So many choices..boost for the local economy?

[jeremyking]

Interesting question... with Presidential Primaries mere weeks away, where are all the Presidential dollars? I haven't heard as many political spots as one might expect. Where are the candidates spending advertising bucks? Or are they....

 

[probuttonpusher]

they havent really been spending to much, they are waiting to see if NH is even worth thier money. If our primary isnt first then they really dont care to much about NH. Plus I heard we might lose a deleagate or two because we are moving the primary, then they really wont worry about spending ad money here.

 

[robbbc]

they havent really been spending to much, they are waiting to see if NH is even worth thier money. If our primary isnt first then they really dont care to much about NH. Plus I heard we might lose a deleagate or two because we are moving the primary, then they really wont worry about spending ad money here.

WMUR is basically wall to wall Mitt Romney ads with a close second from Clinton. A smattering of Obama, Edwards and McCain. It was so bad on Dancing With the Stars last night I watched it on the Boston Channel (WCVB) instead. I haven't heard much on radio. My guess is radio isn't as important or worth the money from candidates. NH looks like it is pretty solid for Mitt and Hillary. In Iowa if your candidate doesn't get 15% of the vote you get to vote again (it's a caucus not a primary). This lets people vote Richardson or Kucinich, then vote Obama or Edwards. Can't do that in NH. I am pretty sure we won't be losing any delegates (unless I am incredibly out of the loop). Other states are losing theirs for moving up their primaries. NH is garanteed by the DNC to be the first in the nation primary followed by SC. I believe the RNC is the same.

 

[dustintv]

No matter New Hampshire will go with typical corporate candidates like Hildebeast and Romney. I don't understand why people who actually want to change things like Kucinich and Paul.

 

[ret vet]

Where are the candidates spending advertising bucks?
WMUR, just like they did during the oh- so- disappointing 2004 primary. Radio didn't get a shake until the last week or so. The 1996 & 2000 Primaries were the best for radio with candidates and local issues spending like crazy and doing it again during the general. ;D

If I were advising a Presidential candidate I'd tell them the best way to break through the logjam at Ch. 9 would be heavy radio backed up with selected cable and newspaper to cover key areas.

 

[argytunes]

There was a recent poll taken concerning political advertising and its affect on listeners (as well as viewers).

The overall results were NEGATIVE!

Because of the mud slinging and early hype for the candidates---many listeners have lost interest in the election process.

How do you tell the difference between truth when many of the news commentators and talk show hosts approach their programs like ENTERTAINMENT TONIGHT does?

argytunes

 

[robbbc]

There was a recent poll taken concerning political advertising and its affect on listeners (as well as viewers).

The overall results were NEGATIVE!

Because of the mud slinging and early hype for the candidates---many listeners have lost interest in the election process.

How do you tell the difference between truth when many of the news commentators and talk show hosts approach their programs like ENTERTAINMENT TONIGHT does?

argytunes

People say they don't like it but it works. Mitt has been the most heavily negative while the rest have been mild in comparison on TV. If people wanted it to change they would be voting McCain instead of Mitt, but that ain't happening. Mitt has done everything but throw the kitchen sink at hillary which only panders to the republican base. Mitt figures that he isn't getting NH in the general election so he can demonize democrats until the cows come home. I have to agree. That best way to reach out to disaffected minority in NH.

 

[radiotony]

The safe bet would be to assume that Hillary and Willard will win but I'm not so sure. There are pretty huge undecided numbers. As well, in 2004, a few weeks before Iowa, Howard Dean was supposed to win New Hampshire by 15 or 20 percent. We all know what happened, don't we? Which means that things could potential turn on what happens in Iowa.

I can't predict what will happen but I sense that New Hampshire will actually be a total free-for-all, with late polling and the post-Iowa result manipulating independents into voting one way or the other. I also don't think the nominees will be chosen by the end of February, as some people predict.

If Obama or Edwards manage to squeak out a win Iowa, Hillary is in trouble. I don't care what the national polls say. A good chunk of her support here is like wetlands: It is very soft. Unlike that of Obama, Edwards, and even Richardson, which seems as solid as granite. Give me a solid 15 percent third place poll to a swampy 25 percent poll lead any day of the week. She can only go down while the others can only go up. I also wonder if there has been any talk between the Democratic candidates about joining forces to stop Hillary if she wins Iowa and New Hampshire. She can't be the Democratic nominee. It will be like all of the worst of John Kerry's faults rolled into one for the Democrats. They really, REALLY need a populist to win the nomination in order to draw back those Reagan Democrats into the fold in November 2008.

On the GOP side, it is even a bigger toss up even though Romney and Giuliani look the strongest. The support for Paul and McCain is very solid, even if it is only 8 to 10 percent. If someone like Huckabee wins or places in Iowa, the will be no guarantees of who will win New Hampshire. If Romney or Giuliani place second - or worse - in Iowa, it will put their campaigns in total jeopardy. They lost to a darkhorse ... they aren't viable against Hillary, etc. The spin will be pretty hard to overcome.

Lastly, even a win in New Hampshire, with the current fields the way they are, is no guarantee of success, especially when there is an iffy economy. Say that to President Paul Tsongas ... ahem, I mean, the late Sen. Paul Tsongas, since he won New Hampshire handily but Bubba was able to spin himself as "The Comeback Kid."

It is interesting that there doesn't seem to be a lot of political radio purchasing, literally six weeks from a potential primary date. Radio is the hot medium in most markets - ads and discussion should electrify the electorate. But, with what seem to be dwindling commercial talk radio numbers in New Hampshire and few local shows actually featuring the candidates, I would bet that most people are tuned out on the primary.

 

[Oldbones]

Mitt figures that he isn't getting NH in the general election so he can demonize democrats until the cows come home. I have to agree. That best way to reach out to disaffected minority in NH.

Unlike Mass., I don't see N.H. as a particularly strong "blue state". despite the Dem's sweep in the last election. Get away from Nashua, Salem, Portsmouth & maybe Hanover and overall the state is still pretty conservative. Even Manchester is hardly a liberal haven.

It is interesting that there doesn't seem to be a lot of political radio purchasing, literally six weeks from a potential primary date. Radio is the hot medium in most markets - ads and discussion should electrify the electorate. But, with what seem to be dwindling commercial talk radio numbers in New Hampshire and few local shows actually featuring the candidates, I would bet that most people are tuned out on the primary.

Of course, with no firm primary date set this puts radio advertising behind the 8-ball a bit. Channel 9 is a no-brainer, and ad dollars will have more bang for the buck put into Boston tv.

Political advertising is a mixed blessing at best anyway. The ads all sound alike after a while, and Congress has conveniently legislated that candidates for federal office must receive the lowest available rate. In this busy pre-Christmas season, stations can easily fill those avails with better-paying clients (who aren't going to leave town the day after the election).

 

[robbbc]

Mitt figures that he isn't getting NH in the general election so he can demonize democrats until the cows come home. I have to agree. That best way to reach out to disaffected minority in NH.

Unlike Mass., I don't see N.H. as a particularly strong "blue state". despite the Dem's sweep in the last election. Get away from Nashua, Salem, Portsmouth & maybe Hanover and overall the state is still pretty conservative. Even Manchester is hardly a liberal haven.

I agree that the more away from the cities you are the more the state leans right. I disagree that it's just those 4 liberal citites. Hampton Beach, Keene, Dover, Newington, Durham, Exeter, Derry, Concord- the list goes on an on and we are talking about popular vote not regional elections here. I agree that locally, at least, NH'ers still like their republicans (just as North Carolinians like their Democrats). I feel the national republican party might be kissing the state goodbye.

Gettting back on subject- I wonder if some radio stations are saying no just because they don't want to deal with it?

 

[NO DAG]

I'm sure radio will become more important to the candidates due to the 'immediacy factor' as the primary draws closer. In general, I'm sure there's not much inventory available as all the more successful stations want to get the highest rates and revenue to make the year end goal, versus the lowest unit political rate in most cases if they can do it. Probably a tough balancing act with the stations that limit inventory.. A station like WZID for example, may have many dayparts that have been sold out this time of year for months in advance..

 

[ArtSix]

There is no radio station this will turn $$ from federal candidates outside of the mandated "political window". This is 45 days prior to a primary election (and 60 days prior to a general election). Outside of the window, stations are free to charge top of the rate card, much higher than local car dealers and furniture stores pay. I know for a fact that WMUR and the Boston TV stations are charging premium rates currently. Once the political window opens, stations have to provide access to all federal candidates regardless of inventory availability. The stations, however, are obliged to charge the candidates "the lowest unit rate" or LUR on the station. So, it's not up to the stations whether they want to accept bona fide political advertising during the windows, rather it's the candidates who decide whether or not to use radio.

 

[Oldbones]

Once the political window opens, stations have to provide access to all federal candidates regardless of inventory availability. The stations, however, are obliged to charge the candidates "the lowest unit rate" or LUR on the station. So, it's not up to the stations whether they want to accept bona fide political advertising during the windows, rather it's the candidates who decide whether or not to use radio.

Not entirely true. Stations are not required to accept political ads, even from federal candidates. They cannot, however pick & choose which candidates' ads they'll run. If a station chooses to run political ads, they must accept ads from any federal candidate who wishes to buy time (though I do believe a station has the right to reject "offensive" ads).

 

[ArtSix]

Wrong on both counts. Once a candidate for federal office is legally qualified, thy can demand reasonable access to buy time on local broadcast stations. This applies only to commercials authorized and paid for by the candidate. Station's have the right, however, to refuse time to candidates for state and local offices. If, however, they provide access to one candidate for a state or local race, they must provide equal access to all candidates for the same office. Furthermore, local stations do not have the right to refuse or censor the content of any advertisments paid for and authorized by a bona fide candidate. These regulations have been developed and enforced by the FCC, Congress, and the Federal Elections Commission. So don't argue with me....argue with them.

 

[argytunes]

ArtSix is correct. Qualified Candidates can demand time. But they're not permitted to DEMAND specific hours or minutes that would disrupt a station's programming.

argytunes

 

[radiotony]

I would agree with the both of you: New Hampshire isn't really that blue - it can go either way. People assume that because so many people from Mass. fled to the state that it has become more liberal. But the reality is that most of the people who have left Mass. are not so liberal - they tend to be moderate to conservative, escaping high taxes!
Most of the cities - sans Manch, Nashua, and Laconia - are trending more liberal, with many other suburban and rural communities in the state also leaning moderate to liberal. There are still some solid red areas - most of the seacoast south of Portsmouth, the Lakes Region, and most of the north country.

Mitt figures that he isn't getting NH in the general election so he can demonize democrats until the cows come home. I have to agree. That best way to reach out to disaffected minority in NH.

Unlike Mass., I don't see N.H. as a particularly strong "blue state". despite the Dem's sweep in the last election. Get away from Nashua, Salem, Portsmouth & maybe Hanover and overall the state is still pretty conservative. Even Manchester is hardly a liberal haven.

I agree that the more away from the cities you are the more the state leans right. I disagree that it's just those 4 liberal citites. Hampton Beach, Keene, Dover, Newington, Durham, Exeter, Derry, Concord- the list goes on an on and we are talking about popular vote not regional elections here. I agree that locally, at least, NH'ers still like their republicans (just as North Carolinians like their Democrats). I feel the national republican party might be kissing the state goodbye.

Gettting back on subject- I wonder if some radio stations are saying no just because they don't want to deal with it?