Categories
Trump’s money troubles: cutting advertising spend in key states points to problems – politicalbettin
Trump’s money troubles: cutting advertising spend in key states points to problems – politicalbetting.com
Donald Trump is famously so poor that he only paid $750 in federal income tax in 2016. His campaigning in 2016 was similarly economical. In that election, Trump raised and spent only just over half the total of his opponent: Hillary winning the funding battle by $1191m to $647m. In the end, of course, that didn’t matter; Trump won the election.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
GOP hoping that the sex scandal in North Carolina may help them hold into the Senate
Have you been betting on the event and what's your prediction for Nov 3rd?
https://twitter.com/indy_swim/status/1314665286944067586?s=20
You'd almost think they weren't encouraging people to vote. Hmmmm.....
That said, I'd think micro-targeting of voters with online advertising was much more important these days.
Unlike the rest of the brood I do feel a twinge of pity for him; those creeps seem to love being part of the ghastly circus while he looks as if he loathes it.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8822719/Richmond-Thames-Londons-Covid-19-hotspot.html
London might be on the verge of new lockdown, or the R number is now below 1. Richmond is now London’s leading hotspot, or it is having huge numbers of cases attributed to it for students far far away. It’s spread all over the place with no clear pattern - and nobody can find any cause (so presumably there is no “test and trace”). The whole thing’s a complete farce.
Gotta walk dog. Back later.
On another subject, Trumpy's recent comments about his virus tests suggest they are giving him a score, rather than simply positive/negative? I wasnt aware that the tests worked like that; surely how much virus you pick up on a swab depends heavily on how the test was done and with a lot of random variation?
I fear throughout this crisis that too often people seem to have been willing to accept and propose to act on figures without doing the really hard work necessary to check that figures are giving an accurate story. When things don’t smell quite right (Richmond numbers quadrupling in a week with no obvious cause) this needs to be challenged and explained. Proper data analysis is hard, and it is important that thingsdon’t get left unexplained. When the consequences of getting it wrong (and that includes implementing business destroying restrictions when they might not be necessary) are so dire.
That is the sort of guy who should be honoured. I personally have absolutely no problem with him receiving an honour or Marcus Radford's award either.
As I mentioned last night, any criticism of honours bestowed on genuine heroes or "woke" do-gooders a is in no way problematic, when the alternative is the ennoblement of Christopher Chope. Rewarding Chope with a knighthood, should be the single act that brings down the entire awards system.
And I thought @TSE was the master of vicious sarcasm.
If the Dems hit their worst level (0.77 in 2000) and the GOP hit their best (1.06 Under Romney) then the GOP win by 10.
Oh wait...
If Trump had agreed to a virtual 2nd debate I think it would have set a precedent for the 3rd debate to be virtual as well. As it is, looks like Trump is assuming that 3rd (now 2nd) debate will be in person and a further debate on 29 Oct may be possible.
My guess is that the Dems will insist on all debates being virtual. I`m not sure how this will play out.
https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/looks-like-trump-is-still-taking-roger-stones-election-advice/
And let's keep the theme going. Trump Toast.
James Carville -
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trump-s-2020-polls-proves-democrats-need-start-planning-biden-ncna1242631
He's even more certain than I am.
There won't be a third debate on the 29th, the debate on the 22nd has already been confirmed as the [now second and] final debate.
"I know it’s tempting fate to mention the idea, foolish to entertain it, mad to expect it, but the possibility of a landslide is now real.
And all this changes a huge amount. A Biden win would be a reprieve for the country; a Biden landslide would be an American miracle.
Unlike anything else, it would cauterize the wound of Trump, preventing further infection. It would say to posterity: we made this hideous mistake, for understandable reasons, but after four years, we saw what we did and decisively changed course. It would turn the Trump era of nihilism, tribalism and cruelty into a cautionary tale of extremism, illiberalism and, above all, failure."
Just say No, Joe.
God this is going to be unbearable if Trump squeaks thru thanks to the Supreme Court.
Sorry wrong link. I'll try again. This is it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TogbPPyQQM&feature=emb_rel_end
1. He is right - Biden is massively outraising Trump at the moment when it comes to donations;
2. However, David is wrong to focus on just TV ad spending. There has been a fundamental difference between the two campaigns when it comes to where they spend and always have been. Trump's campaign has been digital-focused, Biden has been the traditional TV route. Bear in mind, TV viewership is going down in the States. If you look at digital, Trump has been outspending Biden significantly. There is a difference in strategy.
3. There are three main reasons you pull spending. One you don't have the money (political parties get the lowest rate in an election year so you have to be desperate to do so); two, you think you have lost the state; three, you think you have won the state and do not need to spend more. There is an assumption on David's part, this is one and two and he might be right. Another scenario, is that it is 3. Also, if this is a concern that his base is collapsing, then you would have expected money to go to PA and NC.
4. This article from nearly a month ago sums up the approaches pretty well (https://www.npr.org/2020/09/15/912663101/biden-is-outspending-trump-on-tv-and-just-6-states-are-the-focus-of-the-campaign). Note given the nature of US TV, you want to have your ads schedule pretty much booked in advance. There re some changes here (e.g. Minnesota) but the strategies looked to have played out as expected. Note their comment about Texas - people were excited about Biden spending in Texas but that was on the cards nearly a month ago.
5. The sums involved actually aren't that big. $12m is peanuts in the race (total spend is expected to be $11bn) and that is across 5 states.
6. Finally, take a look at this which have posted before: https://www.mediaelection.com/#timeline Their premise is that looking at which candidate is dominating the news cycle is a better way of predicting the result than polling. I have yet to be convinced but there is no doubt Trump is generating a lot of free or earned advertising
The GOP is sick, Trump is only a symptom not the cause.
If Trumpism is shown to lead to Democrat landslides then continuity Trumpism will be as popular as continuity Corbynism and Rebecca Long Bailey.
The GOP welcomed and fed the racist Tea Party movement and are now going to have QAnon crawling around inside them. There are going to be QAnon supporting Congressional Representatives in the next Parliament.
The GOP needs cleansing with fire from top to bottom.
The GOP senior politicians, rather than trying to lead the people away from that view instead nudge and wink and coddle the racists.
Trump won the Nom by getting rid of the nudge and wink part. And my pick for 2024 Tom Cotton is primed and ready to repeat.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/516079-trump-campaign-bets-big-on-digital-ads-to-counter-biden
In the states that matter for the Electoral College — Florida, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Michigan, Arizona and Wisconsin — the two campaigns have been running about even in Facebook spending over the past month.
Take the Senate for example. If the GOP are really routed this time and lose races up to, and including, SC, then the GOP are down to 45. If the GOP can be kicked when they are down in the 2022 midterms then there are potential pickups for the Dems in PA, WI, NC, FL, maybe even OH and IA.
That's the sort of rout of the GOP that is needed to drive out the Mitch McConnells. And the same in the state legislatures.
I do think that Trump's ability to control the media narrative is important though. In particular he can (usually) kick a bad news story out of the news cycle almost at will. Sometimes he has to do it by replacing it with a different bad news story, but he there are lots of bad news stories about Trump that swing voters don't really care about, and he used that to great effect in 2016. I don't think it's working as well in 2020 though, because there's so much more that the voters care about that's out of his control - specifically catching a potentially lethal disease - so you can only get so far by having a laser pointer that you can make reporters chase.
I think for top priorities then Trumpism is ~15% and hates-the-Democrats is ~15%
When Trump is the rival to the Democrats that is a hardcore 30% he can count upon. But once Trump is gone, especially if he loses by a landslide, then that coalition will splinter as much as the far left loves to splinter. The hate-the-Democrats voters will not want loser-Trumpists to gift the election to the Democrats again next time.
I think the Democrats and their Lincoln allies have two main strategies to choose from - focus on Biden the calm, reliable alternative (reinforcing their strong point) or focus on the disastrous economic impact of Trumpism (attacking Trump's least negative point). They're overwhelmingly going for number 1, and it seems to be working.
I think the major difference is the Federal nature of the US, and the separation of powers between Presidency and Congress. What this means is that GOP extremism can survive and thrive in the States and the Senate, even if it is chased out of the White House.
A few nobbled MP nominations and some captured constituency Labour parties doesn't provide the same redoubt for Corbynism.
"Official lies, numbing incompetence and growing repression."
Hats off that journalist.
However, the current free coverage he is getting is about how he is a disease ridden corpse too ill to participate in the debates,
The ending is ill-judged, though, with the patient's suicide. The doctor leaving the room would have made a better conclusion.
Yes, he's a master of distraction that's for sure (everyone had forgotten about the NYT taxes story after the first Presidential debate). Mind remembering though that, while we may think he dominated the news cycle with great stories in 2016, actually he had a lot of bad publicity (the tapes etc) where he was getting attention but none of it's positive. I think there is an element of looking back at 2016 and thinking his campaign was a masterpiece because he won but he actually had a fair few shockers.
I really would recommend Jeff Rubin's book "The Expendables". When it boils down to it, he says, a lot of middle America feels the Establishment, including Obama, screwed them with NAFTA and free trade. Biden is linked to that.