Just because you view everything in a negative fashion doesn't mean it's negative.
Please explain to me, oh "realistic" one, exactly why Obama is cutting spending in all supposedly vulnerable red states WHILE simultaneously increasing spending in supposedly safe blue states? Don't we have poll after poll telling us how big Obama's lead is? Doesn't he have all the money?
With good reason, at least in the sanity part. IMHO, of course.
Just because you view everything in a negative fashion doesn't mean it's negative.
Just because you view everythign in a positive fashion doesn't mean it's positive. Good or bad, there is such a thing as being realistic.
Please explain to me, oh "realistic" one, exactly why Obama is cutting spending in all supposedly vulnerable red states WHILE simultaneously increasing spending in supposedly safe blue states?
Well let's see, Obama dropped Florida spending 4%, and is still outspending McCain and the RNC by 3:1. He dropped spending in Missouri by 3% and is still outspending McCain and the RNC almost 2:1. Colorado he's dropped spending almost 10%, as did McCain, and is still outspending him 3:2. Virginia he's outspending McCain 4:1. In the two blue states, Iowa and New Hampshire, Obama's increase totals about $150,000 out of a $31 million ad buy, less than half a percent. That's less than McCain's increas in North Carolina alone, supposedly a solid Red state in your eyes. And as to why Obama's cutting his buys at all? Look at the cable total, up 300%. Obama is spending 90 times what the GOP is spending on Cable, and targeting audiences with it. So what is positive in all that?