How effective are political ads??

[kentuck]

I'm sure most folks here are flooded with requests for donations to one candidate or the other?

But is this money well-spent?

Should Democrats have another strategy instead of trying to out-raise Republicans in the "money" game?

How many voters are swayed to change their position or even to go to the polls by the political ads? Is it possible they have the opposite effect on voters?

I've noticed that in the Kentucky race, Alison Grimes is raising money big time. She is on an even footing with McConnell, money-wise. However, it seemed to me that she had the perfect strategy to beat McConnell without going into the money race? She was traveling the state and meeting voters and making a great impression. It seemed that the more money she received, the more the other side fought against her. It was no longer about the people in the race, it was about who could run the most ads.

In my humble opinion, message defeats money. And it doesn't take a truckload of money to get out your message.

[Rex]

1. Well, personally I am immune to all sales ads.

I stopped being materialistic long time ago.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

2. Fast forward on remotes was one of the most beneficial inventions of the 20th Century.

Now, the man on the stand he wants my vote,
He's a-runnin' for office on the ballot note.
He's out there preachin' in front of the steeple,
Tellin' me he loves all kinds-a people.
(He's eatin' bagels
He's eatin' pizza
He's eatin' chitlins
He's eatin' bullshit!)

Bob Dylan

[merrily]

7. The emote control.

(a relative's witticism, not a typo).

[unblock]

3. if political ads weren't effective, republicans wouldn't get more than 30% of the vote.

[kentuck]

5. Or vice-versa?

If the Democrats didn't play their game?

[merrily]

4. Dunno. People say negative ads work.

I think what clinched 2008 for Obama was more McCain Palin's behavior, Dimson's failures and Obama's campaign promises than ads, positive or negative. And what clinched 2012 for Obama was the tape of Romney's speech to his fundraisers, plush Romney's love of shipping jobs overseas. Not saying there were not other factors, just saying I saw those as the clinchers, not ads.

[SomethingFishy]

6. In Colorado Cory Gardner has been running attack ads since

before the summer started. Constantly. Forcing Mark Udall to spend a fortune responding. And that is it in a nutshell. What they hope for is name recognition. The content of the ads don't really mean shit. It's forcing your opponent to spend money they don't have to fight for a seat that shouldn't even be up for grabs.

Our system is well and truly fucked. Between the level of money being pumped into politics, and the apathy and ignorance of the average voter, it's going to take an earth shattering event to put us back on track. And even then, as seen with 9/11, it could make things even worse.

[merrily]

9. Usually, the PACs run the most negative ads.

Right after Coakley won the gubernatorial primary here (this past week), I woke up to a negative ad from a PAC about Baker.

I have no doubt Baker deserves getting slammed. I just wish that I had heard first from Martha telling us what she wanted to do for Massachusetts before I heard a negative PAC ad about Baker, though.

[arcane1]

8. It saddens me to think that television commercials can be effective in such important decisions

[BillZBubb]

10. If ads weren't effective, they wouldn't be used as much.

But the are effective. They can be very effective. That's why both sides get all the money they can.

You suggest "message defeats money", but the reality is who defines your message? If you don't advertise, your opponent defines you and you have little chance of getting your true message across to voters.

It is quite possible that given Kentucky's right wing tilt, that McConnell's ads are more effective than Grimes' ads. His message resonates while hers does not. As the election nears, the right wingers are coming home to the republican party.

In my opinion, Grimes only chance to win was if the election was a referendum on McConnell. As soon as the McConnell campaign was able to, by strong advertising, make the election about Obama and the "liberal agenda", Grimes was in trouble.

[SamKnause]

11. My 2 cents;

Political ads have zero effect on the informed voter.

Political ads have a tremendous effect on the uninformed voter.

Informed voters can spot the lies from a mile away.

Uninformed voters do not know what is truth or what is false.

[drray23]

12. lots of low information voters

In fact the majority of people are too lazy to research the issues. So, they get their "facts" from the political ads. It can be very effective..
If this was not, we would not see all these billions invested in it.

[UTUSN]

13. Ads mostly preach to choir. Also debates are useless more often than not.

What both are good for is for new candidates who need to get known. And good more in primaries than in the generals. Voters can be clueless, but can also be underestimated. Once the partisan nominees are known, it is almost inconceivable that mature voters can be swayed and undecided. If their world view is formed, they ought to know what THEY and the PARTIES stand for.

In my Red state the big candidate who is supposed to be a shoo-in as the Rethug wingnut has run all touchy-feely ads, never once mentioning all of his Draconian policies to come, talking only about his personal qualities of "courage" and "perseverance" and blah de blah blah.