1) Voters hate watching these ads. Yes, negative ads work. But voters, of their own volition, have expressed confusion and anger about negative ads at events for Democrats and Republicans that I've been covering. And attacking the sources, as I heard Michael Bennet do yesterday, is a way to side with the voters.He's probably right about both of those things. But I think it's a little simpler than that. Here's Greg Sargent:
2) As good as the Chamber's image is (witness how many times Chris Coons name-checked it yesterday), fear of the foreign is a powerful, powerful argument to traditional Democratic voters who think the party has abandoned them. I've talked to union voters here who are angry at the Democrats but plan to vote for their House and Senate candidates because they think the Republicans will outsource jobs. Foreign = bad. Just keep repeating it.
I would be surprised if the Democratic Party didn't have similar poll findings.
[A] new poll commissioned by MoveOn, and done by the respected non-partisan firm Survey USA, strongly suggests that the issue may indeed matter a good deal to voters after all.
The poll finds that two thirds of registered voters, or 66 percent, are aware that outside groups are behind some of the ads they're seeing. This makes sense, since the issue has dominated the media amid the battle over the huge ad onslaught against Dems funded by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Karl Rove's groups.
What's more, an overwhelming 84 percent say they have a "right to know" who's bankrolling the ads. And crucially, the poll also found that the issue is resonant when linked to the economy. A majority, 53 percent, are less likely to think a candidate who is backed by "anonymous groups" can be trusted to "improve economic conditions" for them or their families. People don't believe these groups are looking out for their interests.