Per Media Curves

"The ad which focuses on Governor Palin's record regarding the treatment of wildlife in Alaska seemed to strike a chord with voters. The recent ads from both parties have had little impact among voters. This is the first ad in over a month that seems to have broken through."

After watching the ad, 25% of the focus group characterized themselves as angry, including 36% of Democrats, 15% of Republicans and 26% of Independents. 16% of the group responded with "sadness" and 29% were disturbed, including 31% of Democrats, 26% of Republicans and 29% of Independents. 22% also viewed the ad with skepticism.

The ad helped Obama achieve a Political Communications Impact Score (PCIS) of 23.3, which is a metric that illustrates the change of voters' perception on each candidate. In comparison, McCain's sex education ad only received a PCIS score of 4.8 and Obama's "More of the Same" ad only ranked a 3.2.

Please donate.

My friends and I am aghast at the "non-violent" resistance strategy of the Obama campaign. I completely agree with Markos for calling it the "magic "new politics" bullshit"

Obama needs to stop preaching to the choir.

Obama has been campaigning and in the news for over two years, 6 months with daily primary coverage. EVERYONE who can be converted by his message has already been converted. That's why all this - "Obama should run ads on the issues,  this one is very effective" contains a fallacy.

The people who find previous ads/approaches effective are already converted. The undecideds or weak supporters aren't convinced by it and they have been exposed to it daily for the first 6 months of this year. 

I was going to send a contribution to his campaign but decided instead to send it to the Defenders of Wildlife to run the wolf ad. 

What I like about the wolf ad is that it creates a visceral response in animal lovers - who are spread across all geo-demographic groups. This will get a response from people who were not swayed earlier.

I am sending my $300 to finance running the ad and I got sis to kick in another $300. This will cover three viewings. In addition, I am posting it on women's forums and animal forums.

Obama may be Obama, but I am not.

Caption this photo

I am certainly not qualified to critique anyone's campaign, but I am wondering about some decisions.

* In retrospect, not putting Hillary in as VP may have been a mistake. Not so much because she would have helped him win, but because, by not selecting her, he opened himself up to the Palin counter-move. 

* Closing down the 527s - I never understood this; why shut down your allies to make a principled point? 

* The Grand Tour was a little like a premature victory lap and when McCain's campaign made this point, it had the ring of truth. I wonder if that tour sucked time, resources and attention during the critical month of August.

* Spending proportionally more money on the ground game than advertising. I don't really know the $s involved, but, given the shut down of the 527s, it seems an odd choice. Especially considering the wide number of states they choose to play in. Of course, they probably know stuff I don't know, but it seems like they are trying to win the general election with the wonderful strategy that won all those caucus states.

Please convince me otherwise!!

I work remotely and consequently have co-workers all over - esp in the N. Carolina Research Triangle. (I am in S. FL)

I was speaking today to a woman who claimed to be undecided. Figuring that I could sway her, I started talking about the Pres. race.

I could not believe it! This woman is over 50 and works as a contractor for a large telecom co. The company is in the process of sending jobs to India and WILL NOT hire full-time workers in the US. Just contractors. Several times she has expressed concern about how long the co. would keep her.

Yet, she is voting McCain because of Sarah Palin!! Compared Sarah Palin to Teddy Roosevelt, whom she erroneously claimed had also been the Gov. of small state for a short time.

Says she has marked the VP debates in her calendar because she wants to see how Sarah will do. (Expects her to do well!)

I tried to explain to her Republican policies have created our current economic climate - but she saw no connection! I tried to explain that the financial interests in our country exploit social divisions to further their aims. But, she just didn't see how electing a Democrat would make any difference.

She's relatively well-educated.

First, Hillary blamed red state democracts, but I didn't care because I am not a red state democract.

Then, Hillary blamed the small state caucuses, but I didn't care because I don't live in a small state with a caucus.

Then, she blamed blacks block-voting for one of their own, but I didn't care, because I am not black.

Then, she blamed latte-drinkers, but I didn't care because I drink expresso.

Then, she blame MoveOn, but I didn't care because I am not a member.

Then, Hillary blamed me, and by that time there was no one left to care.

At this point, I think electability arguments based on race are a wash. I can't imagine African-Americans voting for Hillary in large numbers if they feel her candidacy lacks legitimacy.

Can she really carry Ohio, Pennsylvania or Michigan if African-Americans don't vote for her in large numbers? And forget about making Virginia blue or retrieving Florida.
There are no easy choices for the Democrats for calibrating the race issue. Yes, many white people won't vote for Obama because he's black - we don't need studies to tell us this. And, many African-Americans will sit out the general election if Hillary is the nominee - again, no studies needed.