All The Money In The World Won't Help Jeb
Sometimes, figuratively speaking, all the money in the world can't change a political outcome. This very idea runs counter to all the dire warnings about money's corruptive influence on American politics, of course, but it makes it no less true -- at least in certain situations. For all those that decry politicians who "buy" elections, sometimes outright attempts to do so are met with nothing more than sheer indifference from the voters. I have no idea what this means in the grand scheme of things, but when it happens it's certainly worth noting.
Case in point is Jeb Bush, up in New Hampshire. But before we get to him, though, a few lessons from the history of trying (unsuccessfully) to "buy" elections might help provide some perspective. In recent times, the first instance worth noting is H. Ross Perot. Perot was the original billionaire with some crazy ideas (and, to be fair, some not-so-crazy ideas) to decide he'd like to lead the nation. He ran for president in both 1992 and 1996. In his first race, he spent a lot of money on television time (long-format infomercials, rather than 30-second ads, which was a novelty) and he wound up with a very impressive 19 percent of the national popular vote. By comparison, Ralph Nader pulled in less than three percent in 2000. But while Perot could boast that almost one out of every five voters chose him, he still wound up with precisely zero Electoral College votes -- the votes that actually count to elect the president. Perot had the most impressive third-party campaign since the Dixiecrats, nationally. But he didn't win, no matter how much money he spent.
The next two examples come from California, from the 2010 election year. If you'll recall, 2010 was not exactly a friendly year for Democrats. This was the election Barack Obama called a "shellacking," after the returns were in -- what might be called the "Tea Party triumphant" election. Republicans did very well all across the country, but not so much in California. With Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger term-limited out, there was an open race to replace him. Meg Whitman, a woman with no previous political experience whatsoever, decided she was going to run. Whitman was a billionaire who had been described in 2008 by the New York Times as among the most likely women to become president one day, which must have gone to Meg's head.
Whitman spent a whopping $144 million of her own money -- the most every spent on a single race by any political candidate in American history up to that point (according to Wikipedia) -- trying to convince California voters that the governor's office should stay in Republican hands. She failed miserably, only pulling in 41 percent of the vote to Jerry Brown's 54 percent. While Democrats were losing all over the country, Whitman got shellacked in California.
During the same year, Carly Fiorina tried to unseat Senator Barbara Boxer. Again, this was a terrible midterm election for Democrats all over America, so it wasn't that outlandish to think a Republican could win a Senate seat even in a deep blue state. Boxer was seen as vulnerable because she was much further to the left than California's other senator, Dianne Feinstein (who is about as hawkish on foreign policy as your average Republican senator). Again, though, despite spending tens of millions of dollars on attack ads (one of which was the infamous "demon sheep" ad), Boxer trounced Fiorina by ten points, 42 to 52.
Even though it was a Republican "wave" election, neither Whitman nor Fiorina got themselves elected in California -- neither really even got close, despite spending a whale of a lot of money. At the time, these were the most expensive election campaigns in California history. But even though voters were inundated with ads for Fiorina and Whitman, they didn't really affect the race much at all in the end. To be blunt, the voters weren't buying what the Republican campaigns were selling. Because of this basic fact, the cleverness of the ad didn't matter and the number of times the ad was viewed didn't matter. The money advantage just did not matter to the race. California voters saw both women as lightweight dilettantes in the political process (both faced scorn for their almost non-existent personal voting records, during their campaigns), and far too extreme in their conservatism to represent the state. Their money advantage just didn't matter when the politician didn't match the mood of the voters at all.
Which brings us back to Jeb Bush's woes. I saw a story today about how Jeb is trying (once again) to just "clear the field" in New Hampshire, by buying up $14 million in ads before the primaries. Now, $14 million may not sound like a lot on the national scene, but that is a rather outsized chunk of money for the New Hampshire media markets (which aren't all that expensive to buy ads in). It's far more than any other candidate is going to spend, almost by an order of magnitude. Bush's strategy is to just flood the airwaves with his ads, which will have two measurable effects: it will guarantee that he's putting his face before every single voter who watches television in the state, and it will also deny these ad slots to any of the other candidates. Again, the New Hampshire media market just isn't all that big to begin with. Bush will even be buying two Super Bowl ads for the entire Boston media market, at a cost of $600,000.
The thing is, though, Bush has already spent over $50 million, and it hasn't done him much good. He's below five percent in most national polls, and isn't much better even in New Hampshire -- which was supposed to be an easy pickup for him, being the establishment Republican favorite and all. But even after spending all that money, Trump still dominates the state race, with Bush far behind (and nowhere near second place, even). So will another flood of advertising help in any way?
At some point in political advertising, a saturation point is reached. When the voters have seen all the various ads multiple times and formed their own opinions (both about the ad and about the candidate), seeing the ad another six or eight (or five dozen) times doesn't really do anything at all. When the candidate is a bad match for what the voters are seeking in any particular election, then more ads just serve to point that disparity out, over and over again. This is the lesson that Fiorina and Whitman learned in California. Whitman was hit hard by the news that she had hired (and perhaps, for the campaign's sake, fired) an undocumented servant. Fiorina had to struggle against ads featuring some of those 30,000 people she had laid off at Hewlett-Packard. The voters made their choice, and the flood of Republican advertising didn't change their minds a bit.
Sometimes an imbalance in money can throw an election. I'm not saying money doesn't help politicians get elected in each and every American election. What I would caution against, though, is making early predictions based solely on the size of any candidate's campaign chest. If 2015 taught us nothing (most especially in Jeb Bush's case), it is that having an overwhelming financial advantage simply does not equate to victory in all cases. Sometimes the candidate is such a dud that all the money in the world can't change it.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
To be blunt, the voters weren't buying what the Republican campaigns were selling.
There may be a bit more to it than that, especially in the case of Brown versus Whitman.
That is to say that the former Governor, Jerry Brown, being the quintessential "up-wing" candidate, was a formidable force, in every sense of the word. Which awakened a latent tendency among voters to yearn and to hope for something better - someone better, someone who could bring honour and intelligence to the political process and confirm - for the pragmatic idealists among us - that politics can indeed be an honourable profession.
Against such a honourable candidate as Jerry Brown, the mere availability of big money - and, let's face it, that's all that Meg Whitman had going for her in the 2010 race for the governorship of California - is no match.
All of which leads me to believe, two things ... number one, that a great candidate will prevail over big money and, number two, that the overabundance of big money in the American political process is a problem that ranks much, much lower than does the paucity of great American leaders.
Elizabeth[1]: Bit of a Jerry Brown fan I take it. Me too.
Perhaps what we are seeing is an electorate that is learning how to dampen the impact of money. I've not watched a TV ad for years (if I want to watch a program I record it and watch it 15-30 mins after the start so I can skip thru the ads), and I barely notice online ads.
Humans are pattern recognizing rationalizing agents, and perhaps we are learning how to recognize the 'selling me a politician' pitch, and tune them out. Let's face it, we are completely surrounded by screens all the time, TV is an old way to make an impact.
Bit of a Jerry Brown fan I take it.
Yeah, a bit. :)
He would have made a fine presidential candidate if he wasn't already otherwise occupied - steering a good course for California and leading the world!
You make a very good point about TV ads.
On the other hand, I don't believe Trump has put much money in ads. He just happens to have enough of it to make him believe that he is a credible candidate for an effective US president and leader of the free world.
If there were someone - of either party - in the race who was of the caliber of a Jerry Brown or a Joe Biden who could effectively silence a character like Trump through cogent discourse and intelligent analysis of the critical issues and challenges of the day and how best to resolve and meet them, consistently and repetitively out on the campaign trail, then I think Trump's money and ego could easily be taken out of the equation.
... am I right or am I right?
All of which leads me to believe, two things ... number one, that a great candidate will prevail over big money and, number two, that the overabundance of big money in the American political process is a problem that ranks much, much lower than does the paucity of great American leaders.
Well said, Liz... :D
What I take away from that is, if a candidate loses against Big Money, that candidate wasn't all that good to begin with.. So, maybe it's a GOOD thing that Big Money was in the campaign... :D
Michale
637
steering a good course for California
Yea???
Why is California starving for water??
Mismanagement...
Why is California the liberal joke of the country?? :D
Granted, I don't have much room to talk because Florida is a close second and up and coming. :D
And I will say that California at least is not Detroit or Chicago or Baltimore...
YET....
All in all, I can't be TOO hard as I am a born and bred Southern Californian.. :D
Michale
639
Instead of mocking him, you would think that the corporate media would try a little harder to prop JEB up at least until his bankroll is depleted. They mock him instead. He seems to be able to absorb a great deal of humiliation. That's important in a presidential candidate.
He seems to be able to absorb a great deal of humiliation. That's important in a presidential candidate.
Yea...
Obama has proven that time and time again beyond any doubt.. :D
Michale
642
I would like to hit 800 comments by New Years Day eve...
Can ya'all help me out??? :D
Michale
644
Can ya'all help me out??? :D
Sure... We can help ya out.. Which way did ya come in??"
-Weigantians
:D heh
Michale
645
Can ya'all help me out??? :D
Sure... We can help ya out.. Which way did ya come in??"
-Weigantians
:D heh
Michale
645
Damn.. Thought I caught it in time.. :^/
Michale
646
The electorate seems to have a bad case of Bush Fatigue. JEB._ is too much like Poppy and not enough like Dubya to play well to current GOP lust for loud and bombastic. In general, very few Americans seem to miss either Bush I or Bush II, in spite of a few large billboards arguing the contrary.
Perhaps JEB._ can take some comfort in the fact that he is a solid 5th place in the Betfair exchange, with a 10% chance of winning the nomination. Maybe some investors still see some end game promise in his Florida residency and Spanish fluency. If I was arbitraging, and I'm not, throwing a little long shot money his way wouldn't seem completely crazy.
One final comment. Don't covert to Windows 10 until you absolutely must. It's not a bad operating system, once you clean up the messy installation, but not good enough to justify the bundled malware, browser highjacking and three restorations to factory specs. Just read MSoft's own blog on the subject of "how do you like it" ....scathing!!! Let shlubs like me clear the minefield first.
One final comment. Don't covert to Windows 10 until you absolutely must. It's not a bad operating system, once you clean up the messy installation, but not good enough to justify the bundled malware, browser highjacking and three restorations to factory specs. Just read MSoft's own blog on the subject of "how do you like it" ....scathing!!! Let shlubs like me clear the minefield first.
I always tell my customers, unless you have an overriding or compelling reason to upgrade to Win10, stick with Win7....
I have been using it for over a year now and I really like it, it's minor glitches notwithstanding...
The only exception is, if they have Win8... Get rid of that ASAP...
Michale
647
Anybody else remember the poem "Reinstalling Windows?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycWAl3Fg6MQ
It still resonates - except maybe the "it cost a thousand pounds" bit. Fairly hard to spend that much these days on a Windows Machine.
It will be just my luck if this hangs in the filter...or my cat sends it a couple times.
M-14. My overriding reason was that MS kept sending my perfectly useful Windows 7 machine little bit of "upgrade to 10" diagnostic code that crashed it. When the diagnostic finally ran, my machine was judged not up gradable. This is like forced religious conversion - you might feel compelled to do it, but you sure aren't going to like it.
If that's not enough, my vintage stereo amp went down last night...uuuuuuuhhuuuuhuuu. I'm keeping my local economy humming.
Yea, I got to admit, it's pretty ham-handed of M$ to force Win10 on everyone..
But, it keeps me in $$$ so I don't complain too much.. :D
Michale
648
So, if I may veer off topic for a moment..
Shocker.. yea I know. :D
What's the opinion of Trump's attacks on Bubba??
Are Bubba's antics legitimate campaign targets??
Michale
649
What's the opinion of Trump's attacks on Bubba??
Are Bubba's antics legitimate campaign targets??
No takers??
I am shocked.. SHOCKED I tell ya!!! :D
I'll take that ta mean that ya'all feel that the antics ARE a legitimate campaign target, but ya just don't want it on record as agreeing with me.. :D
Michale
650
If you have Windows 8 on your computer, I recommend downloading the "classic start" program from this website: https://ninite.com/
Windows 10 article:
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2015/08/windows_10_privacy_problems_here_s_how_bad_they_are_and_how_to_plug_them.html
@ts,
agree that jeb is more like bush 1 than bush 2, and it hurts him in the public eye. i'm conflicted on jeb. i think he'd probably make a better president than anybody else in the current GOP field (not that that's saying much). i really despise his for-profit education policy, but i believe he's the republican least likely to start the next world war or great depression (and that's saying something).
JL
Michale[6]: "Why is California starving for water??"
Because California are putting too much water to agriculture. There is plenty of water for humans, and even their lawns. If California decides to focus water on technology instead of agriculture:
1. Produce around the U.S. will get more expensive
2. California will get even richer from an unlimited opportunity for the world's best minds wanting to go to CA.
Good problem to have.
1. Produce around the U.S. will get more expensive
Good problem to have.
Not for the Middle Class..
But who cares about dem arseholes, right!?? :D
Michale
653
The semiotic arc of the Bush campaign:
JEB! -> JEB*
The semiotic arc of the Bush campaign:
"Are these like... auto-erotica...??"
-Lawyer, JURASSIC PARK
:D
Sorry, TS, but when you first glance at your comment (and have a predilection towards that) it looks like 'auto-erotica'...
Michale
695