On Election Day, Money and Magical Thinking

[Centexfarmer]

After some of the dust has settled from last Tuesday's election, I enjoy reading various perspectives regarding how it happened, and where we go from here.

On Election Day, Money and Magical Thinking

“Never before has so much political money been spent to achieve so little,” the Post noted. “Record spending by independent groups, which in many ways defined how campaigns were waged this year, had no discernible effect on the outcome of most races… Indeed, if election investments are like the stock market, a lot of billionaires just lost their shirts.”

But the article doesn't conclude there, and explains why.

Maybe what we collectively experience as Americans during this past election will be the "new normal" in future politics.

Thoughts?

[rareboy]

I'm afraid that this premise is also magical thinking.

The reality is that the oligarchs and multi-nationals and all the other special interests, like the talibangelicals, will just end up thinking....'We Didn't Do Enough. More. That is the solution. More!!'

This is a nation that thrills to hearing about how much a minute of commercial time on the SUPER BOWL broadcast will cost.

Billionaires never lose their shirts. They are always playing with other peoples' money to begin with with.

Make it rain Baby.

[palbert]

As the writer concludes -- surprised Bill allowed that venturesomeness -- it's a good start. The ocean part I mean.

[Kulindahr]

It's interesting that when the polls are against them, Republicans claim the polls are wrong and slog forward in confidence, while Democrats get grim, buckle down, and try harder.

It's also interesting that all the superPAC money spent apparently changed nothing. But it will only come back, because now both sides will conclude that if they don't at least hold even, the other side's money will make a difference -- so what they need to do is spend more....

[Jack Springer]

^^^

Got your official Democrat Party card laminated and in your wallet? Make sure you burn all your libertarian party propaganda.

Pollsters make mistakes. The pollsters that were wrong this year will be right in the future and the ones who were correct will be wrong in the future.

Things change.

[Centexfarmer]

^^^

Got your official Democrat Party card laminated and in your wallet? Make sure you burn all your libertarian party propaganda.

Pollsters make mistakes. The pollsters that were wrong this year will be right in the future and the ones who were correct will be wrong in the future.

Things change.

Even the one's who are specifically hired to poll in one direction or another.

I don't know Jack but this attachment really made me laugh:



So are you suggesting that they'll find a better way to spend their money next time?

[gewhite3]

Nate Silver was right in 2008 and 2012. He didn't listen to the whiners saying he was too effeminate to be right. I'll probably follow him again in 2016. It's math, stupid.

[Centexfarmer]

^ I think that math over money is what decided this election.

You can toss billions of dollars of cash at something, but if the math isn't with you then you're just throwing good money after bad.

I think that this article speaks to some of that, and why I posited the question how will what we learned during this election make the next one somehow different, or will it be more of what we just witnessed?

[JayHawk]

^^^

Got your official Democrat Party card laminated and in your wallet? Make sure you burn all your libertarian party propaganda.

Pollsters make mistakes. The pollsters that were wrong this year will be right in the future and the ones who were correct will be wrong in the future.

Things change.

The republican leaning polls are typically off the same amount each election since 2006. That is because they are trying to shape opinion and turnout with polls instead of facts. It appears to work quite well from the lovely informed voices I hear in Missouri and Kansas.


Centex I think the thing learned this time is that you have to spend early and often. Obama successfully painted a picture of ROmney before the race between them really started and Romney did not respond. That I believe was key and how Super PAC money will be spent in the fture to define the candidate early and harshly.

[Centexfarmer]

^ I'm not entirely in agreement with you JayHawk.

I think that both parties used the primaries as a tactical fund raising tool, because neither party wanted to invest a whole lot of money on defeating any one candidate, and the other used it as a fundraising tool with the blitz of emails exclaiming, "Do you really want this guy to win?" And then the real war chest was spent.

I'll concede that money played a huge role in the run up to the primaries, in terms of which candidate won in any number of the primary caucuses, but in the end game money didn't really seem to matter much. If you candidate couldn't connect, or scare the shit out of you for voting for him, or against him, then it was all a real waste. Unless you had a job on a campaign committee, or worked as a pollster.

As to "polls" it was pointed out in one article that I read that a smaller percentage of Americans actually have "landlines" now, and many of us are on the Do Not Call List in regard to our cellphone policies.

So most of the phone polls were taken by individuals who apparently either didn't have caller ID, or nothing better to do than to answer their phone.

[JayHawk]

See the two critical things that occurred in that election was ROmney getting defined early and then being beaten over the head with the abortion/rape ignorance.... did you read that during the initial phase of Obama ads Romney was low on cash and none of his Super PACs were fighting that message?

There is another lesson... Obama spent about equal cash but got more bang for his buck because campaigns get discounted rates where as super pacs do not... most of Romney's money was huge donation from the few to Super PACs whereas Obama had the majority as small donations directly to his campaign... So another lesson about motivating the base and having a ground game to the republican party...

In the end, I think unless the law is changed we will see targeted spending early on issues various pacs want to push for a specific outcome. They will want to shape the message and set the tone. The sad thing is that with no discernible influence the Super PAC money is going to fade to obscurity and not be addressed again until they do impact an election.

[Kulindahr]

Centex I think the thing learned this time is that you have to spend early and often. Obama successfully painted a picture of ROmney before the race between them really started and Romney did not respond. That I believe was key and how Super PAC money will be spent in the fture to define the candidate early and harshly.

I'd say Romney painted a picture of himself, and Obama just held it up to view.

I suspect the SuperPAC money alone will top two billion next presidential election.

[Centexfarmer]

^ Now that's frightening.

"The ground game defined which states should be targeted, and how."

Can you imagine a well financed campaign machine that could specifically micro target precincts within any given Congressional or Senatorial District to effect a specific outcome regardless of party or demographics?

[JayHawk]

Romney certainly didn't help himself. However plenty of politi-philes are already pointing out how Romney was defined early by Obama as a key strategy that worked well.

[Kulindahr]

See the two critical things that occurred in that election was ROmney getting defined early and then being beaten over the head with the abortion/rape ignorance.... did you read that during the initial phase of Obama ads Romney was low on cash and none of his Super PACs were fighting that message?

There is another lesson... Obama spent about equal cash but got more bang for his buck because campaigns get discounted rates where as super pacs do not... most of Romney's money was huge donation from the few to Super PACs whereas Obama had the majority as small donations directly to his campaign... So another lesson about motivating the base and having a ground game to the republican party...

In the end, I think unless the law is changed we will see targeted spending early on issues various pacs want to push for a specific outcome. They will want to shape the message and set the tone. The sad thing is that with no discernible influence the Super PAC money is going to fade to obscurity and not be addressed again until they do impact an election.

Another lesson: Romney had paid staff and workers, while Obama relied more on volunteers. Additionally, Romney paid far more for the staff he had. Lesson: have people willing to pound the pavement for you because they like you.

[JayHawk]

You have a cite for that Kuli? Cause Obama may have had more volunteers but he didnt have people manning three to five times as many local campaign offices in all nine battleground states for free for the last six months. The ground game alone Obama spent a fortune on and Romney didnt.... that was the end of story from the start to be sure.

[Kulindahr]

^ I'll have to dig through the news I've been reading. But it was volunteers that did the footwork from all those offices, though they had paid staff. And all the emails I kept getting trying to recruit me reflect that.

[maxpowr9]

Romney certainly didn't help himself. However plenty of politi-philes are already pointing out how Romney was defined early by Obama as a key strategy that worked well.

Actually the bloodbath was in the GOP primaries and many candidates were already gunning for Romney and trounced on him [remember anyone but Romney?] and the party just accepted him as an inevitability.

[Jack Springer]

^ I think that math over money is what decided this election.

You can toss billions of dollars of cash at something, but if the math isn't with you then you're just throwing good money after bad.

I think that this article speaks to some of that, and why I posited the question how will what we learned during this election make the next one somehow different, or will it be more of what we just witnessed?

Obama won because he promised a shit-load of stuff to his target market - ramming his story down their throats for 5 years, painted his opponent as an evil man, and republicans stayed home and didn't vote.

Pollsters just get lucky.

[Kulindahr]

Actually the bloodbath was in the GOP primaries and many candidates were already gunning for Romney and trounced on him [remember anyone but Romney?] and the party just accepted him as an inevitability.

True enough -- so, another lesson: find a candidate your people can actually like.

[BostonPirate]

Obama spent ten Dollars to every one Romney spent on social media.

Knowing where to spend your money is more important than how much you spend. Romney was paying yes men to tell him what he wanted to hear. That works in business some times, but never in politics.

[palbert]

The linchpin -- which the article calls into review -- of the cited article and this discussion is Citizens United and what it wrought. Minimizing its effect on the money spent can only take place at the margins absent a Constitutional amendment. Marbury v. Madison, to the effect:

It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department [the judicial branch] to say what the law is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison

Public, State and Congressional fulminations are meaningless absent an amendment excising political expenditure from Constitutional protection.

The lesson of this election is if you're going to spend money, spend it productively. Dems did; Repubs didn't. There will be many more elections to refine the process.

[Kulindahr]

The linchpin -- which the article calls into review -- of the cited article and this discussion is Citizens United and what it wrought. Minimizing its effect on the money spent can only take place at the margins absent a Constitutional amendment. Marbury v. Madison, to the effect:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison

Public, State and Congressional fulminations are meaningless absent an amendment excising political expenditure from Constitutional protection.

The lesson of this election is if you're going to spend money, spend it productively. Dems did; Repubs didn't. There will be many more elections to refine the process.

That's far too wimpy an approach. Any amendment dealing with this should define two things: for the purposes of political activity, first, a person, as a living human being who is either a citizen or a legal resident; second, that only such persons have any rights to participate in the political process.

[rareboy]

Believing that Bill O'Reilly spin? Obama promised a better future than Romney... it wasn't about promising anything. Republicans stayed home and didn't vote? LOL... no. Republicans are shrinking in number... that's why.

FOX has the most amazing way of spinning all of this for their angry old white guy audience.

[Jack Springer]

Believing that Bill O'Reilly spin? Obama promised a better future than Romney... it wasn't about promising anything. Republicans stayed home and didn't vote? LOL... no. Republicans are shrinking in number... that's why.

Better future = free birth control, free phones, free food stamps, free amnesty for illegals

I guess it depends on how your define a better future.

[palbert]

That's far too wimpy an approach. Any amendment dealing with this should define two things: for the purposes of political activity, first, a person, as a living human being who is either a citizen or a legal resident; second, that only such persons have any rights to participate in the political process.

That flies in the face of centuries of court holdings on corporate personhood. In my view, a real stretch.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

[rareboy]

^ Exactly.

Cynical, misleading and incendiary.

FOX crap.

[BostonPirate]

Better future = free birth control, free phones, free food stamps, free amnesty for illegals

I guess it depends on how your define a better future.

You DO realize that it's because you guys in the GOP said this kind of stuff so much for so long, that you offended so many people, that you are losing control of the nation?

Political irrelevance is not a great place to be

[Jack Springer]

^^^^^

Who will pay the taxes in a country of takers?

[BostonPirate]

^^^^^

Who will pay the taxes in a country of takers?

you're the guy from the party of no taxes... you tell me.

[TX-Beau]

^^^^^

Who will pay the taxes in a country of takers?

Hopefully the actual takers, you know, the red states (except Texas) and the super rich, they've almost taken everything there is to take!!!!

TIME TO PAY UP!

[Kulindahr]

That flies in the face of centuries of court holdings on corporate personhood. In my view, a real stretch.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

Exactly the point. Corporate personhood musty be limited to the business realm, period.

[Jack Springer]

Countries voted for Obama?

WTF?

Raise taxes. I'm all for it.

[rareboy]

Countries voted for Obama?

WTF?

Raise taxes. I'm all for it.

Well that's interesting... because 8 out of the 10 richest counties in the country voted for.... OBAMA! I guess we in these economically powerful states still need to flip the bill for the red states... Missouri, Alabama, Mississippi... all take billions in federal money.

sigh

[BostonPirate]

Countries voted for Obama?

WTF?

Raise taxes. I'm all for it.

LOL!!

he said counties.,.. hehe

You did that on purpose. I think people miss your dry witt on occasion, buddy!

Ok so you want taxes raised? Should it be on Mittens or on the poor? Are we finally getting close to agreeing on TWO things in one week????

I think I may have a stroke....ha!