Money, Money, Money

More on a question we discussed not too long ago: is money spent on politics just wasted?

My sense is yes.
[S]igns are few that super PACs have had the major impact that both supporters and critics predicted. The flood of spending doesn't appear to have significantly influenced voter opinion in key states in the presidential contest or in top congressional races.
This follows the form of the surveys that search for hidden racism by asking you if you think your neighbors might be subject to racism. The theory is that if you think your neighbors might be, well, maybe you are and you're just afraid to admit it. Your answer to the question about your neighbor establishes something about you; it doesn't actually establish anything about your neighbor.

Here, we have a strong sense from the political class that their neighbors are terribly subject to paid propaganda. I think this establishes something about that class -- that they are hungry to buy influence, and fear their opponents outbidding them.

In terms of 'their neighbors,' though, nothing has been established. My sense is that most Americans ignore the stuff as an irritating distraction. We know what we're going to do, and why, and the last person who's going to change my mind is a paid spokesman.

Wisconsin seems to suggest that the vast flood of money and activism moved the needle not at all. I think that's going to prove to be generally true. Your average American has been subject to the manipulations of the most clever geniuses of advertising since he or she was born. They know what they are looking at, and they are hard to move.

4 comments:

Gringo said...

Here, we have a strong sense from the political class that their neighbors are terribly subject to paid propaganda. I think this establishes something about that class -- that they are hungry to buy influence, and fear their opponents outbidding them.


Just from seeing Dewhurst attack ads during the little time I saw TV at a neighbor's house, and not having seen any Ted Cruz ads, I get the impression that David Dewhurst greatly outspent Ted Cruz in the Republican primary for the US Senate seat in Texas. Yet Dewhurst still lost to Ted Cruz.

From that, I conclude that campaign spending doesn't always produce the desired results.

Obama outspent McCain by about a factor of 3 to 1. It seems to me that such a disparity in spending would have led to a greater victor margin than the 7 points by which Obama won.

Which again leads to the conclusion that campaign spending doesn't always produce the desired results. I think this is especially so regarding attack ads.

Texan99 said...

Money can make a candidate visible to me who's coming out of obscurity. I doubt I'd ever have heard of and become enthusiastic about Ted Cruz if his campaign hadn't gotten some money into it. Once the candidates are out there, it's less clear to me whether it has an impact. For one thing, I practically never see a political ad on TV. I'm not sure whether it's that we're watching the wrong channels, or that we're fast-forwarding though the ads.

Miss Ladybug said...

I don't think I've seen many campaign ads, either. But, presidential candidates aren't buying ads in Texas, I couldn't tell you who Cruz's opponent is, and I'm not sure who all the contestants are for the other elected offices I'll see on the ballot in the next few weeks...

douglas said...

I don't see too many ads here either, but that's because California is about as in play as Texas. Now, if you're in one of the swing states, I figure you're probably completely burned out on the political ads by now.

I suspect the ad money is less effective per dollar for the Democrats because their message gets out for free through the MSM. The GOP probably need to spend more, and as they're historically poor marketers, need repetition more too, I suspect. I will say the new era of alternate media has probably brought the conservative side to an almost equal creative level as the Dem marketers.