snood
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Oct, 2012 05:27 am
I'm in North Carolina and I don't know if what's happening here is happening the same way in other states. But, I've noticed a colossal difference in the amount of advertising Romney is doing vs the amount from the Obama side. I mean, I hardly see any Obama advertising at all, whereas there seems to be a Romney ad on at least once every hour or two.

Like I said this might be only because NC is still a contested battleground state, but the difference in sheer amounts of advertising is crazy.

What is the advertising volume looking like where you're at?
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Oct, 2012 06:40 am
Perhaps they have a different campaign strategy. The seem to be working more on the ground so to speak in getting people registered and early voting.

Obama Leads Among Early Voters: Poll
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Oct, 2012 11:14 am
@snood,
I've noticed it varies by what channel I'm watching.

I don't watch a ton of TV but my impression had been the opposite -- Obama ads all the time, and vanishingly few Romney ads.

I watched the OSU game on the Big Ten Network on Saturday and finally saw some Romney ads, though.

(I'm in Ohio.)
roger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Oct, 2012 11:23 am
@snood,
No television, but from occasional views, I'm not seeing much from either party. Truely, there doesn't seem to be all that much interest. This is New Mexico.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Oct, 2012 11:45 am
@roger,
I think all that spending on political ads will have very little impact compared to the next debate.
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Oct, 2012 11:53 am
@snood,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/track-presidential-campaign-ads-2012/

Quote:
Mad Money: TV ads in the 2012 presidential campaign

Team Obama and Team Romney have spent millions flooding the airwaves in key battleground states with (mostly negative) TV ads aimed at converting voters to their side. This page shows where each side is focusing its message and how spending has changed over time.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Oct, 2012 11:54 am
@cicerone imposter,
You better tell them right quick, as each side has spent close to $300 million already.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Oct, 2012 12:12 pm
@ehBeth,
No need; they're going to spend money regardless of what anybody tells them.

But, don' you agree with my opinion?

Or should I say IMHO?
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Oct, 2012 12:54 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I think more people will see the ads than watch the debates. I'm not sure what effect the ads have in comparison to the debates. I'm fairly sure there have been studies on that.

If it's about eyeballs, ads are definitely the way to go.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Oct, 2012 01:10 pm
@sozobe,
I haven't seen any ads for the presidential race, except what I've hunted down online.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 15 Oct, 2012 01:29 pm
@snood,
snood wrote:

Yeah, I don't take people seriously who say they would vote for Romney because of the way he views things, or his policies. Simply because the man doesn't stand on any issue the same way twice. But I don't wonder why the election between them will still be close. It's the irrational "take our country back from that guy who's not one of us" that's fueling the GOP's "thinking".


That is an obviously racist and unfounded accusation. You should apologize for it.

Do you really mean to say that in view of Obama's so far ineffective management of our economic recovery; his environmental zealotry which has put distant (and so far unachievable) environmenal goals ahead of needed economic recovery; his idiotic waste of hundreds of billion of public monies on "environmental" companies like Solyndra, owned by political contributors and already heavily subsidized by the government; his highly contentious health care legislation; his accelerating deficit soending in the face of a debt crisis he has done nothing to avert or delay; his inept handling of relations with our traditional allies; and other like issues ... that there is no plausible reason other than racism for opposing his reelection ???????

This defies common sense, and is insulting to many thinking people - notably including the majority who elected him in 2008.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Oct, 2012 01:56 pm
@snood,
snood wrote:
What is the advertising volume looking like where you're at?

No ads at all for either presidential candidates here. (New Jersey is solidly Blue.) Very modest amounts for New Jersey Senate races, distributed about evenly between the two big parties. (Ditto.) The lion's share of political ads in New Jersey comes from the Congressional district New York-01, which is as competitive as it gets. The outcome in 2010 was 50.1% to 49.9% for the Democrat. Current polls predict a similar result. (We only get the ads because the district lies on Long Island, where voters can receive New Jersey TV.)
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  3  
Reply Mon 15 Oct, 2012 02:05 pm
@georgeob1,
The two motivations are not mutually exclusive. Some Republicans dislike Obama because they're racists. Others dislike him because they looked at his record and honestly concluded he's incompetent. Others still may dislike him for both reasons, or for any combination of additional ones.

As I understand Snood, he only said that bigotry is an important motivator among Republicans for resenting Obama. This statement is simply true --- whether Obama is competent or incompetent. Snood has nothing to apologize for.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  5  
Reply Mon 15 Oct, 2012 02:15 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

snood wrote:

Yeah, I don't take people seriously who say they would vote for Romney because of the way he views things, or his policies. Simply because the man doesn't stand on any issue the same way twice. But I don't wonder why the election between them will still be close. It's the irrational "take our country back from that guy who's not one of us" that's fueling the GOP's "thinking".


That is an obviously racist and unfounded accusation. You should apologize for it.

Do you really mean to say that in view of Obama's so far ineffective management of our economic recovery; his environmental zealotry which has put distant (and so far unachievable) environmenal goals ahead of needed economic recovery; his idiotic waste of hundreds of billion of public monies on "environmental" companies like Solyndra, owned by political contributors and already heavily subsidized by the government; his highly contentious health care legislation; his accelerating deficit soending in the face of a debt crisis he has done nothing to avert or delay; his inept handling of relations with our traditional allies; and other like issues ... that there is no plausible reason other than racism for opposing his reelection ???????

This defies common sense, and is insulting to many thinking people - notably including the majority who elected him in 2008.


I'll reply to you once in this vein, george - and just once. You have proven yourself to be someone whose "reasoning" occurs from deep inside a bubble which is only penetrable by rightwing propaganda, and I won't beat my head against it trying to sort through what you accept as true.

Obama's management of our recovery has not been ineffective. He has done yeoman's work and has us turned in the right direction despite unprecedented opposition from a party of miscreants who have stated clearly that they were motivated mostly by making Obama fail. the housing market, the automobile industry, consumer confidence and the stock market to name a few indicators have all been slowly but steadily improving - thanks to Obama.

Everything that Obama has proposed has been "highly contentious" to your side, so it should be no big suprise to anyone that his affordable healthcare act was "highly contentious". In spite of the right's stonewalling, he was still able to shepherd through sweeping legislation that will save us money in the longrun.

Your characterization of his spending and failure to try to avert disaster are just lies and don't deserve any reply.

That you could call his foreign relations "inept" after all the damage control he had to do following the bumbling cowboy from Crawford, just shows that you can't see through your "bubble".

And yes, that does leave a lot of disgruntled and angry old white men leading the way on your side, who would've voted for Elmer Fudd over Obama for no real good reason other than some vague notion that Obama just doesn't belong in the white house. I didn't call it racist - you did. I think it's more just willful ignorance than anything else.
georgeob1
 
  0  
Reply Mon 15 Oct, 2012 02:30 pm
@snood,
snood wrote:

And yes, that does leave a lot of disgruntled and angry old white men leading the way on your side, who would've voted for Elmer Fudd over Obama for no real good reason other than some vague notion that Obama just doesn't belong in the white house. I didn't call it racist - you did. I think it's more just willful ignorance than anything else.


A comparison of lines #1 and #5 above establishes your hypocrisy , racism and willful ignorance.

You don't know me or my motives. And your statements suggest you are also an exemplar of merely a different "bubble" as you call it.
snood
 
  4  
Reply Mon 15 Oct, 2012 03:06 pm
@georgeob1,
It appears you are just spoiling for contention - I see no other reason for you to even address me. Since my opinions are obviously so ridiculous and disagreeable to you, I invite you to simply not start up with me.
jcboy
 
  2  
Reply Tue 16 Oct, 2012 10:13 am
@snood,
I'm hoping Obama comes out swinging tonight and kicks some ass!
cicerone imposter
 
  3  
Reply Tue 16 Oct, 2012 10:30 am
@snood,
snood, You got a thump's up from me too, because what you say are all true. I'm sure almost everybody saw Thompson, the son of the governor telling his supporters that they want to send Obama back to Chicago or Kenya.

And they all applauded! One even said they'll pay to send Obama back to Kenya.

For anyone to ignore this as not racial is deaf, dumb, and blind.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  3  
Reply Tue 16 Oct, 2012 10:35 am
@jcboy,
He's not much of a swinger and an ass-kicker in general. He will employ passion to get people fired up, but it takes a lot for him to be confrontational. (He'll do it, but it takes a lot.)

The expectations are sky-high for Romney now, and the thing that was obscured by the hyperventilating after the last debate (I'm talking to you, Andrew Sullivan) is that Obama didn't actually do that badly. He did badly, definitely, and could have done waaaay better, definitely. But I believe that the post-debate coverage has actually been more damaging than the debate itself.

So if expectations for Romney are very high, expectations for Obama are fairly low, and Obama can no longer be thrown off of his game by Romney's bald-faced lies, I think Obama has some room to score some points. Not necessarily alpha male, in your face points, but stuff like "you say this now and you said this then, which is it?" which forces Romney to take a stand and alienate some people, or prevaricate some more.

I'm a little worried about Candy Crowley, she seems to want to be "tough" which could be good or bad. We'll see.
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Oct, 2012 10:39 am
@sozobe,
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/15/1144665/-Stephen-Colbert-destroys-Romney-s-tax-plan-with-one-simple-question

Great bit by Colbert.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Demand a plan - Discussion by H2O MAN
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama 2012?
  3. » Page 3
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/09/2020 at 02:45:38