for television ads in Pennsylvania on?

$2.2 million for a primary? No one (including Governors and Senators) has spent that much on a general election for television ads in the Keystone State!

Looks like Obama is spending up all those $10 and $25 donations to try to buy the election. According to SUSA it’s not working.

“The key marker of a Hillary Hater is the willingness to state, in almost the same breath, that it is out of control and then to plunge in for a full-throated round of it.” - Anglachel

“Maya,” “Mother,” “One Voice,” and “Quiet” are available at Hotline on Call if you’re remotely interested.

Looks like Obama is spending up all those $10 and $25 donations to try to buy the election. According to SUSA it’s not working.

Mark Blumenthal at Pollster.com has been trying to tease out what’s going on with the Q-Pac poll. Here are excerpts from his summary:

*With this latest update, Obama now leads Clinton among college educated white voters by 12 points.

*Clinton continues to lead among non-college educated whites by a two-to-one margin.

*Obama’s favorable rating has increased modestly following the dip after the Rev. Wright story broke.

*Clinton’s favorable rating has been mostly stable among white voters over the last month.

*Clinton’s unfavorable rating among African Americans (34%) is now greater than Obama’s unfavorable rating among non-college educated whites (26%).

Thus, while these new results show modest progress for Obama in recent weeks, they also demonstrate why Clinton remains the favorite to win Pennsylvania and why Obama faces a big challenge gaining additional ground. …

To overtake Clinton in Pennsylvania, Obama will need to put a bigger dent in her lead among the non-college educated white voters that are likely to be just over half of the electorate on April 22. If he merely holds his current leads among college whites and African Americans, Obama would need roughly 38-40% of non-college educated whites to win.

It will be interesting to see how it plays out. While SUSA was the only poll that correctly projected Clinton winning California, Q-Pac has a long history of experience in Pennsylvania.

Or am I wrong about that? If it’s two mil a week, it’s going to be kind of hard to spin a loss if that occurs.

What I love is that even though people like Krugman say Clinton’s economic package was better and she seems to understand economics best and people like Krugman and Elizabeth Edwards say her healthplan is best, her white working class voters are still only supporting her because they are low information and racist. It can’t possibly be that what African Americans think they’ll get from Obama’s election (which I believe is primarily a change in culture) doesn’t resonate with white voters as Clinton’s policies do.

is not necessarily a against Obama.

And vice-versa. But it seems that many Obots cannot conceive of anyone actually liking Hillary, so they assume that anyone who votes for her is stupid, ignorant, or is a racist.

While they are free to believe that, talking about it isn’t likely to win them friends among Hillary’s supporters. And to be fair, arguing that Obama supporters are naive cultists isn’t likely to make them like Hillary either.

But the criticism and/or dislike of Obama (and/or his supporters) is a fairly new phenomenon, while CDS is nearly old enough to vote.

“The key marker of a Hillary Hater is the willingness to state, in almost the same breath, that it is out of control and then to plunge in for a full-throated round of it.” - Anglachel

From the get go, Obama played those mind games of health care, Reagan and Bill Clinton did nothing. He’ll continue this way until he fails. Of course we are stupid and racists. They are pure as sunshine and smart as hell. There is even a proof for all this: they support the biggest conman Democrats have had in about 100 years.

“get out there and spend!” every campaign is told, and variously follows, this advice. teevee buys votes, don’t you know! never mind what works on teevee doesn’t work in Reality, that’s not the point.

big blue just had a post on this, a hillary critique, (sort of) and one which identified the amounts that consultants and media groups are paid in seasons like this one.

millions and millions. for nothing, in truth. i’m tired, i don’t feel like hashing it all out, but as far as campaign consulting is concerned, these millions buy such a small sliver, it’s really sick and pathetic when you think about it. we don’t have universal health care because it’s not “sexy” to design a campaign ad about such. that’s really the ultimate bottom line, in at least one sense.

are leeches on the body politic. Even the “good” ones are, as far as I can tell, terrible.

Historically, consultants did ad buys because they got paid a percentage of the buy. I know Clinton stopped that this time round (although she’s been grossly overpaying her pollster Mark Penn instead). But apparently Obama has not and still does business the old fashioned way so, in addition to whatever pay has been reported for Axelrod, he gets a percentage of every ad buy. (see http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-… ). This isn’t so much a criticism of Obama, but a criticism of the system Democrats have historically used (which thankfully there’s been some movement away from, in addition to Clinton, I believe Edwards also did not pay his media consultant a % of the ad buys).

that’s my question. i don’t. i suspect you don’t either. so why should we/i give money to “leaders” who choose to employ people who fail to meet the stated goals of their employment contracts?

when i get a satisfactory answer on this point, i may consider being a “democrat” again. at least the rich republicans know what their bribes donations to the party buy them.

In case that wasn’t clear. Democrats do pay for failure, look at what a rich man Bob Shrum is. And people - including the DNC - still pay Donna Brazile for her advice, apparently, even as she’s working to destroy the party.

I don’t have an answer as to why people pay for failure, I just know everyone does it. I have never worked in an office where there wasn’t at least one incompetent idiot on the payroll and that person, more often than not, stayed on the payroll. The office overall, however, usually put out good work and was worth hiring even if the individual was not.

Although I admit in recent years, I’ve become less and less convinced the democrats - as a whole, as opposed to particular ones - are worth hiring. You can only listen to Jay Rockefeller plead for telecom immunity or Dianne Feinstein express her faith that Mukasey will be different than every other Bush appointee for so long before you start to wonder if the entire office is staffed by idiots.

I don’t know what the answer is. I’m very sympathetic to people who have just had it. Hell, I’ve had it most days. It’s all incredibly depressing.

FWIW, this year I’m funneling money directly to the candidate and races I care about and think are worthy and not going through the party. Sure, they’ll hire a few incompetents, too, but at least I can limit the amount of incompetence I’m buying. Because I’d much rather my money go to someone like Jackie Speier than Heath Shuler.

Okay, Penn may be grossly overpayed, but he’s not making the scratch the media and Blogger Boyz are implying he is (I knew there was a cap). Via Susie Madrak, Dee Dee Myers confirmed Penn’s fees are capped, she estimates at $250,000, the large numbers are payments his firm made to other vendors. And via a reprint of an article in the International Herald Tribune, Clinton - like Edwards - put in a cap for all her top-tier consultants to prevent herself from being Shrum-ed. She also insisted that all ad buys go through an outside firm, with a cap there, too, to avoid any conflict of interest. (I honestly can’t tell what Obama’s fee arrangements are, Axelrod was being weaselly).

It doesn’t get past the paying for failure, but it’s at least a step in the right direction, not paying exorbitantly for failure,