by Neef, Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 06:44:21 PM EDT
by truthteller2007, Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 05:00:03 PM EDT
Although NC is a late participant in the primary process, North Carolinians desire to have their particular concerns addressed before votes are cast on 6 May. The population of this state has exploded, and trade agreements have adversely impacted many of this state's industries. Moreover, the state has a high rate of home foreclosures. These are just a few of the problems for which NC voters are seeking solutions. But only one candidate will hear and understand them.
by tietack, Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:00:24 AM EDT
I understand the need for advertising on a place like this. But this morning, I see an ad for Pat Robertson's Regent University. And yesterday, there was the ad for the identity theft company endorsed only by right wingers (Lifelock - ref Limbaugh, Hannity, Harvey).
They've been shown as a bunch of scam artists who can't even protect their own identities. http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2007-06-2 1/news/slapstick-scammers
I suppose it's OK it they want to give MyDD money. But at best, it gives power over this site to - ah - undesirable elements.
by Jonathan Singer, Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:05:39 AM EST
Early reports a week ago had the Obama campaign outspending the Clinton campaign in advertising in Ohio and Texas by close to a 2-to-1 margin in both states. New reports from Chuck Todd and the folks at First Read estimate the ratio to be even larger.
*** Obama's financial advantage: Watching local TV here in Ohio, it feels like Obama has a 4-to-1 advantage -- with SEIU, UFCW and Obama just blitzing the airwaves compared with Clinton. It's happening in all four states. In fact, per TV ad expert Evan Tracey, Obama has outspent Clinton $23 million to $14 million in the last 30 days. How is she expected to hold a big lead if she gets outspent this badly? The third party groups are like salt in the Clinton wound.
The Clinton campaign seems to confirm this:
On the Clinton side, Mandy Grunwald that between Obama's own spending and two unions spending on his behalf, Clinton is being outspent four-to-one in Ohio and between two-to-one and three-to-one in Texas.
With numbers like these, it's little wonder that Barack Obama has taken a lead in Texas and has been curtailing Hillary Clinton's once very large Ohio lead. Then again, with Obama having cut Clinton's Pennsylvania lead from 16 points two weeks ago to 6 points today (per Quinnipiac) without the help of advertisements, perhaps the movement in these March 4 states is less about the massive amounts of money the Obama campaign is investing than it is about a genuine shift within the electorate away from Clinton towards Obama...
by Jonathan Singer, Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:04:03 AM EST
For all of the talk of the Clinton campaign catching up to the Obama campaign's fundraising abilities -- and Hillary Clinton's take since February 5 has been remarkable -- it looks like it's not enough. According to reports out of both Ohio and Texas, the Obama campaign is significantly outspending the Clinton campaign on advertising ahead of the March 4 primaries.
Barack Obama is blanketing Ohio with campaign ads in a huge media buy that appears to double that of Democratic presidential rival Hillary Clinton.
Obama appears set to vastly outspend Clinton in Texas, as in Ohio.
Word from the world of media buying says Obama has $1.25 million behind his ads there, to $770,000 for Clinton.
These numbers -- along with reports of the $10 million plus pro-Clinton/anti-Obama 527 already running ads -- belie the notion that the Clinton campaign is keeping pace with the Obama campaign in terms of fundraising. If it were, it would be matching the Obama campaign dollar-for-dollar, which it is not. And with the Obama campaign apparently on track to raise $35 million in February after having taken in $36 million last month, it could be increasingly difficult for the Clinton campaign to even keep up this level of spending relative to the Obama campaign, making the path to 2,025 delegates that much more arduous.
Update [2008-2-20 16:23:50 by Jonathan Singer]: Obama's fundraising prowess is important for another reason as well:
Mr. Obama has done just a few traditional fund-raising events in January and none in February, in contrast to the Clinton campaign, which has been keeping up a steady diet of fund-raisers with either Mrs. Clinton or her husband, former President Bill Clinton.
Being able to campaign rather than just raise money really frees up a candidate to connect with voters. There's a reason why Obama was campaigning and Clinton was raising money this morning, and it's not because she likes the rubber chicken dinner circuit...