4 ms·
The reason is simple. The establishment has nothing to gain but everything to lose. Let's say the maximum reach/exposure to voters is 100% in their country. Th
by datashow 7y ago
The reason is simple. The establishment has nothing to gain but everything to lose.
Let's say the maximum reach/exposure to voters is 100% in their country. The political establishment of many decades already have this number close to 100%, but the opposition may only have 5%. You see, the opposition has potential to gain a lot from ads, but not the establishment.
Also in a rich society like Singapore, grassroots can make huge contribution to the opposition party if their voice get heard and spread. But the establishment does not need this.
- TheFiend7 7y agoSo if the opposition only has 5% support, while the establishment has close to 95% support (for the sake of the example). I'd argue the opposing party 5% support would likely have a matching resource pool of their size. Meaning the establishment might run 95% of all ads as ads supporting the establishment and only 5% of ads would support the opposing party. So I struggle to see how that would help the opposing party? Obviously, it isn't that cut and dry, but America is a good example actually. Because they have 2 major parties and several third parties. But those third parties never make any meaningful growth even after running ads because they only represent >5% of the available political parties.