Buying a campaign with advertisement works up to a point. After a certain amount of saturation, people stop taking notice of the ads. Speaking for myself, I don't like a saturation of ads because they make me feel abused and turns me off against the product, which is the same as a candidate.
Posted by Prabhata at February 27, 2008 05:58 PMi don't watch much television, so they don't bother me, personally; but when the numbers are this overwhelming, you can be sure it makes a difference.
Posted by Turkana at February 27, 2008 06:06 PMWell, that and 15% of Republicans voting in Democratic primaries because they a) hate the Clintons and b) think Obama will be easier to beat.
Posted by Blue Jean at February 27, 2008 06:12 PMThis is probably why I'm so turned off by the Obama campaign. While I agree that branding has helped, I just plain loathe marketing and advertising. And I hate how easily people are influenced by it. Yes, Turkana, money does matter. I must say I was right, too, about the whole Pet Ba-Rock thing, wasn't I? Whatever works to get a Dem in the White House, I suppose.
Posted by iamcoyote at February 27, 2008 06:22 PMas i keep pointing out: that a safe, centrist like obama can be celebrated as an agent of change is proof that marketing is more important than facts.
Posted by Turkana at February 27, 2008 06:32 PMThere is something wrong about liberals/progressives counting up the $$$political$$$ like they were Republicans.
I assume Obama will be denouncing outside "special interests" such as SEIU and UFCW any moment now.
Right after he makes good on his pledge to accept public financing.
Posted by Orange at February 27, 2008 08:07 PMNice that money buys the White House. The media and corporations elect who will be the candidate, and who will or will not sit in the Oval Office.
Posted by Judith at February 27, 2008 08:45 PMInteresting - these don't exactly talk about the money issue, but they do cast a different perspective on the campaign organizations.
Posted by idiosynchronic at February 27, 2008 09:33 PMWhy all the hand wringing? This is, after all, America. Money runs everything. People-powered campaigns are notable for their unbroken losing streak.
Isn't Obama behind in Ohio? What would you expect him to do?
And pace to all those who have had enough of TV ads. They aren't aimed at you. They are aimed a people who either haven't decided to vote, or haven't decided for whom to vote.
Posted by James E. Powell at February 27, 2008 10:16 PMIt's not as if Clinton did not have a huge advantage already due to name recognition. How much would that be worth in dollars? Who knows?
Posted by Gene at February 27, 2008 11:34 PMI think you may be on to something, Turkana. No doubt when the post-mortems are written on Hillary's campaign, the consensus will be that she just didn't have enough money.
Posted by space at February 27, 2008 11:41 PMdid Obama always have a money advantage? or did Clinton just blow her initial money advantage on a bunch of DC insider consultants?
Posted by Gay Veteran at February 28, 2008 10:32 AM