Here's an insight from Chris Cilliza at the WaPo:
Reports obtained by The Fix detailing spending by the two campaigns as well as the Republican National Committee show that Obama dropped more than $32 million on television in 17 battleground states between Oct. 7 and Oct. 13 -- an increase of $12 million over what he spent between Sept. 30 and Oct. 6.So Obama's on the air in three more states and at a more than 2 to 1 margin. That's entirely due to his huge money advantage. His decision to forgo federal financing, while it cost him a bit of bad press in June, looks to be a prescient move.
During that same time period, McCain spent approximately $10 million on ads in 14 states (the Arizona senator is not on television in Indiana, Michigan or Montana) while the RNC's independent expenditure effort disbursed $6 million more in eight states.
The other thing that blew me away today, via Politico's Ben Smith, quoting a republican consultant:
The two most unreal moments of my professional life of watching focus groups:So these are people who believe the smears, they accept the premise not just that Obama knew Ayers, but actually worked with the Weathermen, and they are still voting for him! Wowie. The only realy conclusion I can draw is that the Republican party is fucked, pure and simple, and maybe for a long time. (?)
54 year-old white male, voted Kerry '04, Bush '00, Dole '96, hunter, NASCAR fan...hard for Obama said: "I'm gonna hate him the minute I vote for him. He's gonna be a bad president. But I won't ever vote for another god-damn Republican. I want the government to take over all of Wall Street and bankers and the car companies and Wal-Mart run this county like we used to when Reagan was President."
The next was a woman, late 50s, Democrat but strongly pro-life. Loved B. and H. Clinton, loved Bush in 2000. "Well, I don't know much about this terrorist group Barack used to be in with that Weather guy but I'm sick of paying for health insurance at work and that's why I'm supporting Barack."
2 comments:
How long depends on how right we are. We have pretty much tested low taxes and minimal regulation. There was some interruption during Clinton, but being a "new Democrat" meant he at least was completely on board with minimal regulations. If government intervention, or working together depending on who you talk to, works as well in 2009 as it did in 1932, we could be in power for a while.
Oddly, the thing that struck me most strongly was that both these voters sounded like lunatics. Maybe they just aren't able to articulate what they mean exactly, but wtf? With criteria like they're listing, I don't think it's possible to attract a voter like that on purpose. No governing policy or campaign strategy could do it. These are the voters that you just have to hope stumble through the door on election day and hit their head on the lever for your candidate as they slump to the floor.
Post a Comment