Dem
52
Ties
1
GOP
47
There were a couple of interesting items about political ads this week, and we thought we'd mention them. First up is some news from yesterday, which comes out of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (Virginia, the Carolinas and Maryland). A three-judge panel, by a vote of 2-1, ruled that even when political parties are coordinating closely with campaigns (which the Supreme Court now says is completely kosher), the parties are not themselves the campaigns, and so are not entitled to discounted advertising rates that campaigns get.
The suit was brought by several Democratic candidates for office in North Carolina, led by would-be U.S. Senator Roy Cooper, and by several groups representing print and TV media. The respondents were the FCC and the two main GOP Congressional PACs. By and large, Republicans' more centralized organs (the RNC, the NRCC, the NRSC) do better, fundraising-wise, than their Democratic counterparts. And the Democrats' individual campaigns (e.g., "Cooper for Senate") tend to do better, fundraising-wise, than their Republican counterparts. If political parties don't get a break on ad rates, then the GOP cannot use that centralized wealth nearly as efficiently as they would like, even if the party organs ARE closely coordinating with the campaigns. So, if yesterday's decision stands, it takes away a lot of the benefit the Republicans expected to derive from the Supreme Court's "it's ok to coordinate" ruling.
The second TV-ad-related item, meanwhile, is a piece from NOTUS headlined "Francesca Hong Didn't Run Broadcast Ads. Did It Cost Her Wisconsin?" That pretty much conveys the author's basic idea. The progressive Hong eschewed corporate and PAC money, and so was on a limited advertising budget. She decided to spend it all on online ads, since that is where her voters tend to be. But, that meant that she wasn't reaching a part of the electorate (mostly older/more moderate voters). In turn, that allowed Hong's opponents to define her for these voters. Had she given some attention to more traditional forms of advertising, she might have won over a few more older/more moderate voters, and so might have turned a close loss into a close win.
We are not 100% sure we buy this, if only because TV advertising is not something you can do halfway. Either you're in, or you're not. One TV ad, when it's matched by 10 from the other side, quickly disappears into the void. And if you cut the ratio down a bit—say, one ad for every two run by your opponents, that gets expensive fast. And expensive is a problem for a campaign running on a tight budget.
In any case, we mention the item primarily because of an offhand remark made about halfway through the piece. The conventional wisdom is that you want to reserve as much of your war chest as is possible for the general election, because that's the "real" election, and the one where you need to reach the largest number of voters. But Democratic strategist Jared Leopold makes two observations about the value of TV advertising during primary season: (1) that is when voters know the least about candidates, and (2) that is when voters are most persuadable, since (D) voters are more likely to jump between (D) candidates (i.e., the choices in a primary election) than they are from a (D) to an (R) (i.e., the choices in a general election). And the same for (R) voters, of course—just the mirror image.
We have been somewhat skeptical of the efficacy of TV ads, because so many voters do not watch advertising-based TV, or do not watch TV at all, and the ones who do tend to get bombarded to the point that they tune out. However, perhaps we should refine our position to "TV ads make pretty good sense in the primaries, but somewhat less sense in the general." Not sure yet, but it's worth thinking about. (Z)