20% LEAD April 15, 2008Posted by wmmbb in US Politics.
Polls can be wrong of course, but in this case the margin appears too great. Clinton is leading Obama in Pennsylvania by 57% to 37% according to the American Research Group. The previous week their poll findings had the candidates tied at 45%. How can the volatility of the polling outcomes be explained?
The usual assumption is that the candidate with the most money and spends the most on advertising has the advantage. This law of political advertising is not holding in Obama’s case. According to Truthdig:
A new poll shows Hillary Clinton way out ahead in Pennsylvania, thanks in part to the 23 percent of respondents who said Barack Obama’s saturation advertising is turning them off. The Obama campaign is currently spending more per week on ads in Pennsylvania than any other candidate ever has spent.
Howard Government advertising on Work Choices had the same contrary effect, and in that case for obvious reasons. Political Wire, quoted by Truthdig observes:
Key finding: “23% of likely primary voters say that excessive exposure to Obama’s advertising is causing them to support Clinton. This compares to 19% of likely primary voters in Ohio who said that excessive exposure to Obama’s advertising in that state caused them to support Clinton.”
Why would “excessive exposure” to brand X cause viewers to buy brand Y? Therefore: Obama should advertise less or change his advertising agency. What is it about Ohio and Pennsylvania that is causing this effect?
Somebody has to have some answers.
Kim at Larvatus Prodeo, while not an Obama fan sees the Clinton campaign attack tactics as lifted directly from the Republican playbook, and suggests we might as well get used to the idea of a McCain presidency.