Even though no specific data supports this story, the reporter makes a broad claim.
John Kerry (news – web sites) shelled out $80 million over five months to plaster television screens with campaign ads trumpeting his biography and priorities. So what did all that money get him? An even race.
Kerry’s ads largely neutralized the campaign ad wars, giving him cover from President Bush (news – web sites)’s onslaught of critical commercials and carrying the Democrat through his most vulnerable period when he was the party’s newly minted standardbearer.
“His ads gave him enough ballast to help weather the Bush attacks. Given the redundancy behind those messages, you would have expected really sharp drops,” said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, an expert in political communication. “Bush’s attacks should have taken hold, and would have, in the absence of Kerry’s advertising.”
Even with such a respected source as Jamieson, the assertion is hard to prove. Was it the ads? Or his convention speech? Or the general coverage Kerry has received on free media? Or is it because people think less of Bush on these matters?
But let’s suppose it’s true: it supports an assertion I made earlier in the campaign: Money and ads can be overrated. If you have enough money to neutralize your opponent, the race then comes down to something else. Is that retail politics? I’m betting on it. Which bodes well for Kerry as his campaign stops seem to at least one reporter on the Diane Reem show this morning to be attracting larger and more enthusiastic crowds.
In case no one has mentioned this: Get out and vote — and bring a couple of friends along.