« 
Flashback: In 2000, Rudy Slammed Hillary For Playing Allegedly Pro-Drug Song At Campaign Event | Home | Rudy: Yes, I Voted For McGovern, But I Actually Preferred Nixon »
Flashback: In 2000, Rudy Slammed Hillary For Playing Allegedly Pro-Drug Song At Campaign Event | Home | Rudy: Yes, I Voted For McGovern, But I Actually Preferred Nixon »
Romney Spending Huge Sums On TV Ads In New Hampshire
If Mitt Romney is rising in the polls in New Hampshire, this might explain why: He appears to be spending huge sums on TV in the state, and has been doing so for some time.
Mitt was spending $100,000 a week through October, and he's now upped the ante to $200,000 a week, according to a report from GraniteProf that the Romney camp has not disputed. He notes that this level of spending translates into some 200 ads per week.
It's yet more confirmation of the extent to which the Romney camp is putting all its chips on big wins in New Hampshire (where he's widening his lead) and in Iowa (where the race is rapidly tightening) in advance of Rudy's predicted success on super-primary day, Feb. 5. (Via Jonathan Martin.)
Advertisement
Did anyone else besides Clinton buy time on the Green Bay/Detroit game yesterday? Her ad was the only one I saw but I didn't catch the whole game. I was kind of surprised -- particularly given that Iowa has no NFL team.
November 23, 2007 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ron Paul is already spending more per week than Romney, which is why he is surging in the polls faster than anyone.
Unlike the underfunded Romney, Ron Paul is not going to blow his wad in NH, and save an equal amount for SC, Nevada, and other key early states.
November 23, 2007 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't Iowans watch pro football? It would be hard to imagine the NFL being so high in the TV ratings if people in the 27 states without teams didn't watch.
November 25, 2007 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
2008 Presidential Candidate Weekly Poll
www.votenic.com
The Only Poll That Matters.
Results Posted Weekly Tuesday Night at Midnight.
November 29, 2007 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink