Were Obama’s Swing-State Numbers Inflated by Outspending Romney on Ads?
If you haven’t checked out John Sides & Co. at The Monkey Cage blog, you should . . . really interesting commentary on current politics and political science.
Sides also has a fascinating new series at the WonkBlog - Ezra Klein’s blog, but there is good information to be had in liberal bastions -- and Sides is interested in findings out what’s happening in politics, not partisan punditry.
He’s also analyzing data that few people have:
Romney’s strong fundraising and big spending suggest that he and allied groups might finally eliminate Obama’s advertising advantage. But as of the week ending October 14, that has not happened. As the graph below indicates, advertising spending on behalf of Obama continues to outpace spending on behalf of Romney. Obama and allies aired about 5,000 more television ads than Romney and allies last week. . .
This may also help to explain why Obama has retained an edge in most battleground states. . .
Sides brings this all back to the final issue:
Is any of this advertising making a difference? That is the ultimate question and one I will revisit. For the moment, however, there is one study worth noting. The consulting firm Evolving Strategies recently completed a large randomized experiment in which participants saw pro-Romney ads, pro-Obama ads, both, or neither. On the whole, the Obama ads were more effective in persuading weak partisans and undecided voters—even when the Romney ads were shown alongside. Their effect was particularly notable among women.
However, there was a potentially countervailing effect as well: these ads tend to increase the enthusiasm of Republican voters but not Democratic voters, which could translate into additional Republican turnout.