Homophobia may go deeper than racism.

God, Greg - if it seems to be working, that may be merely a function of the fact that people are hearing the name for the first time.

Well, guess what? A new poll suggests the ad just might be working.

Um..... how exactly? For the ad to be 'working', doesn't that imply that the current poll numbers are lower (for Barnes) than some previous poll numbers before the ad was run? I don't see you quoting any previous polling on this race.....

Sorry Greg - this is Erik.

So, Erik - how do you know that an increase in poll numbers is directly tied to the substance of this ad?

Why isn't is actually more easily seen as people hearing the name over and over?

Homosexuals - The Terroriss of the '08 Election!

What bullshit will the GOP come up with next??????

My semi-educated guess it that gay bashing is a losing issue with the electorate born after the mid-sixties. By the 2016 presidential election, this group will represent everyone 50 and younger.

I was talking to one of the deacons at my rural-Georgia southern baptist church and he said something very interesting to me that basically went like this - Homosexuality to folks today is kind of like drinking was to our parents and grandparents. This huge big deal. But to us - we might not do it ourselves, but we don't think it is a big deal that others do.

I think that starting with this election we are going to see the emergence of a Republican view point that is much more socially liberterian and that isn't really anti-government but just argues that leaner, less wastefully government works better for the people. In other words, Goldwater conservatism with out the "government is evil" rhetoric.

The compromise with social conservatives will be to push that issues like abortion and gay marriage should not be decided either way by the federal government but should be decided by individual states. It might even be framed as a way of protecting social groups in the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

I know this is a small matter, but you guys at TPM are hip. You call it 'san-fran' or 'frisco' if you are over 70 and live in Kansas. To the rest of the world, it is as herb caen said it best "ess eff".

When a SUSA poll has so many undecideds, there's more to the situation than what meets the eye.

I agree with the Commenters who wrote that without a poll BEFORE the TV ad showing the incumbent with lower numbers, it doesn't make any sense to conclude that the ad is helping him.

The only previous poll I know of is what the voters did on Election Day in 2006: They gave Rep. Samuel B. Graves, Jr. (R-MO) 61.6%.

49% is a decline in the Republican incumbent's popularity from 61.6%.

Maybe the viewers didn't get the message...just identified the Republican's name and kind of snapped their fingers and tapped their toes. Maybe the Democrat (whose name you should have mentioned, which I don't remember either) should come up with a catchier, less turgid response.

This is a pure example of "dogshit politics".

The GOP drops the same dogshit in everyone's yard and hopes the enemy steps in it. As much as you try you can never get rid of every trace or smell.

A Flaming bag of shit on the front porch works equally well.

Gotta love the GOP.

How can you argue the ad is working without having some polling numbers pre-ad? Also, when exactly was the poll taken? Did the ad run long enough for it to sink in? This is an incumbent Republican running in a Republican leaning district, keep in mind.

The people of the City and County of San Francisco thank Mrs. Clinton for publicly trashing us (BitterGate) and special mention to her toady Gavin Newsom for not standing up for us