Aug. 11th, 2010

libertango: (Default)
American Public Media's business radio show Marketplace had a piece that pricked up my ears:

"California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman is on track to spend the most money on a state election campaign in U.S. history. She's already shelled out $100 million. Her Democratic opponent has spent less than a million."

And what has outspending her opponent 100:1 gotten her? According to Talking Points Memo:

"The TPM Poll Average has Brown leading by 44.9%-42.4%."

Which is to say, a statistical dead heat, given typical errors of margin in the 2-3% range.

More than anything, this race looks like it's going to be a textbook example of the diminishing returns of spending money in politics. Even if Whitman wins, she's spent so much money that it's tough to justify any marginal increase. And if she loses -- in the most media-intensive state in the union -- well, that's pretty much a wrap on that theory. (Not a big surprise, as Ed Zschau, Mike Huffington, Phil Gramm, John Connolly, and Ross Perot will tell you.)

Profile

libertango: (Default)
Hal

March 2022

S M T W T F S
  12345
6789101112
13141516 17 1819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 18th, 2025 02:42 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios