[Wallace T.]

I suspect the money the Democrats spend on advertising is essentially a kickback to the MSM to reward them for favorable coverage. With declining TV viewership and the dispersion of the audience among hundreds of channels, plus the ability to skip through commercials when you record on DVRs, advertising is increasingly ineffective as a persuasion tool. McDonald's, Sears, and other companies in financial trouble or suffering declining sales have not cut back their advertising budgets, to my knowledge, but their advertising has not been successful in stopping the decline.

Why do you think Audi, Budweiser, 84 Lumber, etc., ran "virtue signaling" liberal commercials during the Super Bowl, even though the ads would alienate a segment of their customer base? Ditto for newspapers that endorsed Hillary Clinton in conservative markets like Dallas and Phoenix. Corporate America has cast its vote for the established political and social order, which incorporates the PC ideology. These corporate entities appear willing to take a few days of negative comments on their web sites and social media and maybe a short-term sales drop in order to show their liberal colors.

[Ransomed]

They say the 10% of voters who are swing voters decide all elections based on who manages to sway them that cycle. All political ads are meant to sway the % that is swayable, to get them to vote one way or another or to simply vote or not to vote.

It’s pretty sad if that is true. That no matter the result of any election, the dumbest voters who still manage to vote or are swayed into not voting are the ones that actually decided it, and usually for non-rational reasons that they can’t really express cogently afterwards. It doesn’t matter if a lib or con or pub or dem win, the dumbest, the ones that have no guiding political philosophy, decide.

Freegards