Naraku
01-12-2008, 12:51 AM
Some people seem to question whether there should be a Super Bowl ad, but I hope you all realize something. The campaign has been asking for $23 million to run campaign ads in some 23 states. That is a lot of money and might get TV time in each of those states and then be gone.
However, a Super Bowl ad, February 3rd two days before February 5th would cost $2.6 million out of the current campaigns coffers and would be in all 50 states. In the grand scheme of things, that's nothing. It took $1 million to get ads running in New Hampshire, only 1 million people. In comparison the Super Bowl reaches out to tens of millions of people.
There is a great deal more bang for the buck in a Super Bowl ad than running individual TV ads in every state.
Then the millions of dollars he has left can be spent on things that matter a great deal more like organization and getting people out to the voting booths. If the official campaign is doing this it just shows how good a spender Ron Paul really is because it is a cost-effective way to run a national campaign.
However, a Super Bowl ad, February 3rd two days before February 5th would cost $2.6 million out of the current campaigns coffers and would be in all 50 states. In the grand scheme of things, that's nothing. It took $1 million to get ads running in New Hampshire, only 1 million people. In comparison the Super Bowl reaches out to tens of millions of people.
There is a great deal more bang for the buck in a Super Bowl ad than running individual TV ads in every state.
Then the millions of dollars he has left can be spent on things that matter a great deal more like organization and getting people out to the voting booths. If the official campaign is doing this it just shows how good a spender Ron Paul really is because it is a cost-effective way to run a national campaign.