Debate, and discuss, just dont Bore me.
How not to spend
Published on November 7, 2008 By Dr Guy In Politics

Headlines in the conservative internet blare "Bought for $650m".  Referring to the white house.  But was it?  Despite spending an obscene amount of cash.  Despite Obama breaking his pledge, and spending (Wasting?) his money on a 1/2 hour infomercial, his money played a very small part in the election.  Oh, I am not saying you dont "need" money.  But there comes a time when the money is wasted.

And it is obvious that there was a lot of waste.  Getting calls 3-6 times a day to vote for X?  Hardly decisive.  The infomercial?  Adored by his fans, but again hardly decisive.  The election was one that was his to lose, and despite some of  the "pundits" who are analyzing his win, Obama almost managed to lose it.

I remarked several times that the candidates seem to be trying to lose it, and it was a race to see who could lose it first.  If future candidates want to imitate Obama's campaign, they will surely lose.  It was not a well run campaign.  Despite having $650 million to spend.

The problem with all that money is that there comes a time when you get to the law of diminishing returns.  That last dollar of money does not buy you the "oomph" that the first $100 does. But Obama had the money and no place to really spend it .  The election was not won by the money spent.  The election was won and lost based on one key factor (one that has already sunk 2 recent presidents).  The Economy. 

Despite cries from congressional candidates to spend money on their races, presidents never share their money.  They never seem to have enough to go beyond their own race, even when the race is already won.  A lot of that money would have done better (perhaps even giving the democrats a super majority) in the hands of senatorial candidates and representatives, but I have yet to see where anyone has shared any appreciable amount with them (from the presidential race).  Even when they have more money than they know how to responsibly spend.

I am sure we will see some posts of how this election was bought.  But the truth is the election was almost sold out.  Not sold to the highest bidder.  For anyone in a swing state, there was no problem with hearing from both candidates.  Both had more than enough money, but one had a problem (the economy stupid) and the other had lousy advisors.

Despite campaign reform, and a reason that many of us are against it in the first place, there was no shortage of money for this race.  Too much so.  While the economy tanked, the candidates were freely spending money that was doing nothing more than modifying the presidential seal, and putting cute buttons on pets (since all the supporters already had them).  But it is somewhat satisfying to know that the co-author of one of the worst pieces of legislation to come out of the last 8 years was shown that his "intentions" were just smoke and mirrors.  And accomplished nothing other than adding another nail in the coffin of free speech.

No, Obama did not buy an election.  He wasted a lot of money and betrayed a lot of his principals (if her really has any to begin with - Who is Barak Obama is still a valid question that will be answered shortly).  But he almost managed to buy defeat.  Like the lottery players who strike it rich, the candidates this time came into a huge windfall and then did not know what to do with it, so spent it like drunken sailors.


Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Nov 07, 2008

It's getting ridiculous. I think both sides spend too much cash. I think the candidates should be each given a one hour forum to explain their position, a few debates (3-4) and a few town hall type meetings where the people ask the questions (this is the most important). All ads must stop a month prior to the election (to give the people time to ponder their choice). And limits must be set (low enough so as not to have an Ad on TV every half hour). If the campaign raises more money than needed the excess must be given to a non-partisan charity organization(s). Wishful thinking I know. I don't know how they are going to get the genie back into the bottle now. 

on Nov 07, 2008

I find it ironic that in a screwed up economy where the poor and middle class were supposely suffering, Obama was able to collect so much money. Sure a dollar here and there adds up, but 650 million? What's even more ironic is that the rich giot richer thanks to Obama (TV stations who aired his 30 minute commercial). Change? My butt.

on Nov 07, 2008

All ads must stop a month prior to the election (to give the people time to ponder their choice).

Hell the Ads dont bother me. I can switch channels.  But the phone calls were just outrageous this year.

on Nov 07, 2008

Change? My butt.

That is what most people voted for.  Changing their diapers.  They dont like the doodoo ones, so they are hoping Obama will change the diapers for them.

on Nov 07, 2008

All ads must stop a month prior to the election (to give the people time to ponder their choice). And limits must be set (low enough so as not to have an Ad on TV every half hour). If the campaign raises more money than needed the excess must be given to a non-partisan charity organization(s)

Why? It's their money to do with as they want. People chose to give their money to the political party to be used for that political party. If they'd wanted it to go to a charity instead, they'd have donated to that charity. What's next - people donate too much money to charity X, so we're going to take money from them, and give it to charity Y which we feel is more deserving?

As for banning ads, again not a good thing. Adds serve the purpose of educating the electorate and providing information. There's a case to tighten up regulations on the adverts so they do this rather than the opposite (which I saw happening with both Obama and McCains adverts), but as a general rule adverts are a good thing, not a bad thing.

The problem with all that money is that there comes a time when you get to the law of diminishing returns. 

Very true with elections - I can't remember the exact figures, but from a few studies I saw that looked into this the diminishing returns ended up being massive; initially you had a big advantage, but once you started hitting large amounts of spending it had barely any impact. It certainly opened up Obama to claims of hypocracy IMO though, spending such vast sums on advertising that would have had hardly any impact, and at the same time attacking Palin for her wardrobe, and saying that the middle class (+poor) needed help. I don't think you can charge Obama with running a poorly organised or poorly run campaign though, since he completely outclassed all the other candidates in terms of organisation - Hilary had a strong lead initially, and was for a while the preferred candidate, but Obama hit the ground running and was able to pull off a surprise victory (at the time I can remember thinking the Democratic nomination was the real election, since whoever won it was highly likely to trounce whatever the republicans could serve up; the closeness of the race between Obama+Hilary compared with McCain helps show that). Meanwhile being able to raise such massive sums of money again suggests a very well run campaign. Furthermore, despite not obtaining a massive lead in terms of voting %, he was able to achieve a big electoral college lead, suggesting yet again that the campaign was well run in terms of where it focused it's efforts. For the history books, I reckon Obama's campaign will go down as a shining example of how to run one and not an example of how not to do it.

on Nov 07, 2008

Although I disagree with some points, overall a good analysis of the situation Dr. Guy.  The law of diminishing returns is a great explanation.  When Obama announced his infomercial, my reaction was:  "Seriously?"  I think a lot of money is wasted during the course of these election cycles by all parties involved, particularly in the last-minute blitz of campaigning as Election Day nears.  Individuals that have decided by this point usually aren't that persuadable, and undecideds generally break evenly between the candidates.  Good point also about the failure of McCain-Feingold, which if anything increased the power of special interests and lobbyists.

on Nov 07, 2008

Good article.  I didn't buy all the "undecided" numbers toward the end which was one of the reasons for the crazy spending.

 

on Nov 07, 2008

McCain never made the case why people should vote for him.

on Nov 07, 2008

McCain never made the case why people should vote for him.
The party failed to have or communicate a message to the American people.  They deserve to lose until they can.

The Republican party: What's next?

on Nov 07, 2008

I don't think you can charge Obama with running a poorly organised or poorly run campaign though, since he completely outclassed all the other candidates in terms of organisation

I was referring to the CIC - in this case Obama.  The organization may have been good, but if it does not know what it is doing, it is a poor campaign (not to say McCain's was any better- like I said - they were both trying to see who could lose it).

on Nov 07, 2008

I think a lot of money is wasted during the course of these election cycles by all parties involved, particularly in the last-minute blitz of campaigning as Election Day nears.

When you are spending like a drunken sailor, you forget what money is all about.  I think a vast majority of people - regardless of who won - are glad they dont have to hear and watch and get phone calls from any campaign.  A couple I can see, but when I have 63 VMs of candidates, that is just too much! (they could at least have the decency to not leave a message).

on Nov 07, 2008

I didn't buy all the "undecided" numbers toward the end which was one of the reasons for the crazy spending.

In McCain's case, it was desperation.  In Obamas - what else is he going to do with the money?  Some may have "decided" at the last minute, but I dont think it was any of the money that was spent that made them decide then.  I was pretty much set by Mid September - with only a slight chance that I could vote for McCain.  And it was not the money that could have swayed me.

on Nov 07, 2008

McCain never made the case why people should vote for him.

He played to the audience.  People wanted something to be done - regardless of if it was a good something.  McCain lost me with the bailout.  That was when I did.

on Nov 07, 2008

The party failed to have or communicate a message to the American people. They deserve to lose until they can.

I agree!  And great discussion going on over there!  I wish it was something the republicans will look at for the future, but I doubt they will.

on Nov 07, 2008

I actually expected the claims of having bought the election. Had McCain won there would have been an immediate demand for recounts and probably a lawsuit filed to challenge the results as that has been the typical Dem reaction to losing in the past. If a few claims of the election having been bought are the extent of the Rep's reaction to losing I'd say they're showing a great deal more maturity than the Dems have in past losses.

The losers will always gripe a bit about having lost, that's to be expected. Childish tantrums over having lost and claims that the election was "stolen" from them are not.

 

And I agree, there were times when it seemed that both sides were working very hard to lose the election.

2 Pages1 2