From the first Morning Jolt of the week:
Money Can’t Buy You Love…. or Election Wins, Either.
Our Jonah Goldberg observed recently:
“I do not exaggerate when I tell you that the foundations of American democracy are being undermined,” Bernie Sanders told some students at the University of Chicago (and pretty much anyone else he’s ever talked to). “American democracy is not supposed to be about billionaires buying elections.”
You’d think that if the “billionaire class” — all 536 people in it — had the kind of unfettered control over the U.S. political system that Sanders believes them to have, Mr. Sanders would be asking, “Would you like fries with that?”
Money can spread a political message, but it cannot force the electorate to like something that it instinctively doesn’t like. This morning, the Boston Globe adds even more evidence to support that argument, pointing out that spending millions of dollars running thousands of television ads in favor of a particular candidate… doesn’t necessarily work.
The former Florida governor had the advantage of more TV spots, sponsored by his campaign or a super PAC supporting him, on New Hampshire and Boston channels in the last two months than any other candidate in the Granite State presidential primary, according to a Globe analysis. There were more than 3,600 airings, for a total of more than 34 hours.
A big part of that domination came from the money Bush and his super PAC, Right to Rise, spent for ads on WMUR, the state’s largest television station; his investment was second only to Marco Rubio’s. The combined effort for Bush was on track to spend about $3.5 million in the crucial 10 weeks since the beginning of December, compared with more than $4 million by Rubio and his super PAC, according to public records.
The numbers reflect one of the lessons of the 2016 campaign, at least in the early states: that bankrolling huge advertising buys has become less important in many instances than media coverage and the narrative arc of a candidacy.
The Globe calculates that polling front-runner Donald Trump is on track to spend $424,000 in New Hampshire, “a relatively small sum among GOP contenders.”
It’s an old rejoinder, but a true one, that if you think money buys elections, ask President H. Ross Perot, or President Steve Forbes. Romney built his fortune; John Kerry and John McCain married into theirs, and none of their presidential bids succeeded. Michael Huffington – once Arianna’s husband – spent $28 million in a Senate bid in 1994, the most money ever spent on a non-presidential campaign at that point. He lost. Tom Golisano spent $93 million on three independent gubernatorial campaigns in New York; he never won.
(Right now, Rick Perry, Scott Walker and Bobby Jindal are clearing their throats and pointing out that not having money can indeed cause a political effort to fail. Losing presidential campaigns rarely run out of ideas, enthusiasm or candidate ambition; they do run out of money to pay the staff.)
You can make a strong case that traditional television advertising doesn’t work anymore. There are just too many of them, with the same tropes – the grainy black-and-white footage of the opponent, the ominous music, the same narrators…
Cullen attributed Rubio’s recent rise in the New Hampshire polls more to favorable media attention the Florida senator received following his third-place finish in Iowa, a burst of attention driven by beating expectations.
“It’s multiple times more valuable to him than any advertising they have done,” said Cullen, who is backing Governor John Kasich of Ohio in the primary. “The earned media so outweighs the paid media that it almost doesn’t matter.”
Notice that deep in the story, it says Rubio spent $4.12 million on television ads on WMUR in New Hampshire. Do you think he’s getting his money’s worth? If it’s a strong second, the ad spending probably paid off… if he’s third, fourth… probably not, right?