I have always thought that if a guy like Romney, who is clearly behind in the polls, but is still statistical capable of winning, took 75% of his ad money and instead of putting ads out there set up a non-profit and just starting going around the country helping different groups of citizen that legitimately needed help, that you could landslide an election that you otherwise had almost no shot of winning. Instead of bombarding people with terrible ads about your opponent, make a few ads that show what you are doing with your campaign money. Imagine what 500 million dollars could do around the country in battleground states to support the different communities and sway voters.
What is more likely to change a swing vote:
1. A death a doom ad about your opponent ruining our nation?
2. 20 million dollars to a local need that honestly makes a difference...
You have about 7-8 swing states. Pour 50 million into each state in adulterated service to the communities. Use a 100 million ad budget to simply explain what you are doing and why it is important. Use the debates to explain your policy. Make the case for public funding of campaign and say that you don't think it is right to waste so much money on attack ads, so until we have public financing you are goign to use your money to help people, not demonize your opponent.
I am sure I am naive, but I honestly think it would work. I think it would work in part because it goes against everything that we are currently doing as a nation politically, and I think both parties are dying for some genuine leadership...we must look at approval ratings for our government leaders for any evidence we need.
