To Pennsylvania and Beyond!

I don't think it depends on the ads when you're being outspent 5-1.

Your point is valid, but right now the spending gap is so large that an increase in spending will definitely make a difference for Hillary despite that fact that she's better known.

Remember that the average voter is not following the race as closely as we are and has no idea what a "3 AM" ad is.

Plus, the fact that Obama is "not as well known" means that Hillary has just as much opportunity to define him to those voters as Obama does to define himself.

 

That type of ad is what influences the "average voter." That's the point of making them. No one who is following this closely, and therefore probably chosen a candidate, is going to be affected by an ad like that, other than it angering them, I guess. Of course the average voter knows about that ad. It wouldn't be a joke on late night talk shows or Saturday Night Live if they didn't.

Again, that is why the type of ad that Clinton airs is important. Just buying more ads doesn't matter. The point of my post.

 

I got the point. I disagree in the current scenario.

Hillary is being outspent 5-1. The fact is that, in a state with media markets as expensive as Philly and Pitt, Hillary is not spending enought right now for the average viewer to see her ads enough for them to resonate. You need to see an ad multiple times before it resonates.

Anecdotally, here in the Philly market, I can report that I've seen Obama's ads a few times but haven't seen Hillary's at all.

Yes, the quality and content of the ads matters. Of course it does.

But the point of my post is that, *right now*, with the spending gap being so wide and with Hillary's ad buy not being big enough to penetrate, simply spending more will make a difference.

 

Clinton is like McDonald's. Obama Burgers is an emerging chain. McDonald's doesn't need to flood Pennsylvania with commercials. Obama Burgers does. "What is an Obama Burger?" "Where can I get one?" "Does it have trans fats?" Any ad helps them, because it makes people more aware of Obama Burgers.

People know McDonald's (though there is a ceiling of interest there). It can maybe garner new interest with new products (and ads for them), but just running more and more ads is going to have a minimal, inefficient impact. Efficiency is important for McDonald's right now, as well (in this stupid analogy), because O'Burgers currently has more money and McDonald's needs to stay afloat in other states.

 

Glad to see this superb hamburger analogy. I gag at the thought of a McDonald's hamburger as opposed to one from Wendy's, Whataburger or even BurgerKing!

 

I want Obama answering my call at 3 A.M. not hilary

 

For 20 years, Obama has failed to bring change and racial reconciliation to his own church and has faield to influence his own paster.

what makes you think that he can bring change to the capitol hill?

 

It was never his job or mission to bring to change to his church or pastor. Judging candidates successes or failures by tests that you make up on the spot, which they never attempted to take is meaningless.

From what I've seen his church seems like a good one, with a pastor that went a little nutty a few times in 30 years. I wouldn't think it was all that important to change that church.

 

You cannot trust the ARG poll numbers, which are always too favorable towards Obama. ARG has no credibility with me at all. I would suggest tossing that one out and averaging the other pollsters.