The Facts About the Impact of Political Ads

Political wags are chattering about former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's gusher of ad spending, topping $200 million in barely a month.  The billionaire is blanketing the airwaves to gain traction in the crowded Democratic Party primary.  Pundits are hailing the strategy as brilliant.

Bloomberg's ad binge may yet prove effective, but the facts suggest he would do more good by setting fire to all that cash to heat a homeless shelter.  Many people have been conditioned by the media and the political consultant class to accept conventional wisdom that political ads work.

That is at odds with numerous independent studies which show political advertising is ignored, ineffective and does not change voters minds.  I know you are skeptical because you have heard campaign ad agencies, media airheads  and consultants wax eloquently about advertising's impact.

But those disciples of political advertising all have a vested interest in convincing candidates of the value of millions of dollars spent on television, radio, social media, newspapers and robo calls.  Have you ever wondered who benefits the most from that prodigious spending?

Here is the dirty secret.  Nearly every dollar in ad buys ends up in the coffers of the liberal media.  Consultants are rewarded because they can demand higher fees for managing huge ad budgets.  Advertising agencies charge fat commissions for placing the ads in the media.  It's a racket.

This incestuous cabal then brags about how advertising changed the tide of an election.  No one challenges their assumptions because after all, they are the experts.  If you have accepted that as fact, independent, unbiased studies might change your perception of campaign advertising.

Here is an unambiguous study published in the American Political Science Review by researchers from Yale and Stanford.  After extensive research, the authors concluded: "The best estimates of the effects of campaign contact and advertising on (voters choices) in general elections is zero."

Did you hear that Michael Bloomberg?  Zero! Nada.  We are just warming up.  Another research study authored by political scientists at the University of California-LA and Stanford found nearly half (42%) of viewers tune out all campaign television commercials.

People most likely to watch commercials are what the authors term "low engagement" people, couch potatoes who are not likely to vote.  The next group are "high engagement" people, who have already made up their minds on the candidate of their choice.  Ad executives are squirming in their limos.

I know some of you are shaking your heads, recalling campaign boasts that early ad spending won the election for Bill Clinton.  Of course, that claim was made by his campaign consultant. And others may remember praise for Barrack Obama's advertising blitz that aided his 2008 election triumph.

In a 2010 study, political scientists Michael Franz and Travis Ridout conducted in-depth research to quantify advertising's impact on Obama's victory.  Their estimate is that the advertising moved the voter needle for Obama by 0.551 points.  That tiny difference is within the margin of statistical error.

But wait there's more.  The authors reported the ads did not persuade anyone to actually vote for Obama, but was helpful in motivating turnout of people who already planned to cast their ballot for the former senator.  Michael Bloomberg may want to fire his entire campaign ad staff.

Exit polls confirmed the findings of the research.  Pollsters found that 78% of voters had made up their minds long before election day.  Only four percent admitted they woke up election day and made their choice.  Even that number flies in the face of previous research on voter decision making.

At this point, a few readers are nodding and muttering: "Yeah, but what about social media?"  Big difference maker in 2016.  Everyone has mentioned (either positively or negatively) the influence of social media on the election.  But few if any have actually scientifically measured it.

Those who did, including one University of California-San Diego political scientist, uncovered no evidence to support those claims.  His conclusion: "Social media had no measurable aggregated influence over voters' beliefs."  That's not what most people have been spoon fed by the media.

Another study published in the Public Library of Science Journal reached the same conclusion about social media's role in the 2016 election.  The author, Ohio State University communications professor Kelly Garrett, concluded social media played little, if any, role in influencing the outcome.

Despite the evidence, that didn't stop Hillary Clinton from blaming misinformation planted on social media by nefarious Russians for her humiliating defeat.  The bitter Clinton asserted social media posts turned the election in Mr. Trump's favor.  She offered no proof for her views. 

However, political consultants, media political reporters and advertising moguls all have publicly claimed advertising, especially on social media, swung the election.  You would expect nothing less from the very people who profit the most by reinforcing the power of media to win elections.

If advertising really worked as well as its proponents claim, then Hillary Clinton would be president.  She outspent Mr. Trump by a lopsided margin of two-to-one on advertising in legacy media as well as social media.  Clinton purchased $141.7 million in advertising compared to $58.8 for Mr. Trump.

Her campaign spending dwarfed her opponent.  According to OpenSecrets, the Clinton campaign shelled out $768 million to defeat Mr. Trump while the president's team tallied $398 million.  These figures do not include expenditures by outside political surrogates on candidates' behalf.

That begs the question: Why do candidates continue to turn a blind eye to research and spend millions on advertising?  The answer is simple: Elite consultants have cultivated a mystique about the ability of advertising messaging to win elections.  They point to their past victories as evidence.

This aura is sustained by those with the most to gain: the media and ad agencies.  These co-conspirators assert without contradiction that no candidate can win a national election without a Tsunami of advertising.  Few dare to contradict their professed infallibility.

However, even a seismic wave of advertising won't help a lousy candidate.   Michael Bloomberg could spend $1 trillion on advertising and still fail to capture the Democratic Party nomination.  No doubt if he loses his consultants will claim the Russians rigged the election for the winner.

When Life Throws You A Curve

I have been counting down the days until my hip surgery on January 13.  In hindsight, I should have been wary of the ominous date.  Thirteen.  There is a reason hotels have no 13th floor.  Like a space launch, the surgery date has been scrubbed due to unfavorable conditions. Bum. Bum. Bummer.

The abbreviated version of this saga is that the hip replacement will have to wait for a more pressing surgery.  I have a bulging disc in my neck, spinal stenosis and a pinched nerve.  To relieve the symptoms, I will undergo an anterior cervical discectomy and fusion or ACDF in surgical lingo.

Warning: the squeamish may want to skip this description of the procedure.  The surgeon will reach the neck through an incision in the  throat area and remove two damaged discs in my neck, replacing them with cadaver bone grafts.  The bone grafts and vertebrae are fixed in place with a titanium plate.

Sounds like a pain in the neck, right? But I have new found wisdom.  This surgery is scheduled January 14 in deference to my triskaidekaphobia (fear of number 13).  Despite the complicated neck procedure, the neurosurgeon assured me this is a routine, minimally invasive operation.  

Moments after those soothing words, he added somberly: "I am required to advise you that the surgery is not risk free.  You could die.  You could be paralyzed."  He smiled and reassured, "But that has never happened to one of my patients." I hope he has done more than one of these procedures.

Surgery requires a one day hospital stay, which means eating suspicious clumps of nourishment.  Hospital  food is an oxymoron.  Medical facilities should offer an optional fast food meal delivered by DoorDash or UberEats.  Hospitals remain stuck in the 19th food century.  

Once released from Hell's Kitchen, I will be required to wear a soft white neck collar for two to three weeks.  I plan to make the best of it.  Here's my thought: Wear a black sports coat and black shirt with the white collar.  Everyone will assume I am a priest and start unburdening their consciences to me.

I might hang around the confessional at my Catholic church at odd hours hoping to snag some unsuspecting sinner.  Or I could visit retirement homes and run the bingo game.  This may turn into a permanent gig in retirement.  Father Roy has a nice ring to it.   But without the celibate canon.

Once I recover, I am skedaddling to an orthopedic doc to schedule hip surgery.  Two surgeries in the same year are like winning the military draft lottery during the Vietnam War.  I knew I should have opted for the extended body parts warranty when it was offered 73 years ago.  Too late now.  

Some of you (the few still reading) may wonder how I went from hip to neck surgery in the blink of a surgeon's eye.  For the curious, let me explain.  I had been dealing with neck and shoulder pain for about seven months.  Remedies failed to relieve my symptoms and the pain worsened. 

The first neurosurgeon who viewed the MRI of my neck assured me I did not need surgery.  In fact, he diagnosed the problem was in my shoulder.  Likely a muscle spasm or possibly a pinched nerve.  I gulped pills to no avail.  After a few exasperating months, I checked in with a shoulder specialist.  

She ordered physical therapy.  Two months later my status was quo.  A few steroid shorts and physiotherapy followed.  No change. If anything, the pain escalated.  Next stop a pain management specialist who looked at my MRI and announced, "Your neck sucks."  Those are my words not his.  

At last, I was encouraged to at least know what was causing my shoulder pain.  I found the best neurosurgeon and the rest, as they say, is medical history.  He advised that hip surgery might cause damage to my spine.  That sober warning prompted my decision to have the neck repaired first. 

Along my medical journey, I gained a few valuable lessons.  Always trust what your body is telling you.  Doctors can view MRI's, X-rays and perform physical examinations for a diagnosis.  But they cannot get inside your body and feel the pain.  You own the pain and you own your body.

Never unquestioningly accept a doctor's diagnosis.  It is better to be skeptical, to ask questions and, perhaps,  to get another medical opinion. After my initial diagnosis, I wish I had reached out to another neuro specialist.  But hindsight is a sower of doubt and regrets.  I prefer to live in the present.

That's why you need a healthy dose of Faith to make it through the medical hoops and physical distress of pain.  I know God is leading me, even though the route has been circuitous.  All in God's time not mine. I may have doubts about doctors in general, but none about my Faith.

If you know a prayer, please recite one for my speedy recovery.  (If you don't pray, just avoid being within 100 miles of lightning storms.)   

Until I am able to pound a keyboard again, I will take a medical sabbatical.  I will miss creating these columns.  Writing is a passion of mine.  However, soon I will be back at my desk, gazing at my computer and tapping the keyboard.  Only then, it will be without pain in my neck and shoulder.  

National Debt: Politicians Spending Addiction

Yawn.  That's the reaction of most Americans when anyone raises the issue of the country's rotund national debt.  The size of the debt--$23.1 trillion--should concern every American.  Instead people figure it's the federal government's problem.  Not their worry.  They are sadly mistaken or misled.

Quantifying the national debt can be reduced to a few key numbers.  America's debt equals $179,695 for every household in the country.  The federal government carries 46% more debt than the combined debt of every household in America.  The debt is 107% of the U.S. economy.

Even those sobering figures fall short of calibrating the size of the debt.  Consider that in the last 19 years the government has racked up more debt than than in the previous 100 years.  Since 2000, the U.S. has amassed $17.5 trillion in new debt as a result of spending more than its revenues.

The federal government's record spending binge threatens the financial health of the country, which ultimately impacts businesses, jobs and wages.  The budget for fiscal year 2020 is $4.7 trillion, a colossal 164% increase in spending since 2000. Politicians of both parties are complicit.

Federal government revenues are rising too, but at a slower pace.  The federal government estimates it will receive $3.64 trillion in revenue, the lion's share to be paid by individual taxpayers like you.  In 2000, $2.03 trillion flowed into the U.S. Treasury.  America doesn't have a revenue problem.

In 2020, the deficit or revenue shortfall will climb to $1.01 trillion by the time the government fiscal year ends September 30.  Since the end of the Clinton Administration, each Congress and president has overspent.  This trend is unsustainable without major changes in expenditures

It helps to understand what is driving government spending.  In the current budget, six out of every 10 dollars goes to mandatory spending, which includes programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, food stamps, federal pensions, Obamacare and veterans programs.

Mandatory spending has automatic increases built in as more people are added to the rolls. Increases in benefits are baked into the budget too.  To put this in perspective, in 1968, three years after Medicare and Medicaid were created, mandatory spending represented just 27% of the budget.

For fiscal 2020, here is a breakdown of the budget for the top three mandatory spending programs: Social Security, $1.1 trillion; Medicare, $679 billion; and Medicaid, $418 billion.  Total mandatory expenditures are budgeted at $2.841 trillion.

This spending category is called mandatory because these programs have been mandated by law to be funded.  This rigid requirement leaves little room for so-called discretionary spending, which amounts to 13.3% of the current budget.  The national defense consumes 12.4% of spending.

The remaining 11.7% of the budget is devoted to paying interest on the debt.  Nearly $480 billion is included in the 2020 budget to service the interest.  There is no room in the budget to actually pay down the debt or principle.  Each year the interest gobbles up a greater percentage of the budget.

Congress has no incentive to reign in spending.  Representatives and senators use the budget as personal piggy banks to fund pet projects in their districts.  That doesn't mean the expenditures are all wasteful, but lawmakers view the projects as little more than a downpayment on their reelection. 

If Congress actually followed its own rules of producing a national budget, there would be more scrutiny of these expenditures.  But lawmakers have failed to pass an annual budget in seven of the last 15 fiscal years, instead using what's known as continuing resolutions to fund the government.

These temporary funding resolutions usually cover six months or less leaving little incentive for  a substantial spending debate.  These resolutions are the product of eleventh hour, horse-trading sessions designed to win both parties' votes and avoid political blame for a government shutdown.

Most senators and representatives, if they are honest, will admit there is too little time for members to even read what is included in the spending resolution.  They are essentially blindly rubber stamping a budget that has been engineered by a handful of members behind closed doors.

This cannot continue if Americans want accountability from their government.  Congress needs to return to the budget process where spending, the debt and specific programs are reviewed, debated, prioritized and voted on.  Congress has no greater duty than to establish the federal budget.

Unfortunately, there is only the dimmest hope this will ever happen.  A divided government, partisan bickering and voter apathy have all contributed to today's sausage making process that serves the interests of senators and representatives but lacks transparency for the American people.

Americans must demand change by contacting their elected representatives and senators.  Otherwise, Congressional members will continue on a track that surely will one day bankrupt the country and force extreme measures, including crippling taxes and Draconian budget cuts.

That day draws nearer each year that Congress refuses to tackle spending and the ballooning debt.