I wonder if political TV ads have the same power in the DVR age

[K8-EEE]

I pretty much watch everything on enough delay to fast forward through commercials. It takes no time at all for this to become a habit. It's been a long time since TV commercials have existed in my world; even live sports, my husband is in there hitting the mute button at every commercial.

We can't be the only one who watch TV like that!

Also can't believe that there are a significant number of voters who are undecided. So this idea that R-money is going to blitz all these ads at the last minute, meh. If that's all he's got, it doesn't seem like a very effective plan. Might have been a dozen or so years ago but now?

It's still an advantage to the GOP to have all that Sheldon Adelson type PAC money but honestly I wonder if they are not running 20th century style campaign with it not realizing that TV ads and Fox News propaganda is only going to work for the Freeper contingent.

[Drunken Irishman]

1. I don't think they have as much power in the internet age...

Even looking at 2004, when the internet was growing and accessible but not nearly as open as today, you had segments of the population who only got their information from the television - whether it was news, sports and weather. Sure, in some ways, there are many who do today (namely the FOX News olds), but on the whole, we're so connected and open that the ads become less effective. People research, read up on their candidates, find out what's true and what isn't ... it's why the undecideds are so low this election cycle.

Two decades ago, back in 1992, there was no internet (at least in the form we know today) and the ads, along with the debates and convention, was essentially the only news they received on the candidates (along with newspapers, of course). That has slowly changed over the years.

I think you're right about the DVR, but it's also because people have the ability to do their own research. How many people in 1988 knew much about Willie Horton outside what they heard in the Bush ads?

[K8-EEE]

2. You're right and another factor bad for the Repukes, Fox "News" is pretty discredited

and the butt of jokes to everyone but old farts who watch BillO and Fox & Friends....in 2000 it was relatively new and probably fooled more people with the "Fair & Balanced" thing. Their ratings have been steadily falling among non-old farts too.

[TeamPooka]

3. DU thread about this from the other day here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251104798

[uncle ray]

4. imagine yourself as a low-income, low-information voter.

i wouldn't dismiss teevee ads just yet.

[TroyD]

5. It certainly didn't work for Meg Whitman in California in 2010

People got tired of her saturating the entire state with her face 24 hours a day. She spent over $100 million dollars - the most in any CA Governor's race in history.

She lost to Jerry Brown by 12 points!

[nolabels]

8. Enough good water is healthy but with too much you will have many things drown and die

Or as the ancient Greek philosophers would say 'everything in moderation'

[NCLefty]

6. Is it wrong to go BLAH! BLAH! BLAH! out loud while...

Is it wrong to go BLAH! BLAH! BLAH! out loud while diving for the remote when Romney ads come on?

[RetroGamer1971]

7. No cable for us!

We don't have cable. It is really expensive here, and we get most of our content from the web, or Netflix. My in laws have cable. We were astonished at how many of these saturating ads they will sit through just to watch Food Network! It would drive me bananas!

[mojo2012]

9. No commercials for me

I fast forward through commercials using DVR. The younger generation doesn't even use DVR. To them TV is used for Netflix, etc.

People like Adelson are a bit behind the times. They assume everyone relies on newspapers or television to get their news. So he can waste all his money for all I care....