After the Citizens United decision and the 2010 midterm wins for the Republicans, a lot of pundits, both on the right and the left, tried to sell us the idea that huge money funneled into advertising would deliver the White House and a majority in the Senate to the GOP in 2012.
Over and over we were told billionaires would open their wallets for the Republicans and Democrats were doomed!
Well, it didn’t happen. The money Karl Rove and his allies poured into the effort didn’t pay off.
Should we assume Romney would have lost by a larger margin without all the Super Pac dark money spent on his behalf? Or, was it that Romney and some of the Republican senatorial candidates were just so-o-o bad. Were their ads not as good as the Democrats’ ads?
Democrats would surely like us to believe the election proved that Americans prefer the way they stood on the issues. There is probably some truth to that, but I think it was probably more.
Once all the dust settles, it will be fascinating to read about why those predictions didn't hold up. Partisan considerations aside, could it be that political advertising, itself, just isn't as effective as it used to be?
Was all that money mostly wasted?
Since 1985, in various formats, SLANT -- an independent voice based in Richmond's Fan District -- has offered its readers original commentary on politics and popular culture, including cartoons and selected sundries. Warning: Sometimes that means satirical content. All rights are reserved.
No comments:
Post a Comment