Advertising campaigns are a waste of money.
But so are consultants.
No one believes any of that stuff.
Just show me the candidate and have them speak plainly and tell me how they feel. That’s what Trump did. And it worked.
Advertising (and political campaigns) will always matter. However, no amount of advertising can overcome a fatally-flawed product. In Hillary’s case, money was not enough.
Vote to get big money from donors that just gets spent to enrich media and consultants or vote as the voters want?
This wouldn’t be a problem if there weren’t such a HUGE gap between what Americans want and what the internationalist donors want.
Cue Bob Dylan
“The Times They Are A-changin’”
There goes their gravy train.
Freakonomics found out a long time ago that the more attractive candidate tends to win, regardless of the money spent.
Political campaigns don’t matter—IF—the candidate has nothing to offer except exorbitant spending and taxation, foreign invasion, and giving nuclear weapons to foreign dictators, and is a murdering, boodling criminal, and is tottering to her death on unsteady legs.
Advertising had a huge effect in the Strange-Moore runoff...Mcconnell’s huge spending lost Strange the nomination.
Money = victory, but it was never money spent, it was always money acquired. The candidate who raised more funds (especially more small donor funds) wins. Basically fundraising is a poll, the more people willing to give you money the more people that will vote for you. The ad buys and all that apparently don’t mean diddly, as nobody has ever actually to tie money spent to votes.
YEP!
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?