Every day until the election, Slate will offer up one reason to be optimistic for your candidate.
19 days to go:
Today’s Good News for Obama: At Slate, we’ve talked a lot about how much the presidential candidates are spending on ads. But who’s getting more bang for his buck? President Obama’s ads are more effective in changing voters’ preferences, according to a recent study. While Mitt Romney’s ads had little effect on his support, respondents who watched Obama’s ads preferred Obama over Romney 48 percent to 39 percent. And voters who saw both Romney and Obama ads preferred Obama by a 48-41 margin. The study also tested the “Disappointed” ad produced by the super PAC Americans for Prosperity. Male voters who watched the ad supported Romney by 1 percent more than the control group, but there was a 5 point drop in female voter support for Romney. It turns out Romney’s ads aren’t helping him much—and they might actually be hurting him.
TODAY IN SLATE
The Right Target
Why Obama’s airstrikes against ISIS may be more effective than people expect.
Why Is This Mother in Prison for Helping Her Daughter Get an Abortion?
Divestment Is Fine but Mostly Symbolic. There’s a Better Way for Universities to Fight Climate Change.
I Stand With Emma Watson on Women’s Rights
Even though I know I’m going to get flak for it.
It Is Very Stupid to Compare Hope Solo to Ray Rice
In Defense of HR
Startups and small businesses shouldn’t skip over a human resources department.