Typical Post. LOL
What the heck is “high risk” about airing a lot of ads?
Maybe they mean it was risky to hold off the big guns until now? But Mitt’s leading the polls and carpet-bombing with ads now has little downside, aside from overall voter fatigue with the volume of ads, But that goes for both sides.
Yep, no risk in spending late.
The risk is in spending early, but the theory is/was to define your opponent and he can never overcome it.
It was a natural strategy for Obama - his campaign reduces to “yeah but the other guy would be even worse.”
Who knows which is right in any given race. The old saw in politics is: “If you win, everything you did was right; if you lose everything you did was wrong.”
It still ain’t a mature science.
I think they referred to the holding off the big gun. It is a high risk strategy that I hope will pay off handsomely. So many Freepers complained about the strategy over the summer, especially right after the DNC. Romney seems to know what he’s doing.