Just how tough it is to "buy" an election

[libertango]

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.)

Comments

[farmgirl1146.livejournal.com]

She is a crap candidate. She will be a failure in any public office. I base my opinion on the fact that she was a dictatorial CEO of e-Bay. In politics, unless you are Pol Pot or Papa Doc, dictatorial "leaders" fail.