Skip to main content

The De-monetization of Politics?

Clipart of Cash cash_c - Search Clip Art, Illustration Murals ...

Donald Trump's election as President of the United States in November 2016 may have changed the nature of the political game in several ways, not least by its demotion of the importance of Big Money. Big Money is receding from the scene, leaving a vacuum, and Big Data is poised to fill that space.

The people who worry about Big Money in politics - as well as the people who shrug and accept it - have agreed in recent decades that the key connection between such money on the one hand and electoral success on the other is advertising: especially broadcast advertising

Yet the Hillary Clinton campaign spent a good deal more than Trump's campaign did on advertising. In the first two months of general election political advertising (mid-June to mid-August), her campaign spent $61 million on broadcast ads, while allied independent groups spent another $43 million in her cause.

Trump's campaign didn't spend a dime on broadcast ads during that period, and its independent allies spent only $12.4 million, creating a 9-to-1 discrepancy. That discrepancy narrowed somewhat in the remainder of the campaign, but Clinton easily outspent Trump overall.

As a consequence, according to a Politifact tally, of the top 10 most-aired ads of the campaign, only three supported Trump. In a pre-election day round-up, Politifact said that Clinton "won the ad campaign with a variety of attack ads and a sprinkling of positive messaging."

Michael Barone, a resident fellow of the American Enterprise Institute, wrote soon after the election that although money is often said to be the "mother's milk" of politics, Trump had won with a low-lactose diet.

Why does money mean less than it once did? Because those high-cost network ads mean less than they did. Campaign strategies to and through the year 2016 were still being run by people who entered the trade in the 1970s, and who remembered (perhaps too fondly) the days when three television networks together reached nearly every voter, nearly every day, and when spots could be run on the most popular programs of all three, ensuring not only that everyone would see them, but that they would dominate political discussion. That was called "roadblocking" the airwaves. It was a high cost strategy (mother's milk, indeed) but it was effective.

In the new world, though, a cheaply made YouTube video can have an energizing impact on one campaign, and can prove devastating for another; and a tweet, costing nothing but wear and tear on the tweeter's finger muscles, can reach more voters than a traditional television ad barrage ever will.

What will matter in the near future, far more than the Big Money of a Koch brother or George Soros will be Big Data, the availability and mobilization of ever-more granular voter information, and the mobilization of likely supporters it allows.

Big Data is poised to fill the gap that the departure of Big Money would otherwise leave. Politics, like nature, abhors a vacuum.

Big Data is cheap because hiring a statistician to work on it costs no more than hiring one to work on small data. Since a campaign is going to hire statisticians anyway, if only to work on old-fashioned survey data, it costs nothing extra for them to hire statisticians familiar with the newly available population data.

Indeed, as a pioneer in IT Vincent Granville put the point, more than a year before Trump announced his campaign, "I would go so far as to say that big data is easier to process than small data, once you get familiar with the right techniques."

The political outcomes of the near future will turn on who gets more familiar with this more quickly and effectively.

But to think forward a bit further: what may happen is this. The politics of various advanced industrial countries goes through a brief period (a decade or so) in which the issue is who has the smartest Big Data experts, not the most expensive. But by the time that decade is out, the relevant level of Data-Bigness will have become commoditized, and something else will represent the leading edge of winning or losing elections. And how much money that something else will cost will in turn determine whether Big Money makes a comeback.


  1. According to Wikipedia, "Fingers do not contain muscles (other than arrector pili). The muscles that move the finger joints are in the palm and forearm." Also according to Wikipedia, "The arrector pili muscles are small muscles attached to hair follicles in mammals. Contraction of these muscles causes the hairs to stand on end, known colloquially as goose bumps." So a tweet doesn't even cost wear and tear on the tweeter's finger muscles.

  2. Do you need free Facebook Followers?
    Did you know you can get these ON AUTOPILOT & TOTALLY FOR FREE by using Like 4 Like?


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

England as a Raft?

In a lecture delivered in 1880, William James asked rhetorically, "Would England ... be the drifting raft she is now in European affairs if a Frederic the Great had inherited her throne instead of a Victoria, and if Messrs Bentham, Mill, Cobden, and Bright had all been born in Prussia?"

Beneath that, in a collection of such lectures later published under James' direction, was placed the footnote, "The reader will remember when this was written."

The suggestion of the bit about Bentham, Mill, etc. is that the utilitarians as a school helped render England ineffective as a European power, a drifting raft.

The footnote was added in 1897. So either James is suggesting that the baleful influence of Bentham, Mill etc wore off in the meantime or that he had over-estimated it.

Let's unpack this a bit.  What was happening in the period before 1880 that made England seem a drifting raft in European affairs, to a friendly though foreign observer (to the older brother…

Cancer Breakthrough

Hopeful news in recent days about an old and dear desideratum: a cure for cancer. Or at least for a cancer, and a nasty one at that.

The news comes about because investors in GlaxoSmithKline are greedy for profits, and has already inspired a bit of deregulation to boot. 

The FDA has paved the road for a speedy review of a new BCMA drug for multiple myeloma, essentially cancer of the bone marrow. This means that the US govt has removed some of the hurdles that would otherwise (by decision of the same govt) face a company trying to proceed with these trials expeditiously. 

This has been done because the Phase I clinical trial results have been very promising. The report I've seen indicates that details of these results will be shared with the world on Dec. 11 at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. 

The European Medicines Agency has also given priority treatment to the drug in question. 

GSK's website identifies the drug at issue as "GSK2857916," althou…

Francesco Orsi

I thought briefly that I had found a contemporary philosopher whose views on ethics and meta-ethics checked all four key boxes. An ally all down the line.

The four, as regular readers of this blog may remember, are: cognitivism, intuitionism, consequentialism, pluralism. These represent the views that, respectively: some ethical judgments constitute knowledge; one important source for this knowledge consists of quasi-sensory non-inferential primary recognitions ("intuitions"); the right is logically dependent upon the good; and there exists an irreducible plurality of good.

Francesco Orsi seemed to believe all of these propositions. Here's his website and a link to one relevant paper:

What was better: Orsi is a young man. Born in 1980. A damned child! Has no memories of the age of disco!

So I emailed him asking if I was right that he believed all of those things. His answer: three out of …