Money Can't Buy You Love . . . or Election Wins, Either
Our Jonah Goldberg observed recently: "I do not exaggerate when I tell you that the foundations of American democracy are being undermined," Bernie Sanders told some students at the University of Chicago (and pretty much anyone else he's ever talked to). "American democracy is not supposed to be about billionaires buying elections." You'd think that if the "billionaire class" -- all 536 people in it -- had the kind of unfettered control over the U.S. political system that Sanders believes them to have, Mr. Sanders would be asking, "Would you like fries with that?" Money can spread a political message, but it cannot force the electorate to like something that it doesn't like, or vice versa. This morning, the Boston Globe adds even more evidence to support that argument, pointing out that spending millions of dollars running thousands of television ads in favor of a particular candidate . . . doesn't necessarily work. Former Florida governor [Jeb Bush] had the advantage of more TV spots, sponsored by his campaign or a super PAC supporting him, on New Hampshire and Boston channels in the last two months than any other candidate in the Granite State presidential primary, according to a Globe analysis. There were more than 3,600 airings, for a total of more than 34 hours. A big part of that domination came from the money Bush and his super PAC, Right to Rise, spent for ads on WMUR, the state's largest television station; his investment was second only to Marco Rubio's. The combined effort for Bush was on track to spend about $3.5 million in the crucial 10 weeks since the beginning of December, compared with more than $4 million by Rubio and his super PAC, according to public records. The numbers reflect one of the lessons of the 2016 campaign, at least in the early states: that bankrolling huge advertising buys has become less important in many instances than media coverage and the narrative arc of a candidacy. The Globe calclulates that polling front-runner Donald Trump is on track to spend $424,000 in New Hampshire, "a relatively small sum among GOP contenders." It's an old rejoinder, but a true one, that if you think money buys elections, ask President H. Ross Perot, or President Steve Forbes. Romney built his fortune; John Kerry and John McCain married into theirs, and none of their presidential bids succeeded. Michael Huffington -- once Arianna's husband -- spent $28 million in a Senate bid in 1994, the most money ever spent on a non-presidential campaign at that point. He lost. Tom Golisano spent $93 million on three independent gubernatorial campaigns in New York; he never won. (Right now, Rick Perry, Scott Walker, and Bobby Jindal are clearing their throats and pointing out that not having money can indeed cause a political effort to fail. Losing presidential campaigns rarely run out of ideas, enthusiasm or candidate ambition; they do run out of money to pay the staff.) You can make a strong case that traditional television advertising doesn't work anymore. There are just too many of them, with the same tropes -- the grainy black-and-white footage of the opponent, the ominous music, the same narrators . . . Cullen attributed Rubio's recent rise in the New Hampshire polls more to favorable media attention the Florida senator received following his third-place finish in Iowa, a burst of attention driven by beating expectations. "It's multiple times more valuable to him than any advertising they have done," said Cullen, who is backing Governor John Kasich of Ohio in the primary. "The earned media so outweighs the paid media that it almost doesn't matter." Notice that deep in the story, it says Rubio spent $4.12 million on television ads in New Hampshire. Do you think he's getting his money's worth? If it's a strong second, the ad spending probably paid off . . . if he's third, fourth . . . probably not, right? Scarborough Faire Does MSNBC morning host Joe Scarborough's criticism of Marco Rubio stem from envy? The New York Times offers an article suggesting it does: "Almost every election cycle since Joe left Congress, there is talk that he should run for U.S. Senate, governor, or something else," said Brian Crowley, a former Florida political reporter, adding that after Mr. Rubio became the Florida House speaker, "he started crowding that space." Mr. Scarborough is a former Republican congressman from the state's panhandle. Mr. Rubio and Mr. Scarborough have never actually met. But, as Mr. Crowley noted, Mr. Scarborough was known to think highly of Jeb Bush, the former Florida governor, and had ties to Charlie Crist, whom Mr. Rubio defeated in the 2010 Senate race. Mr. Scarborough dismissed such talk. "I don't know Marco well enough to resent him," he said. "I am paid to be an analyst, a political analyst, to tell viewers and influencers what my take is on the political system." As I noted in an April Fool's Day Jolt a few years ago, "Joe Scarborough might run for president!" stories pop up and reappear every year or so, almost like the groundhog. Those "Scarborough is going to run" stories never amount to anything; all indications are that the host is happy where he is, reportedly making $4 million per year, getting to chat with every mover and shaker, enjoying considerable ability to shape the debate without the fear of losing a reelection bid. Maybe, in another parallel dimension, Joe Scarborough stayed in politics and is a Florida senator running for president. But in this reality, Scarborough doesn't seem interested enough in the grief and aggravation of running for office to generate genuine envy. 2016's Hidden Issues: Home Ownership, Families, and Urban vs. Suburban America A really fascinating look at housing prices, family and household structure, and politics from Joel Kotkin: The bluer the city, generally, the fewer the children. For example, the highest percentage of U.S. women over age 40 without children -- a remarkable 70 percent -- can be found in Washington, D.C. In Manhattan, singles make up half of all households. In some central neighborhoods of major metropolitan areas such as New York, San Francisco, and Seattle, less than 10 percent of the population is made up of children under 18. Perhaps the ultimate primary example of the new child-free city is San Francisco, home now to 80,000 more dogs than children, and where the percentage of children has dropped 40 percent since 1970. In contrast, familial America clusters largely in newer suburbs and exurbs, and increasingly in the lower cost cities in the South, the Intermountain West, and especially in Texas. Overall--and contrary to the bold predictions of many urbanists--suburban areas are once again, after a brief slowdown, growing faster than the urban cores. America remains a suburban nation. Overall, 44 million Americans live in the core cities of America's 51 major metropolitan areas, while nearly 122 million Americans live in the suburbs. And this does not include the more than half of the core city population that live in districts, particularly in the Sunbelt, that are functionally suburban or exurban, with low density and high automobile use. Walter Russell Mead often argues that the "blue social model" of American life is unsustainable and, in many places, is breaking down. Kotkin's forecast for areas without "starter homes" or family-friendly real estate markets is similarly grim: Following our current path, we can expect our society--particularly in deep blue states--to move ever more towards a kind of feudalism where only a few own property while everyone else devolves into rent serfs. The middle class will have little chance to acquire any assets for their retirement and increasingly few will choose to have children. Imagine, then, a high tech Middle Ages with vast chasms between the upper classes and the poor, with growing dependence--even among what once would have been middle class households--on hand-outs to pay rent. Imagine too, over time, Japanese style depopulation and an ever more rapidly aging society. ADDENDA: Thanks to everyone who came out to our event in Manchester Saturday night. I had a blast, and I hope you did, too. Dave Weigel wrote about the reaction to Rubio in the Post: On Saturday night, scores of conservatives who could not (or did not want to) score debate tickets filed into a ballroom of the downtown Radisson, where National Review readers had gathered to hear a few panels and watch the debate. After the doors opened, the magazine's lead political writer, Jim Geraghty, acknowledged that Cruz fans were frustrated by a perceived pro-Rubio narrative, in which Cruz's Iowa win was a sidebar to Rubio's third place surge. "He's got a legitimate gripe there," said Geraghty. "Cruz won, and then he had a terrible week," suggested staff writer Charles Cooke. "Maybe it was the fact that his victory speech is still going on," joked Geraghty.  | 
Comments
Post a Comment