Posted on 09/04/2016 6:03:00 AM PDT by Mariner
....BWWWAAAAHHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAHHHHHHH!
>>With outside groups excluded, the Clinton campaign outspends Trump’s more than a 9 to 1, according to a new ABC News analysis of television advertising data from CMAG/Kantar Media.
Any yet, he’s tied with her according to most polls that slightly oversample Democrats.
Ads do work and that 1/2 of the electorate have the attention span of a three year old. So when do you deploy the ad blitz for a November election? July-August or September-October?
Ads work.
It's the ONLY source of political information for at least 1/2 of the electorate.
But since most of the voters don't really make up their minds until just before the election money spent this far out has a poor rate of return. Look at Hillarys numbers.
I agree with you. A lot of the criticism of the Trump campaign strategy has to do with the usual suspects not getting paid: beneficiaries of tv ad revenue, consultants, and so on.
Tell me the next time you see a "Hillary" sign. I'm in Massachusetts. There are Trump signs everywhere. I stuill have yet to see a Hillary sign or bumper sticker.
I have a friend who is an eight-state delivery truck driver, covering New England and parts of NY and NJ. He says he's seeing the same thing everywhere.
You?
What has all the $$ she spent on ads bought her?
For the last few weeks, Trump has been out there, working HARD and successfully controlling the agenda.
In contrast, Hillary has been coasting — keeping a very low profile and saving her energy for fundraisers. I think even the low information folks are starting to notice this. She has slipped considerably in the polls and may even be slightly behind at this point.
After the disastrous week Trump had (during the Dem convention), I began to question if Trump really wanted the job. The last few weeks have shown me that he does, which boosts my optimism.
I completely agree with what you are saying.
My concern is that we can’t allow ourselves to get bent out of shape about TV-only advertising. It’s a media-generated controversy because they want a bigger piece of the pie.
It really is a sad state of affairs when you think about it—that all national elections are supposedly decided by the dumbest 10% of eligible voters who can actually be swayed one way or another or even whether they will vote or not vote at this point in the process by an ad. The result could be good or bad, but in any case the ones that vote one way and then another and usually can’t rationally articulate their reasoning supposedly decide the outcome.
We haven’t had 65% eligible voter turnout since 1908. That might actually be a good thing in the past, because higher voter turnout would probably only increase the swing vote as a %. This time I think a higher turnout might actually good for our side for once, almost have to think these people will go for the outsider, especially if there is a hidden Trump vote of those who have never been engaged or at least not engaged for a long time.
Freegards
We have reached an age where this is no longer the reality.
But public exposure is even more important than ads. While Hillary Clinton is relying solely upon ads, Donald Trump is out stumping across the nation. In the end that will prove to be the difference in this election.
Even the media are starting to question why Hillary has been reluctant to appear in public or at the very least speak to the press.
It’s the Goldilocks effect. Boob-toob ads are LARGELY passe and ineffective. A few here and there do their job but the traditional blanketing of the airwaves has a decidedly negative effect - turning people off and away instead of on and toward the candidate.
Political ads are required to be offered at the lowest rate charges during the past __ days (differs by election) and are “ROS”—run of station. Meaning that they show up where there’s holes in the commercial log, in other words, at 6 in the morning during “Married with Children” reruns. They get a few during peak times, of course, but many are throwaways. They CAN buy guaranteed prime placement ads, but they pay dearly for them.
Unless I miss my guess, Mr. Trump is choosing his ad buys very carefully and is gladly paying the premium costs associated with them.
I’m just guessing here but there is a segment of the population that isn’t going to be swayed by ads at all....1/3 for each candidate. That leaves 1/3 of the wishy washy. 75% of them hate ads and aren’t going to pay attention. 25% might be interested and they’re probably the youngest voters in the group who consider ads as research. They’ll probably vote for Clinton. But half of the 75% who hate ads will probably vote for Trump. The other half of those will not vote. Trump wins!
Targeted, massive, unanswered ads can work. But Trump’s very appearances are better ads than can be produced.
Just saw Chris Wallace interview Jill Stein....
That woman is an absolute looney toon...LOL
We are in a brand new territory and that fact alone terrifies the Beltway Elite Pundits and Political Advisory Class.
YouTube, Twitter, Facebook and other social media platforms are the future and the future is now! And seventy year old billionaire is more media savvy than the plethora of media elites who hate him. That scares them and makes them insane.
If not countered some, they can work. Look at McCain’s unrelenting and unanswered ads on Kelli Ward. Now, what we don’t know is where the race would have been without those ads.
I hope she stays in the race and draws a lot of support from that other loon, every little bit helps.
Right....
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.