Campaigns have to make crucial decisions all the time. Should a candidate or elected official respond to a scurrilous attack? Do attack ads work? Will this one work, or will it backfire? These are the kinds of decisions that can make or break a campaign. These are the decisions that can change lives. People respond to political appeals at multiple levels, from conscious reactions to changes in neural networks that trigger “gut reactions.” If you rely too heavily on polls or focus groups, you may only scratch the surface of what voters actually think and feel – and you may draw the wrong conclusions. Implicit Strategies allows nonprofits, party organizations, and candidates to assess the gut-level emotional reactions and unconscious associations to issues, candidates, or ads. As an example, during the Presidential campaign of 2008, the primaries were rife with ads attacking opponents. We showed a group of people recruited by CNN an attack ad run by Hillary Clinton against Barak Obama. We also showed an ad attacking John McCain. In both cases, the people watching the attack ads denied that it affected them. In fact, they claimed that, if anything, the ads backfired. The Implicit Strategies test showed however that the attack ads worked. And they worked by triggering negative associations toward the candidate attacked. We also showed which associates were most strongly affected. We repeated the study a week before the election, now focusing only on Obama and McCain. This appeared on Good Morning America. Again, we showed that despite what people said, attack ads worked exactly as they were designed to do. We also showed that Obama’s “brand” had improved since the primaries whereas McCain’s had deteriorated.