Old people love to watch the news. TV ads ftw.

Ti egene Taso? thanks for the explanation. I think I'm starting to understand it a lot better.

It doesn't have to be, because the idea behind direct mail is to target it so you end up sending a small number of packages.

Only partisan Dems can stomach this show and will vote for you because you have a D next to your name.

meh 1975aments. if this were belly bands or on the front of the boxes somehow maybe.

file 13

telemarketers need to burn alive IMO


Do an Obama and hire a bunch of people to canvas for you ... payment after you win is apparently optional.

most effective by far is find the neighborhoods where you are most likely to do well. Send out a flyer to every house saying "We're doing a study on voting rates for local elections, part of the study is going to be printing out who voted and distributing the names in a flyer like this after voting day." Boom giant turn out. (This is not just my random thoughts, but a friend of a friend's thesis that was a research paper with david gergen (sp?) a poly sci professor at yale. It's statistically the best way to turn out the vote by a massive margin (like 95% voting when they did it for local congressional elections)

Local Newspaper and direct mail imo. Cable sounds appealing but it is so transient you will have to run the ad a bunch of times to get an effect.

That's what I was going for.

I think I was slightly mistaken about the costs. TV is more like 1.5-2 cents/viewer and direct mail might be slightly cheaper.

Going back to KO's show, one spot for my region would cost $20 and reach about 1400 people. I would have to split both roughly evenly with an adjoining township. If you don't like MSNBC, other networks I suspect would reach a good demographic would be HGTV and The Learning Channel. This site has good ratings information.

One other thing. It's my opinion that someone who pays attention to a TV ad is more likely to be persuaded than someone who pays attention to one of the other methods.

but you don't need to persuade a KO viewer, they'll vote Dem anyway. Also, I wouldn't do direct mail- everyone just pitches them in the trash- complete waste of money. Seriously, canvassing, door-knob hangers has the best effect on me.

I would guess that a quarter to a third of the households in my hometown subscribe to a local paper which they actually pay for. You can't really say that for the other methods.

The first part is partially true. I would be targeting Dems to increase turnout, which will only be about 30%.

The last part is a given, we'll be doing that anyway.

p.s. I think newspaper ads are good. Iron, do you have a website? (Hopefully yes). Plaster your website address EVERYWHERE: newspapers, door hangers, signs, etc. People will google you.

Wall Street Fighter 4

Very cheesy but sonicblomberg was pretty lol.

"Louisiana politics is known for being a bit weird compared to the rest of the country, and it's starting to look like this cycle will be no exception -- with scandal-plagued GOP Sen. David Vitter facing a potential primary challenge from a major Christian-Right activist on the one side, and a porn star on the other."

This is why I love politics.

You are at least half wrong. Im using the base civilian provider here, who is still subject to DoD guidelines and restrictions and I was able to read the article. Also, Im also near positive Ive read Lew Rockwell articles from work before but I'll check once all my official accounts get set up here. I hope you have something more than this article to offer because as far as the tactical feasibility of the F-22 is concerned it is a joke. As I said, Im not a huge fan of the F-22. My major issue is that Im a believer in specialized weapons platforms. If the F-22 was built as a pure air-to-air platform, Id be much happier. Anyhow, I'll pull out some stuff from the quoted section Boro provided. Im going to ignore the railing against the government stuff and criticisms of the procurement process. Im pretty much in agreement with the fact that the Pentagon procurement process is pretty broken. If you want to read a good book about that, try "The Pentagon Wars".





Laugh worthy. It is exactly as quoted above, reduced visibility to radar. No one made the claim that the aircraft is completely invisible on radar. Its a strawman argument and the statement that it must turn on its radar once in combat is well off the mark as well. Not to mention that once it is theoretically detected through its radar emissions it has a serious advantage in the fight.

Higher altitude isnt for the ability to combat other aircraft that can climb that high, its to gain an altitude advantage over other aircraft. And supercruise is an advantage for a variety of reasons. These are throwaway statements that have no basis in reality.

Actually, many people would disagree with that statement. Ive seen several professional articles lately and heard people speak that pretty much the opposite is true. China is on a lot of people's minds for one.

The above I believe is referring to the F-35. I actually laughed out loud when I read the "too fast for a pilot to spot tactical targets". Much like a car, an airplane can fly at various speeds and an aircraft with advanced flight controls can fly pretty damn slow if required. But right now jets that fly CAS fly pretty darn fast and do just fine. Thats why CAS involves a ground controller to help get the pilots on target. The withstanding ground fire statement is pretty vague but frankly not many aircraft are particularly good in this regard, the A-10 being the lone exception.

For the most part I cant speak much to the F-35. But I've flown in an exercise with F-22s and they decimated the red air guys utterly. In 10.5 years of flying Ive never seen red air utterly destroyed the way the F-22s did.

Anyhow sorry everyone for all the content in the no-content thread. On a low content note, I visited al-Faw palace today and took the obligatory picture of myself in the chair that Arafat gifted to Saddam.

Pics or it didnt happen IMO

Direct mail gets thrown out with all the other junk mail, imo.

There's nothing better than getting boots on the ground with door hangers and canvassers imo. After that I'd do TV ads (not on olberman!).

this Octomom lady is such an annoying dumbass

There's a good thread in the lounge ripping her to shreds.

my studiomate is working on an ice cream campaign. we have 2 chest freezers full of high end gellato and sorbet

Out of the options I would say TV, but I would rather put $1000 into making an awesome website that looks good and actually has content.

Make some good youtube videos also.

put it all on 13 on the roulette table obv.

Well let's take a look.

You say that it is laughworthy, and then claim that it is exactly as quoted? "Well off the mark"? Does it have to turn on it's radar to target enemy aircraft or not? Did he claim that it wasn't a superior fighter plane to anything else built? Uh, no? Does that affect the conclusions of the article in the slightest? Also no.

Read again. Your reading comprehension has no basis in reality. He said it can maneuver at altitude, which is useless, because there is no other plane that can. Do you see why?

If you want to actually provide an argument for why a Mach 2 stealth fighter plane that costs a third of a billion dollars a pop, plus god knows how much to equip and maintain, is relavent to fighting sandle wearing beggers with RPGs and IEDs in the narrow streets of third world nations whose GDP is less than the Pentagon's budget, be my guest. Until then, I am unimpressed with your handwaving.

China might be on a lot of people's minds, but that doesn't have anything to do with using F22s to fight 4G battles.

No coincidentally, the A10 is also much better at actually hitting targets, as was mentioned in the article. That was, in fact, the point. In other words, the third-billion-dollar fighter does not replace the pocket change A10 for these kinds of jobs.

So what? Did you even read the article? This is completely irrelevant to the point. All I see is you agreeing with the article, reinforcing what it says, yet ignoring the point and sneeringly calling it "a joke", "laughworthy", "not based in reality", "you laughed out loud" (I find it interesting when people admit that they laughed out loud at something they failed to comprehend).

By the way, your tone here is exactly why I have no interest in being nice with you.

LOL at the mods deleting my soviet obama avatar.........

I guess the crackdown censorship is starting now huh Long live freedom

wtf, why?

IIRC, the rule for avatars is: if anyone complains about an avatar as being "offensive" with some sort of logical reason why, it has to come down. Whoever (not necessarily Elliott) who had it taken down didn't have a lot of discretion.

wtf
pics of avatar?