3 ms·

There are plenty of examples where the candidate which spent the most lost. Or didn't even get to the election: Bloomberg is a good example. I'd also bet that

There are plenty of examples where the candidate which spent the most lost. Or didn't even get to the election: Bloomberg is a good example. I'd also bet that the vast, vast majority of voters are already going to vote for their chosen candidate, independently of whether they see $1 billion worth of ads or $5. If anything, "free" advertising like going on a podcast or working at McDonalds as a stunt seems to have more influence.

bhouston 1y ago
> I'd also bet that the vast, vast majority of voters are already going to vote for their chosen candidate, independently of whether they see $1 billion worth of ads or $5. This is true of elections in two party systems. Most people have parties they align with and don't switch often. But there are persuadables. The billions spent on political ads was spent for a reason. Similar to why billions are spent on marketing in general. There is the old adage that sure half of the marketing budget is wasted, but it is never clear which half ahead of time. https://www.b2bmarketing.net/half-the-money-i-spend-on-advertising-is-wasted-the-trouble-is-i-dont-know-which-half/ https://www.b2bmarketing.net/half-the-money-i-spend-on-adver...
- keiferski 1y ago
  There's also the fact that it's something of an arms race, where not spending the billions is not really an option for serious candidates, whether it is "worth it" or not. It's not exactly something that can be tested scientifically, unless a serious candidate wants his campaign to be an experiment.
slipperydippery 1y ago
Get Out the Vote is where it's at. "True swing" (not self-reported swing, most people lie because they think being a swing voter is more socially desirable, I suppose) is indeed a tiny sliver. It's about convincing your people they need to show up or the other side will make your grandkids shit in litter boxes, or whatever lies it takes.

bhouston 1y ago

> I'd also bet that the vast, vast majority of voters are already going to vote for their chosen candidate, independently of whether they see $1 billion worth of ads or $5. This is true of elections in two party systems. Most people have parties they align with and don't switch often. But there are persuadables. The billions spent on political ads was spent for a reason. Similar to why billions are spent on marketing in general. There is the old adage that sure half of the marketing budget is wasted, but it is never clear which half ahead of time. https://www.b2bmarketing.net/half-the-money-i-spend-on-advertising-is-wasted-the-trouble-is-i-dont-know-which-half/ https://www.b2bmarketing.net/half-the-money-i-spend-on-adver...

keiferski 1y ago
There's also the fact that it's something of an arms race, where not spending the billions is not really an option for serious candidates, whether it is "worth it" or not. It's not exactly something that can be tested scientifically, unless a serious candidate wants his campaign to be an experiment.

slipperydippery 1y ago

Get Out the Vote is where it's at. "True swing" (not self-reported swing, most people lie because they think being a swing voter is more socially desirable, I suppose) is indeed a tiny sliver. It's about convincing your people they need to show up or the other side will make your grandkids shit in litter boxes, or whatever lies it takes.