3 ms·
Incumbents usually have a lot more money to spend on advertising though too. On average I doubt advertising helps challengers more than incumbents (there are al
by rapind 7y ago
Incumbents usually have a lot more money to spend on advertising though too. On average I doubt advertising helps challengers more than incumbents (there are always edge cases of course).
- spunker540 7y agoIt comes down to incrementality. Sure Trump has way more money than most challengers, but most people have also already made up their minds about him. His cost to acquire incremental voters is probably much higher than a lesser-known challenger.
- yellow_postit 7y agoEven if he’s not getting incremental votes he can dominate the share of voice by pricing out the competitors.
- rapind 7y agoThis is what I'm thinking. Like an advertising carpet bomb that drowns out dissent and sows confusion.
- BurningFrog 7y agoAs someone who lived through Meg Whitmans's carpet bombing when trying to win the California governorship over Jerry Brown, it's hard to believe that would matter. For me, it just made me annoyed at Whitman. A quick googling gave this¹ doc, that says MW spent $178.5M against $36.7M from JB. Brown won easily. ¹ https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article24609709.html https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article...
- Thorrez 7y agoI would expect that to require an extremely huge amount of money and be impractical. Candidates + parties + PACs + lobbying + think tanks + advocacy organizations spent $10B in 2018 in the US, whereas the US almond industry made $12B in 2018. So I expect political spending to not be able to change ad prices very much compared to commercial ad spending. https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/09/18/too-much-dark-money-in-almonds/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/09/18/too-much-dark-money-in...
- spunker540 7y agoYeah I very much doubt Trump is wasting his money bidding on impressions for people likely to support Democrats (assuming he can accurately mimic the dems’ targeting) just to slightly raise the cost of Democratic campaigns
- BurningFrog 7y agoThe research shows - contrary to common wisdom - that money only helps a campaign until it's reached all reachable voters with their message. After that, more spending does not matter. It's true that (A) the candidate with the most money (B) usually wins, but that doesn't mean A causes B. It's more likely that the most popular candidate attracts both the most money and the most votes, simply by being more popular.
- 50656E6973 7y agoMoney can create popularity.