In all that has been 2020, there was nice bit of comic relief
during the end of the presidential campaign. In what I thought was a Saturday Night Live digital short, a
series of black-and-white images of past presidents (and former VP Biden) with
their dogs proceeded across the screen, with a final image of President Trump
noticeably without a canine companion. The message: you can’t elect a president
who doesn’t have a dog. It turns out that this gem was actually produced by a
group called “Dog Lovers for Joe.” And while the impact upon the electorate was
no doubt minimal, there was a significant upside compared to other efforts: it
didn’t cost much to put together.
Now there’s no separating money from politics. But I am
concerned that we are now at a point where people are spending mind-numbing
sums to achieve nothing. For this particular election cycle, running for the US
Senate has been a center of negative return on investment. Let’s look at a few
particularly egregious examples:
- Amy McGrath raised some $84 million to lose to Mitch McConnell by nearly 20 points. For a few grand she could have printed posters at Kinko’s, done just as well, and used the rest to send every American household a bottle of Kentucky bourbon.
- In Iowa, Theresa Greenfield raised $50 million to lose by a relatively modest 6 points to Joni Ernst. Still, do you need that much to lose outside of a pollster’s margin of error?
- Sara Gideon raised $70 million to lose to Susan Collins by 9%. Outside of a whopping spending spree at L.L. Bean, I’m not sure how you spend that much money in Maine.
- And then there is Jamie Harrison’s $100 million blow out for a 10 point loss to Lindsey Graham. At $91 a head, he could have bought nearly a year of Netflix for each of his 1.1 million voters and saved South Carolina a lot of agitation.
This, and it’s hard to fathom, was all chump change compared
to this cycle’s pint-sized king of failure, Mike Bloomberg. What he lacked in
charisma, voter connection, or political ability he made up for in profligate
spending. Going for the highest office in the land cost him around $1 billion (yes, a big old “B”). Throw in
the $100 million he tossed around in Florida to defeat Trump and it comes up to
the GDP of a fair chunk of the Caribbean. Put in a more tangible way, a
squadron of F-35 fighters runs about $1.2 billion. Tax, title, and guided
missiles are extra, but in this league you could shake out the spare change in the couch cushions
and make up the difference.
And while I make fun of these spectacular, Democratic Party,
failures, it raises a serious question: how can smart people who presumably
understand how to spend money wisely can be so very, very bad at their
political jobs. Some of it lies in the ego of any ambitious politician in
thinking that they, and only they, can slay incumbent giants. Some goes to
sloppy polling that gives candidates a false sense of having a chance. And
sure, TV advertising is expensive, except in markets like Iowa, Kentucky, South
Carolina, and Maine. But I fear, and really mean fear, that a
political-industrial complex of advisers, consultants, election law experts,
and production specialists has made the whole process about them, not the
candidates. This election Pentagon has an expense for everything, a cut to take
on top of that expense, and multiples to prove a point.
And now there is the matter of two run-off elections in
Georgia to control the US Senate. I’m guessing each of the four candidates will
spend $100 million each as a base price, not the ceiling. Perhaps the future
holds that some people will resist the temptation to run merely because they
can throw money around, chances be damned. Perhaps not. But one thing is true:
this whole process has gone to the dogs.
© 2020 Alexander W. Stephens, All Rights Reserved.
