5 ms·
I think only allowing the advert to be targeted at the level that the campaign is being run in is reasonable. i.e. if you are campaigning for Governor of NY, y
by richardwhiuk 6y ago
I think only allowing the advert to be targeted at the level that the campaign is being run in is reasonable.
i.e. if you are campaigning for Governor of NY, you can target New York state, but you can't target Manhattan, or Long Island, or men over 50, or people who liked the NRA.
- dillondoyle 6y agothat would kill list building and fundraising which are large digital expenditures. non-presidentials barely spend on digital persuasion but they will spend on fundraising if it raises
- AnimalMuppet 6y agoKilling those things might not be a negative...
- andrewjl 6y agoDoing so would destroy the ability of non-establishment candidates representing salient issues, e.g. police violence in particular communities, from effectively running grassroots campaigns.
- AnimalMuppet 6y agoOnly if money remained the engine of political campaigns. But if others can't raise money either, then I think that helps the grass-roots candidates.
- nitrogen 6y agoPeople who already have money could just spend it directly in that world, couldn't they?
- AnimalMuppet 6y agoThey already do in this one. I will admit it would give the rich more of an edge.
- tzs 6y agoSo about the only allowed form of advertising is mail addressed to "Occupant" sent to every postal address that is in the jurisdiction the office represents? Nearly everything else will generally only reach a subset of the voters, and that subset will have known demographic differences from the overall voter demographics for the jurisdiction. Run an ad at in the 8-8:30 PM Sunday slot on every FOX TV station in a state, for example, and you'll get quite a different demographic than if you ran an ad on those same stations on Sunday afternoon. The first ad would be during "The Simpsons" and the second would probably be during an NFL football game.