Nevertheless, it still sounds like a bad idea and a spectacular waste of funds to me to basically spam people with DVDs. I very much doubt that many people will do anything more than toss it aside like they would an AOL trial disc. Maybe a couple of people out of that 70,000 might pop it in, but after watching a couple of minutes of John Edwards talking I'm pretty sure they'll give up on it.

And as for the whole Coulter thing, I don't see how anyone is surprised. Though it is hilarious that people are trying to turn her into a hero of the conservative mainstream all the sudden. What I don't understand though is that there are all sorts of nasty and offensive names one can call John Edwards that make perfect sense. Coulter picked one of just a handful that really don't apply to him at all. Sucks that all this controversy is brought up over a statement that basically says nothing about the candiate.

It is far more effective than typical paper-only direct mail. And, in general, regardless of what type of direct mail it is, direct mail has a higher rate of effectiveness in primary elections generally and in early presidential primary states particularly. Sending out DVDs has become a rather common part of candidates' direct mail plans at all levels.

I just think its a bit of a leap of faith to assume that the DVD is going to make it to the voters' DVD players. If you send a postcard or something like that in the mail, its pretty much guaranteed the person will at least glance at the contents as they read their mail. It only takes a couple seconds for that kind of direct mail campaign material to be effective. But a DVD actually requires the person to break their mail reading routine, take the DVD to the DVD player, and then sit and watch it. I just don't see many people doing that.

Your average person? No. Your average voter? No. Your average primary, base voter? Yes. Your average primary, base voter in Iowa? Absolutely, yes. (It's a very targeted mail universe.) Now, of course, it doesn't have a 100% or even a 50% rate of return (of people opening it and playing it) (most campaign direct mail has around a 35% rate of return - this is higher in primaries (but that is mostly because of the universe) and it is even higher in early presidential primary states (again because of the universe, but also because of the political culture)), but it does have a high enough rate of return to make it cost-effective. And when I get home and if I feel so inclined I can do a CHAID targeting square (which is how most campaigns determine cost effectiveness of direct mail and other field programs) illustrating this.

More on the whole Coulter thing...

Paper Drops Coulter's Column Over "Faggot" Comment
By Greg Sargent

A daily newspaper in Pennsylvania has dropped Ann Coulter's syndicated column in the wake of her "faggot" comment. The paper, the Lancaster New Era, delivered the news today in a terse note to readers:

"LANCASTER COUNTY, Pa. -- The Lancaster New Era has halted publication of Ann Coulter's syndicated column, following her crude characterization of presidential candidate John Edwards as a homosexual, at a public appearance on Friday.

Coulter's use of name-calling, sarcasm and overstatement in her columns too often detracts from the arguments she seeks to make. Her writing leads her political opponents to respond with name-calling and vitriol.

The quality of public discussion falls below that which Lancaster County residents expect in the opinion pages of their daily newspaper.

Lancaster County residents of whatever political view -- conservative, moderate or liberals -- deserve intelligent discussion of issues. Ann Coulter no longer provides that."

http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/b...faggot_comment
http://local.lancasteronline.com/4/201385

The Glenn Greenwald article a couple posts above pre-emptively crushed this post.

Yeah, in word count.

I love it when liberals try and tell conservatives what they really believe. That article was nothing more than lame psychoanalysis and painting with a broad brush because it makes convenient villains of conservatives. "Of course, conservatives all love Ann Coulter! Each and every one!" Sure, it'd be easy for liberals to win the culture war if all conservatives were as abrasive and offensive deep down as Ann Coulter is...but, unfortunately it just ain't so. That article was wishful thinking.

I guess quoting a popular conservative pundit (Malkin) saying that Ann Coulter (best selling author, regular guest on foxnews hannity & oreilly, who is invited every year to a very prominent conservative convention that also hosts presidential candidates) is popular among conservatives is liberal wishful thinking. Logical.

This is true. Great post.

It is wishful when the guy is using that sort of anecdotal evidence to make sweeping claims that Coulter's comments reflect not just the mores of a significant portion of conservatives, but rather that they are reflective of the very heart of modern conservative ideology. That's just plain ridiculous.

You have to be fair here, he's not citing that as the only evidence (anecdotal??? she IS a best selling author. Can you name a more popular female conservative author? she DOES appear on foxnews often. she WAS a speaker at a prominent conservative convention. Those are facts, not anecdotes). He also is referencing the cases made in the books by Bob Altemeyer and John Dean that explain about the authoritarian cultism of the modern conservative movement.

So Edwards is not going to participate in the Fox televised debate in Nevada. If it were a group effort then alright, but going it alone (as of now), I dont think is a good move.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/3/6/22951/88088

Several of the campaigns I contacted are still trying to make a final determination, but the first to definitely say "no" is John Edwards. Deputy Campaign Manager Jonathan Prince emailed me the great news:

We will not be participating in the Fox debate. We're going to make lots of appearances in Nevada, including debates. By the end of March, we will have attended three presidential forums in Nevada - and there are already at least three proposed Nevada debates. We're definitely going to debate in Nevada, but we don't see why this needs to be one of them.

Good for him.

I'm inclined to agree. However, particularly in light of the Coulter comment and her ties to Fox News (which has defended her) (as well as the other stuff already covered in the Fox thread) it is making a statement. I'm also betting that Obama will not participate. And if Edwards and Obama aren't participating, Hillary likely won't either. So, it more than likely will be a group effort (and Edwards gets to say he was the leader, not the follower).

being hte first is a risky move, but it is indicative of the type of campaign edwards will run this time around (rather than walking on eggshells like kerry did)

what people are looking for in this election are people who stand up for themselves and follow their convictions. edwards looks strong by saying "no" to a fox debate this early in 2007. most people, myself *******d, aren't going to watch stuff now. political junkies care but that's it.

i think this campaign has started WAY TOO SOON.

oh, and mann coulter should shut up (in my personal opinion but of course, she has the right to say hundreds of horrid, hateful things, so whatever)

Debate is off. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0307/3069.html

I actually tried to watch Fox News the other day because I was in a hotel room with 10 channels and I was flipping through.

It was pretty hilarious. This guy:

http://loickwan.boardinglobe.com/ima...ibson_john.jpg

had me fuckin' rolling the whole night. I mean I knew Fox News was you know....I mean I know what the general perception is but just watching it felt like I was watching a bad MadTV sketch parodying "Fox News."

This is a fun thread

right? on occasion brit hume is neutral, but he also gives commentary and editorializes during other segements, so it all bleeds together. the local fox news here in chicago is normal news journalism. they aren't trying to sway the audience with opinionated tone. they merely report the news of the day.

I think Ann Coulter's career (or at least, her popularity) is starting to crumble.

ravenguy: John Gibson is such a cheesy, stupid bastard.

You reckon? Her career's based on being a vicious anti-democrat, anti-liberal loudmouth, it's not like she has any actual credibility as a serious political voice. The people she's popular with aren't going to turn away from her just because she's... done what she always does

I can't imagine her die hard supporters being all "oh no she said faggot?! What a bitch!"

Oh man, not to turn this into Fox News central but this is great -

http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_webl...ws_crazy_.html

I wouldn't even say die-hard - anyone who actually likes her has been entertaining this kind of stuff for years. I mean it's what she does, saying stuff like this *is* her career

I like the death penalty one

'Should the US save MILLIONS OF TAX DOLLARS by shortening the time on death row, like Iraq _{which has an awesome track record}'

Despite what they say a lot of that IS taken out of context. See, this is part of what is wrong with a lot of the FOX bashing - people go so far out of their way to bash FOX that they go too far.

I've already mentioned before that the "Libby innocent" was a part of a scroll where they showed the charges one by one. I'm completely disgusted by the Lidle reference - nobody knew what happened at that time, and CNN had it's own "terror analyst" on its broadcast.

Completely disgusting.

^Some of it is stupid and some of it is just nitpicky fuck-ups that could happen on any network that have nothing to do with political bias but still, a lot of it is pretty spot-on.

seriously