Six weeks and change (not a hidden message!) remain

Enough.

Carryover from Palin Power! Politics Thread ... (page 49)

Philly the Kid wrote:Let he talk! Or call her an imposter.

"Imposter"? Wouldn't the term be "female impersonator"

Just saw this on the CNN, and Googled for a link to verify...

According to TNS Media Intelligence Campaign Media Analysis Group and the University of Wisconsin Advertising Project (try saying that without taking a breath):

Obama's Run More Negative Ads

77% of the Obama campaigns' ads were deemed "negative," compared to 56% for McCain.

Phan In Phlorida wrote:Just saw this on the CNN, and Googled for a link to verify...

According to TNS Media Intelligence Campaign Media Analysis Group and the University of Wisconsin Advertising Project (try saying that without taking a breath):

Obama's Run More Negative Ads

77% of the Obama campaigns' ads were deemed "negative," compared to 56% for McCain.

see, mccain really is a maverick. but not the eric dampier kind.

Glad we turned the page, the Palin Power Political thread may have been the worst thread ever in the history of the Internetz.

they never explain how they "deem" an ad negative

It doesn't matter. Folks kind to Obama will see negative attacks from McCain and the media (and demand vehemantly that they are right), folks kind to McCain will see negative attacks from Obama and the media (and demand vehemantly that they are right). It's just another Kobayashi Maru of politics.

So are homeless people supposed to be able to vote or no? Straight talk, please.

Houshphandzadeh wrote:So are homeless people supposed to be able to vote or no? Straight talk, please.

Yes. I think they usually have to use like City Hall or something as their address.

They live at the same location as Eric Bruntlett...






Left bench.

Where do Golson and Marson live?

Only in our dreams.

Houshphandzadeh wrote:Where do Golson and Marson live?

A deluxe aparment, in the sky

If dreams could vote...

The Red Tornado wrote:they never explain how they "deem" an ad negative

If this is Charles Franklin's work, without going into detail, his methodology on ad content is pretty sound.

The problem with the study is these days it's hard to determine what an ad is--something that runs on a cable channel a few times by is seen by millions on youtube?

A long time ago, I did some research that looked at Senate campaigns, and we used a simple formula for calculating the negativity of a campaign, which was percent of negative ads times campaign spending. It was a pretty crude measure, but even getting that much was difficult.

McCain is beginning to show one area where he differs from Bush. I had been thinking, depending how things go over the next week, McCain might say something like, "I will keep Henry Paulson on as Secretar of the Treasury" might help his campaign a bit as well as stabilize the markets. I was wrong. Again.

Phan In Phlorida wrote:Just saw this on the CNN, and Googled for a link to verify...

According to TNS Media Intelligence Campaign Media Analysis Group and the University of Wisconsin Advertising Project (try saying that without taking a breath):

Obama's Run More Negative Ads

77% of the Obama campaigns' ads were deemed "negative," compared to 56% for McCain.

Obama went negative from the beginning. McCain didn't go negative until the end of July. We should look at their timeframe. McCain may have been more negative since August.

Does negative in this context just mean talking about the opponent instead of yourself? Seems like a strange connotation to attach to that practice.

They're both negative, but big deal, all campaigns are

The true test is who can be the slimiest

SEX LESSONS FOR KINDERGARTENERS > He has lots of houses