Posted on 09/28/2017 2:12:02 PM PDT by Kaslin
RUSH: Another interesting story here from Real Clear Politics: “Political Campaigning May Be Mostly Pointless.” What do you think this story is? Snerdley, you’re highly tuned to this kind of stuff. If you see that headline, “Political Campaigning May Be Mostly Pointless,” what’s this story about? It is about the fact that Hillary Clinton spent more money than anybody spent in the campaign and it didn’t get her a single vote, that Donald Trump didn’t spend a dime, and he won.
And so, again, this is the political establishment being flipped upside down. Money has always equaled victory. Whoever had more of it won. But what a research project has found is that TV ads in the last three weeks to a month leading up to an election were not persuasive in changing people’s minds how they were gonna vote.
And you know where I first saw this story? In an advertising magazine where they’re very, very afraid television and radio stations are gonna lose a lot of money because consultants are gonna figure out it’s wasted money. If spending on campaign ads three weeks out doesn’t change people’s minds, why spend it? Another example of how Donald Trump, outsider, has turned the establishment and its entire world upside down.
And they still don’t know why. And they don’t yet have the ability to be honest with themselves about why Hillary lost and why Trump won. And they keep getting news that shocks them and rocks their world, because the political world, like every other world, revolves around money. A huge spending campaign, do you realize how many people get wealthy off that before the money gets to the TV stations or radio stations where the advertising is bought? I mean, a lot of people get their mitts on that gross amount of money before it gets to the TV station, and if they stop spending it, a lot of money.
Do you know that your average presidential campaign manager, consultant, will get 15% of every dollar spent on advertising? That’s how they get rich. They get the advertising agency commission. So if a campaign advisor, David Axelrod, is telling Obama we need to spend a trillion dollars here in this election, he’s gonna get 15% of it.
Now, the number may float. Obama may say, “Axelrod, you’re only gonna get 10,” or George W. Bush may say, “Rove, you’re only gonna get eight,” whatever, but it averages outs to the agency commission, which is 15%. The more spent, the more campaign consultant, management, that’s how they get paid, whether the candidate wins or loses. Is another reason why ad buys are so big.
“As you rightly point out, plain speaking “trumps” Madison Avenue BS with the people now”
Yes, but a big part of it was Trump telling the truth. I think people were starved for that.
Before wasting time on this imponderable I would need to know if anyone keeps track of how much the candidates are required by law to report they received in contributions from the time they announce their candidacy until they deliver their concession or victory speech, as well as how much they spent?
At the heart of this question is the obvious unasked one :
Is running for high political office a criminal or an irrational activity?
It must be one or the other. Possibly both.
That applies both to the losers as well as the winners. But the consequential realities must be that there are a many of both criminal and successful irrational candidates.
Why would a voter want to create any of either?
Specially who wants to elect an irrational president?
The problem is, with politicians you can't discern truth from fiction. And THAT is a direct consequence of their leaning on political consultants so heavily.
The uber-liberal Washington Post exhibits a new academic study showing that candidate Hillary Clinton's billion dollar ad machine (and years-long burnishing of her campaign credentials......especially as Secy of State sucking up to foreign powers)......had almost no measurable persuasive impact, at least in general elections.
REALITY CHECK---The nefarious multi-billion dollar Clinton Family Foundation had bought off everything in sight.....they figured she was a shoo-in.
The Clinton arrogance was breathtaking.
They campaigned like they were sitting on top of the world. They did outrageous things in full view of the electorate.
Smarty-pants Hillary and Bill figured those "stupid deplorables" couldn't figure it out.
WASHINGTON DC […] Top diplomats from Russia and China joined a rare meeting of world powers’ envoys on Capitol Hill this week with roughly 30 Senate Democrats to tamp down concerns over Obama's [Iran] nuclear agreement.
[…] During the meeting (which was confirmed to Foreign Policy magazine by an aide to Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.)), a number of Democrats expressed genuine confusion about how world powers would react if Congress rejected the [Iran] deal. […]
On Thursday, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) alluded to the meeting […] Other lawmakers attending the briefing included Sens. Al Franken and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Michael Bennet of Colorado, Chris Coons of Delaware, Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin and others. ====================================
Oops. Democrat Sen McCaskill denies meeting Russians----McCaskill Tweets She Has Never Met or Called Russian Ambassador. But Past Tweets State Otherwise and so does this pic.
REALITY CHECK Senator Claire McCaskill (and Senator Mary Landrieu) meet with the Russian Ambassador
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.