It’s a complaint we’ve heard, mostly from next-generation GOP consultant types: Campaigns spend all this money on television and traditional advertising without any real data to inform their spending. That’s the subject of a new Campaigns & Elections op-ed submission from Vincent Harris, a GOP new-media consultant: “The Gut: Running GOP campaigns since 1854.”
— “Gut instinct continues to be the primary form of decision making within Republican campaigns,” Harris writes, “some of which spend millions of dollars on inefficient media buys based on campaign methods passed down through decades of political lore.” We’ve heard the same thing. “TV’s the biggest line item in the budget but the least data-driven,” GOP data guru Alex Lundry told us last year, in response to the news that the NRCC would be using polls to better inform its TV-ad spending.
— But Harris, who headed up now-Sen. Ted Cruz‘s (R-TX) digital ops in 2012, sees little evidence this is happening thus far during the 2014 cycle. Too much money is going into TV and direct mail, he writes, and not enough is going into digital.
— The FL-13 Special is an interesting test case; the NRCC has already spent $725,000 on TV ads (through Feb. 10) and $100,000 on web ads. FL-13 is an older district, and special elections usually attract an older electorate, anyway. But the NRCC ultimately intends to use FL-13 to test the effectiveness of both TV and digital to reach persuadables and turn out their voters — even if that spending level is “in contrast to undeniable research concerning rising digital usage,” as Harris writes.
Digital spending by corporations has moved to nearly a quarter of their overall advertising budget, and politics (particularly on the Republican side) hasn’t kept up with that. The demographics of midterm-election voters don’t necessarily match up with the the overall consumer base, and 2014 won’t necessarily be won or lost online. But, as Harris and others argue, spending smarter will boost the GOP’s chances of capturing the Senate this year and the White House in 2016.
- 1 High Court Vacancy Spells Trouble for Congress
- 2 The Winners and Losers From the South Carolina Republican Debate
- 3 Why Four Justices Were Against the Supreme Court’s Huge Gay-Marriage Decision
- 4 Democrats’ Vanishing Future
- 5 FBI’s Facial-Recognition Technology Has Achieved ‘Full Operational Capability’
What We're Following See More »
Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”
“We haven’t seen a true leftist since FDR, so many millions are coming out of the woodwork to vote for Bernie Sanders; he is the Occupy movement now come to life in the political arena.” So says Bill Maher in his Hollywood Reporter cover story (more a stream-of-consciousness riff than an essay, actually). Conservative states may never vote for a socialist in the general election, but “this stuff has never been on the table, and these voters have never been activated.” Maher saves most of his bile for Donald Trump and Sarah Palin, writing that by nominating Palin as vice president “John McCain is the one who opened the Book of the Dead and let the monsters out.” And Trump is picking up where Palin left off.