I’m going to start this newsletter tonight with perhaps the most obvious statement about politics ever written.
Money matters.
Just ask Gov. Steve Bullock of Montana or Senator Kamala Harris of California or any of the dozen other candidates who have already dropped out of the presidential race.
But for the man with the most money in the contest, the question is not whether money matters but whether it matters enough.
As we’ve written before, Michael Bloomberg, the billionaire former mayor of New York City, is pursuing a highly unconventional approach in his campaign for the Democratic nomination.
Basically, his effort revolves around advertising. And a lot of it.
As Nick Corasaniti detailed for us last week, Mr. Bloomberg dropped more than $30 million on his first week’s worth of television ads across the country. It was the most expensive week for a presidential candidate in a primary election in United States history. He spent more in just four markets than the entire rest of the field spent that week combined.
On Monday, Advertising Analytics, an ad tracking firm, reported that Mr. Bloomberg’s campaign had spent $54.2 million on digital, broadcast and cable ads since he started advertising — two weeks ago.
Mr. Bloomberg is doing some on-the-ground campaigning, too. Today he visited Aurora, Colo., the site of a 2012 mass shooting at a movie theater, to unveil a sweeping gun control agenda.
But the scale of his advertising effort has become a flash point in the race, attracting a flood of criticism from rivals who argue that Mr. Bloomberg is benefiting from a political system — and party — that makes it far too easy for billionaires to buy their way into the contest.
Last night, Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts went on Mr. Bloomberg’s own television network to make the case against him.
“I don’t believe that elections ought to be for sale,” she said in an interview on Bloomberg Television. “And I don’t think as a Democratic Party that we should say that the only way you’re going to get elected, the only way you’re going to be our nominee, is either if you are a billionaire or if you’re sucking up to billionaires.”
But could Mr. Bloomberg’s unorthodox effort actually, well, work? To answer that question, I called up Lynn Vavreck, a political scientist at U.C.L.A. (and a contributor to The Upshot here at The New York Times).
All the academic research, conducted with different methods, on different races and in different years, comes up with the same results, she said: There is an impact from political ads. But it’s small. And short-lived.
As soon as a candidate matches a rival on ad spending, any advantage tends to disappear, Professor Vavreck said. The benefit is not all that sizable, anyhow, perhaps a couple of points in the polls.
Professor Vavreck cites a study she conducted of the 2012 presidential election, in which she found that while ads had an effect on voter attitudes, the impact was small and disappeared within a week.
Of course, no one has spent the way Mr. Bloomberg can, so there isn’t a perfect test case for his approach. But Professor Vavreck is doubtful that he’ll find much success, unless the advertising leads to significant amounts of media coverage and is matched with a robust traditional campaign operation.
“Can he stay home, do nothing else, buy $50 million in advertising and win the primary? The answer is that it’s highly unlikely,” she said. “There are lots of people who spend a lot of money. You can’t buy these things.”
Drop us a line!
We want to hear from our readers. Have a question? We’ll try to answer it. Have a comment? We’re all ears. Email us at onpolitics@nytimes.com.
The week in impeachment
With the impeachment inquiry racing ahead, it can be hard to keep track of the daily stream of developments. So our colleagues from the Impeachment Briefing newsletter have generously volunteered to catch us up every Thursday on what has happened during the week.
-
The investigation moved to a new phase. After weeks of testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, the Judiciary Committee took over the case this week. The panel, led by Representative Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York, is responsible for reviewing the evidence and writing up the formal articles of impeachment.
-
Democrats and Republicans released reports. The reports presented evidence collected during the Intelligence Committee’s investigation, with each side reaching its own conclusion: Republicans did not concede a single point of wrongdoing by President Trump, while Democrats made a vigorous case that Mr. Trump had sought to pressure Ukraine to interfere in the next election.
-
Constitutional scholars weighed in. In the Judiciary Committee’s first hearing, four legal experts explained the historical and constitutional basis for impeachment. Three experts brought in by Democrats said that evidence of Mr. Trump’s efforts clearly met the definition of an impeachable abuse of power; a fourth expert, invited by Republicans, disagreed.
-
Speaker Nancy Pelosi called for articles of impeachment. At a news conference on Thursday morning, Ms. Pelosi said she would ask the chairmen of the House committees to begin drafting articles of impeachment against Mr. Trump. Democrats hope to bring the articles for a full House vote before Christmas.
You can sign up for the Impeachment Briefing newsletter here.
… Seriously
Was there something in the water today? Everyone sure seemed a little testy.
Joe Biden: “You’re a damn liar, man.”
transcript
‘You’re a Damn Liar, Man,’ Biden Tells Voter in Iowa
Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. had a tense exchange with a voter questioning Hunter Biden’s overseas business dealings. Mr. Biden also challenged the man to do push-ups.
-
“You’re selling access to the president, just like he does.” “You’re a damn liar, man, that’s not true. And no one has ever said that. No one has proved that.” “I saw it on the TV.” “You’ve seen it on the TV. No, I know you do and by the way, that’s why I’m not sedentary. I get up and — no let him, let him go. Let him go. Look, the reason I’m running is because I’ve been around a long time, and I know more than most people know. And I can get things done. That’s why I’m running. And you want to check my shape, let’s do push-ups together, man. Let’s run, let’s do whatever you want to do. [applause] No one has said my son has done anything wrong. And I did not on any occasion, and no one has ever said it.” “I wasn’t saying you were doing anything wrong.” “You said I set up my son to work at an oil company. Isn’t that what you said? Get your words straight, Jack.” “That’s what we hear on MSNBC.” “You don’t hear that on MSNBC. You did not hear that at all. What you heard — look, O.K., I’m not going to get in an argument with you, man. “Well, I don’t want to —” “Well yeah you do, but look, fat, look here’s the deal. Here’s the deal.” “It looks like you don’t have any more backbone than Trump does.” [jeering] “Let the guy talk, let him talk!” “Any other questions?” “Yeah, all right. I’m not voting for you.” Well I knew you weren’t, man. You think I thought you’d stand up and vote for me? You’re too old to vote for me.”
Nancy Pelosi: “Don’t mess with me.”
transcript
‘I Don’t Hate Anyone,’ Pelosi Tells Reporter After Trump Question
Speaker Nancy Pelosi took issue with a reporter from a conservative television network who asked her if she hated the president.
-
“I don’t hate anybody.” Reporter: “Rep. Collins — the reason I ask —” “I was raised in a Catholic house,” we don’t hate anybody, not anybody in the world. So don’t you accuse me —” Reporter: “I did not accuse you —” “You did, you did.” Reporter: “I asked a question. Rep. Collins, yesterday, suggested that the Democrats are doing this simply because they don’t like the guy.” “That has nothing to do with it. Let me just say this —” Reporter: I think it’s an important point.” “I think the president is a coward when it comes to helping our kids who are afraid of gun violence. I think he is cruel when he doesn’t deal with helping our ‘Dreamers,’ of which we’re very proud. I think he’s in denial about the — about the climate crisis. However, that’s about the election. This is about the — take it up in the election. This is about the Constitution of the United States, and the facts that lead to the president’s violation of his oath of office. And as a Catholic, I resent your using the word ‘hate’ in a sentence that addresses me. I don’t hate anyone. I was raised in a way that is full — a heart full of love, and always prayed for the president. And I still pray for the president. I pray for the president all the time. So don’t mess with me when it comes to words like that.”
And President Trump: “Nancy Pelosi just had a nervous fit.”
Were you forwarded this newsletter? Subscribe here to get it delivered to your inbox.
Thanks for reading. On Politics is your guide to the political news cycle, delivering clarity from the chaos.
Is there anything you think we’re missing? Anything you want to see more of? We’d love to hear from you. Email us at onpolitics@nytimes.com.
"can" - Google News
December 06, 2019 at 06:19AM
https://ift.tt/36bJOC7
Can Money Buy Bloomberg Love? - The New York Times
"can" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2NE2i6G
Shoes Man Tutorial
Pos News Update
Meme Update
Korean Entertainment News
Japan News Update
No comments:
Post a Comment