1. And what blankets the air waves the month or so before the election?
2. Have you ever known anybody to say "Yep, I'm totally affected by advertising" ? Nobody ever thinks it affects them. Yet companies keep using it. I'll let you take a guess at which group is being willfully ignorant.
3. Doesn't prevent advertising from being another important factor.
4. Wouldn't that indicate that the advertising was successful in the areas that were pro-Romney, by keeping turnout in them low by discouraging Gingrich supporters from voting? Florida is a big state with multiple media markets. Which there is some evidence
That’s a 14 point increase in [Gingrich's] unfavorablity in the area where Mr. Romney was advertising most heavily. And since a large share of Mr. Romney’s ads were negative and attacked Mr. Gingrich, it isn’t surprising that we might see these effects.
1.News media talking about the election? Debates? There was a lot more than just ads at play here.
2.Yes actually, we do have some people who said that in the exit polls, but it is a fair point that motivations are a little hard to measure. Just simply asking is about the most precise we can get outside of a lab environment though, so it's about the best we can get.
3.No, it does not, but generally speaking it was of little to no importance to most people.
4.Ahhhh, now this is something I can work with. It's an interesting analysis, but, well...
Let me reiterate again that caveats abound in such a simple analysis. These caveats pertain first to the challenges of using survey data to isolate the effects of news media. But even if we take the survey results at face value, it’s also important to remember that advertising is not the only element of the “information environment” surrounding voters. As research by the political scientists Kevin Arceneaux and Gregory Huber has noted, media markets that witness a lot of television advertising usually experience other kinds of campaign activity — like voter contact — making it difficult to attribute any shifts in the polls solely to advertising.
At this point, I would say there is suggestive evidence that Mr. Romney’s advantages in advertising helped him win in Florida – but it qualifies as circumstantial. The longer the campaign goes on, and the longer Mr. Romney’s advertising advantage persists, the more data we will accumulate to test these effects.
So to say negative ads were THE reason Romney one is jumping the gun a little, and by extension, his simply having more money than the others. Again, Santorum and Paul kept up consistent results in the lead up, and then won with similar percents as their polls had suggested even though they ignored the state. It might simply be Romney just ignored them and decided to not try and court their bases, but still...
How do you think those people found out about Gingrich's history of racially insensitive comments?
Uhm....the news? I believe people still watch news, or read it on the internet, or listen to it on the radio...
And I'll take this moment to address what Lucrece stated. Yes, Cuban-Americans are the largest supgroup of Hispanics in Florida, and everything he said about them as a group is generally correct (and about Hispanics in general, although the info about growing Evangelicalism among them is new to me. More info please?). However
4. Not all of Florida’s Latino voters are Cuban. The Sunshine State’s Latino vote is complex and does not follow national trends. Cubans make up 32 percent of eligible Latino voters, Puerto Ricans 28 percent, and Mexicans 9 percent. Nationwide the demographics of Latino eligible voters are starkly different: 59 percent Mexican, 14 percent Puerto Rican, and 5 percent Cuban.
...I do wonder what the other what, 30 percent of Hispanics are? Still, point is Cubans are a large group, but Florida has a very large non-Cuban population as well.
9. Candidates’ immigration positions still matter in Florida. In a poll conducted January 16–23, 70 percent of Florida’s registered Latino voters stated that they would be more likely to support a candidate seeking to pass the DREAM Act, while only 6 percent would be less likely.
So Gingrich making disparaging remarks about Hispanics and his support of a much stricter version of the DREAM Act (and the general dislike of the DREAM Act among the candidates), combined with Romney getting support from popular Hispanic conservatives of course, would obviously swing the Hispanic vote more towards Romney.
First, Romney basically ignored Minnesota, Colorado, and Missouri- he didn't invest heavily in any of them, having taken them for granted. Those states are probably the best example of how money matters, because it's the first time the spending comparisons have been at relative parity during the fight for the nomination. Mentioning them hurts, not helps, your argument. As well, Michigan is seeing fairly comparable spending sums, at least compared to before:
Romney outspent everyone in Iowa and effectively tied with Santorum though so maybe there is some kind of intervening variable going on? I can't find the numbers on the spending in those three states though so even if Romney was 'ignoring' them doesn't mean he was outspending people =P. And if Santorum is now catching up with Romney, it's most likely due to the momentum from his little hat-trick there and getting his message out; it's his turn in the spotlight to be the "conservative alternative" to Romney. Gingrich had his with South Carolina, but once he was in spotlight a lot of dirt came out, he said and did stupid things ("Paychecks for food stamps" anyone?)...pretty much following the pattern of every other non-Romney person in this campaign so far.
So if money has a big influence in congressional elections, but not presidential, we should not care about the outcome? Congress is one third of the major branches of the US government. The results of those elections are hugely important, and the influence of money in them is something I would be very concerned about.
1. .3% for 100k is not what I'd call a "big" influence.
2. I was not and, for future purpose of this discussion, will try to avoid making a 'should' statement. I'm only trying to look at this from a political science standpoint. And from that standpoint, we know Congressional elections rarely draw the same amount of attention as Presidential elections. And that difference, I could argue, means the effect of money would be even less pronounced in a presidential election. Why? Cause we are watching
them. The media picks apart every single last detail they can get their hands on. I mean come on, they were sitting on the edge of their seats for Romney's tax forms for crying out loud! Not a day goes by I don't see a story about PACs playing on the news, talking about how much each PAC spent and blah blah blah. And post-Citizen's United distrust of campaign spending and all that, I'd say people are even more willing to be critical.
Do you think that if Nadar had ten times as much funding, that he couldn't have gotten, say, 10% of the vote? And that if he had gotten more of the vote, even in losing, that that wouldn't have affected other groups political decisions? A 0.3% swing in the vote would have changed nearly 400,000 votes in 2008 (turnout of 131.2 million), and could have flipped Missouri or North Carolina. In 2000 it would have flipped four states (Florida, New Mexico, Iowa, Wisconsin), and could have changed the winner. "Insignificant for most races" isn't really sufficient to make it acceptable; it needs to be insignificant for all races. Or are you OK with rich people buying an election when it's close?
Yes, I'd say if Nadar had more funding he could have gotten the votes, because most likely it's cause more people were donating to him and, by extension, his message was more popular and appealing to people. If a PAC just gave him the money? No, I'd doubt it.
And again, I doubt we can simply take that .3% swing in Congressional elections and apply it to a Presidential one, possibly for reasons I stated above (more scrutiny). Also, you're making the assumption the only reason a candidate has more money is cause of "rich" people. The money easily could have come from individual donations, and I'd say that's the more likely since PACs run by a business or company tend to give money to multiple candidates to 'hedge their bets', so to speak. Here's what I'd suggest, and maybe someone knows if there is a study already on this; let's look at some of the closer races and just see if there was a significant difference in the amount of money spent between the candidates.
Also, I'd appreciate not making a judgement on my values; I'm simply interested in discussing the effect of SuperPACs and money on elections, and I simply take the (obviously less popular with people) position that the role of money is, well, overstated. Is it a factor? Yeah, but just having more money doesn't mean you win. It can make it easier
to win because you can get your message out easier, and it can serve as a proxy measure of people's support for you if you're getting more donations than the other guy. But if a bunch of rich friends are bankrolling your campaign, and that's all, you're probably not going to win. There are things more important than money.
Then ignore the hyperbole, and ask yourself: do you trust our political process more than before Citizen's United, or do you trust it less? We've also already seen one election cycle where they did play a significant part: 2010. Republican SuperPACs hugely outspent democratic supporting ones. Sure, momentum was in the republican's favor anyway, but they almost certainly have had less of a landslide without their superPACs.
I can't ignore hyperbole; perception of the role of money is just as important as the actual effect of money. Also, the hyperbole presents a hypothesis to test, which I can't resist at least looking at ^_^.
Now to step back a moment and address my opinions. After reading the actual Citizen's United decision...I kind of had to agree with it. Regardless of the effect of PACs or what not, I believe the decision had a point; freedom of speech can not be restricted simply because it's coming from a group of people and because said group has money. If I, as an individual, spent $100 million dollars running ads and printing flyers and holding rallys on an issue you wouldn't stop me, would you? Well, we don't lose our rights just because we group together (heck, the ability to do that is a right!), so if a bunch of my friends and I want to create an organization to support an issue, why shouldn't we be allowed to spend $100 million on it? And, obviously, an election is an issue that we may have an opinion on. We may not like it, but that's freedom of speech for you.
As for the 2010 elections, no, I wouldn't say that the SuperPACs are the reason for the landslide. It's not like we don't already have a history of such large landslides:
This shows the composition of the House of Representatives for Congress numbers from the 40th (1867-1869) to the 106th (1999-2001).
This shows the composition of the Senate for Congress numbers from the 40th (1867-1869) to the 106th (1999-2001).
In 2010 we had a poor economy (and still do), a highly controversial yet major piece of legislation that the conservative base could rally around (the Healthcare bill), a conservative social movement (the Tea Party). Heck, I was surprised the Senate was still in Democratic control by the end of the midterms...and I'm a Democrat! Also...http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2010-ele ... 0hH7PW4KSo
Nonparty organizations reported spending more than $280 million, or 130 percent more money during the 2010 campaign than they did in 2008, according to the Institute. The figure eclipsed spending totals by the national political parties for the first time in recent memory.
But in the most competitive races across the country, spending by party and nonparty groups combined was roughly equal in support of Republican and Democratic candidates, a dynamic that suggests the electoral wave was roiling well ahead of any outside groups' attempts to sway voters' hearts and minds, the Institute said.
"Neither set of expenditures [party or nonparty spending] could be said to have tipped the electoral balance," Institute researcher Brendan Glavin wrote in the report.
Here's the Report:http://www.cfinst.org/Press/PReleases/1 ... sults.aspx
Notice the title: Winning Candidates Raised Less than Losers in the Competitive Races, and There Was Rough Equality in Spending by Others.
And why is that? Cause other studies have shown spending by incumbents pretty much means nothing. Challengers get all the benefit in spending.