posey (our representative), and there is only so much money to go around.
Mitt will not be able to unite the Republican party. His tactics are do or die, with the dying being done either by himself or by the party he supposedly belongs to. He is the personification of naked ambition.
How utterly depressing is the thought of a fall campaign between Barry and Mitt, between fast ruin and slow ruin for the US.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.