Posts Tagged ‘Campaign Spending’

The $980 million Question: 4 States; 429,000 Votes – Florida

Thursday, March 28th, 2013

In 2012, Romney lost Florida by only 74,309 votes.  Obama received 50% of the 8.4 million votes cast in Florida for the 2012 Presidential Election, defeating Romney by only 0.9 points.

What counties could have swung Florida’s 29 electoral votes towards Romney?

KEY COUNTY: MIAMI-DADE

In 2012, Miami-Dade County accounted for 10.4% of the total statewide vote in the Presidential Election, making it the single largest county in the state.  Obama won Miami-Dade by 24 points (62% to 38%) in 2012.  Had Romney performed the same in Miami-Dade as President Bush in 2004 and reduced his margin of loss down to 7 points, he would have gained 75,000 more votes and won the election in Florida.

Hispanics make up 54% of all registered voters in Miami-Dade.  In fact, the Hispanic registered voters in Miami-Dade County alone account for 6% of the entire statewide voting population.  Overall, Hispanics make up 14% of Florida’s Registered Voters.

Historically, Republican candidates who have won statewide office have lost Miami-Dade County by an average of 9 points.  In 2010, Senator Marco Rubio was the first Republican to win this county since Senator Mel Martinez won Miami-Dade by 0.2 points (or 1,385 votes) in 2004.

  •  In 2012, President Obama won Miami-Dade County by 24 points.
  • In 2012, Democratic Senator Bill Nelson won Miami-Dade County by 28 points.
  • In 2010, Republican Senator Marco Rubio won Miami-Dade County by 20 points.
  • In 2010, Republican Governor Rick Scott lost Miami-Dade County to Democrat Alex Sink by 14 points, but still won the state by 1.2 points overall
  • In 2008, President Obama won Miami-Dade County by 16 points.

 HISPANIC MEDIA IN FLORIDA

  • According to CNN Exit Polls, 60% of Hispanics in Florida voted for Obama in 2012. Obama received 61% of the vote from Hispanic women and 58% of the vote from Hispanic men.
  • It is worth noting the timing and the different Hispanic media strategies employed by Team Obama and Team Romney.  Obama went up early April 2012 and never came down.  Romney went up in July 2012 and never came down.
  • Both campaigns spent almost the same amount of money, however, according to public file analysis, Obama ran more the twice the amount of frequency when compared to Romney:  Obama spent $1.5 million and aired 13,000 spots on Hispanic media in Miami alone.  Romney spent $1.3 million and aired 7,500 spots on Hispanic media in Miami alone.
  • Obama spent a grand total of $5 million in Florida on Hispanic media.  Romney spent a grand total of $3.4 million in Florida on Hispanic media.
  • Obama uploaded at least 13 different Hispanic ads to his YouTube page during the election.  Romney uploaded at least 8 different Hispanic ads to his YouTube page during the election.

NARROW-THE-GAP COUNTIES

Instead of gaining 75,000 more votes in Miami-Dade County alone, we looked at three other counties in which Romney could have improved his margins in order to win Florida:

  • Miami-Dade County (10.4% of statewide vote, Miami market): Romney loses Miami-Dade County by 24 points.  Had he reduced his margin of loss down to 15 points, he would have gained 40,000 more votes.  In 2010, Governor Rick Scott lost Miami-Dade County by 14 points and won the election. In 2008, McCain lost Miami-Dade County by 16 points.
  • Broward County (8.9% of statewide vote, Miami market): Romney loses Broward County by 35 points.  Had he reduced his loss to 32 points, he would have gained 10,000 more votes.  In 2010, Governor Rick Scott lost Broward County by 31 points.
  • Hillsborough County (6.4% of statewide vote, Tampa Market): Romney loses Hillsborough County by 7 points.  Had he reduced his margin of loss to 3 points, he would have gained 10,000 more votes.  In 2010, Governor Rick Scott lost Hillsborough County by 3 points.
  • Orange County (5.5% of statewide vote, Orlando Market):  Romney loses Orange County by 18 points.  Had he reduced his loss to 12 points, he would have gained 15,000 more votes.  In 2010, Governor Rick Scott lost Orange County by 11 points.

Had Romney improved his vote percentage by 5 points on average in the 4 counties listed above, he would have gained 75,000 more votes and won the election in Florida.

FL 4 narrow the gaps

Visual Breakdown of the $980 Million Spent on Presidential Ads

Friday, November 30th, 2012

Over $980 million was spent on television and radio advertising during the 2012 Presidential General Election.  When the ad spending from the GOP Primary is included, this total surpasses $1 billion spent on television and radio advertising.  Political ads dominated the airwaves in the battleground states throughout the election.  Who paid for all of those ads?

Of the $980 Million Total Spent: Candidates (56%) vs.  Issue Groups (44%)


Not surprisingly, the two advertisers who spent the most money on political ads were the two candidates themselves: Barack Obama was the biggest spender at $335 million and Mitt Romney was the second biggest spender at $213 million.  Between the two of them, the candidates spent $548 million on ads – but that only counts for a little over half (56%) of the total amount spent on presidential-related ads this election cycle.  The remaining 44% (another $434 million) was spent on behalf of the candidates by 23 different Super PACs and issue groups.

Of the $980 Million Total Spent: Team Romney (60%) vs. Team Obama (40%)

Sixty percent of the money spent on presidential ads came from Pro-Romney advertisers ($583 million) and 40% of the money spent on ads came from pro-Obama advertisers ($400 million).

The majority (63%) of Team Romney’s ad spend came from issue groups who spent $370 million on behalf of Romney, while the candidate spent $213 million (37%).

On the other hand, the majority (84%) of Team Obama’s buy came from the candidate himself ($335 million), while issue groups only made up 16% of Team Obama’s spend ($64 million).

Of Team Romney’s $583 Million: Issue Group (63%) vs. Candidate (37%)

There were 12 major issue groups that placed ads on behalf of Mitt Romney during the election.

Who won the ad war?

Team Romney outspent Team Obama in terms of pure dollars.  This is largely due to the multiple issue groups that advertised on behalf of Romney.  But in political advertising, more money does not always equal more ads reaching more voters.

While issue groups indisputably played a significant role in Presidential advertising this election, it is important to consider the difference between the worth of a candidate’s media buy in comparison to the worth of an issue group’s media buy.   Federal Communications Commission law guarantees candidates the best prices for purchasing ad time, but these laws do not apply to political issue groups.  This means that issue groups often end up paying double, triple or even quadruple the market rate that candidates pay for the same advertisement.  This ratio varies across different markets and time periods, and many issue groups successfully negotiate competitive rates, but these advertisers do not receive the same price protection that political candidates enjoy.  Candidates can reach voters at a lower price.

Even though Team Romney outspent Team Obama by $183 million, does that mean that Team Romney won the ad war?  After all, the majority (63%) of Team Romney’s media buy came from political issue groups (who most likely paid higher rates), while the majority (84%) of Team Obama’s total spend came from the candidate (who most likely paid lower rates).  There are several major factors to consider when approaching this question.

  1. Where? Throughout the election, candidates and issue groups alike advertised in eight different swing states (CO, IA, FL, NC, NH, NV, OH, VA), give or take a few (MI, MN, PA, WI).  Were there certain states where Obama outspent Romney?  In what markets was Romney stronger than Obama?  The ad war question must be asked on a state-by-state, market-by-market basis.
  2. At what time? Advertising for the general election began the week of April 2 (when Rick Santorum dropped out) and lasted for thirty-one weeks, until November 6.  Were there certain periods of time when Obama dominated the airwaves?  How did the GOP spending surge in the last nine days of the election affect the outcome?  The ad war question must be framed in terms of time as well.
  3. On what mediums? Broadcast, cable and radio are the three media types that political candidates traditionally place on.  Who had the most sophisticated cable buy?  When did the candidates start advertising on radio? What were the most crowded broadcast markets?
  4. At what price? Perhaps the biggest question that must be asked when determining which campaign was the most effective buy is one of cost.  Were the some markets where issue groups got better rates?  Which markets skyrocketed?  What price did each campaign pay for advertisements?

In the next few weeks, I will be exploring these questions through more in-depth posts on each subject.

Why Money in Politics is So Important

Monday, July 30th, 2012

Our system wouldn’t be better off if we spent less.

It is a near daily complaint during election season: “There’s too much money in politics.”

Every election cycle there is more and more money spent on campaigns, with more and more groups entering the fray. In particular, the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision is often cited as the beginning of a new free-spending era in political campaigning. Many think our political system would be measurably better if there was less money in politics.

Surprisingly, the amount spent on politics is still quite small. During the 2010 cycle, the total spending for all races was $4.6 billion, which was 8 percent higher than the 2008 cycle. Sure, $4.6 billion spent on politics sounds gigantic—until you realize there are about 314 million people in the United States. Even if you just look at the roughly 200 million people who are eligible to vote, this would amount to the average eligible voter spending $22.50 per every two-year election cycle.

That’s really not so much money. Just compare that to the size of some other industries in America. Look at the amount spent on coffee consumption, for example. A recent study says that the average American worker spends over $1,000 per year on coffee. Per week, the average amount spent is $21.

The average American spends three times as much on bottled water, four times as much on dog food,  four times as much on gym memberships, fifteen times as much on lottery tickets, and twice as much on plastic surgery.

Yes, political spending has increased markedly in recent years, but the scale of the industry is still quite small. Even though the industry is less lucrative than most realize, money is still key. If it wasn’t, then shrewd political observers wouldn’t monitor fundraising numbers like hawks and politicians wouldn’t build up war chests to scare off challengers.

Why is money so important to the political process that there will be non-stop political ads this fall?

Name recognition is the main reason. Almost everyone in America knows that Barack Obama is the current president, but beyond the presidency, the amount of people who couldn’t even name their U.S. senators or the governor of their state is alarmingly high. Even well-educated people have trouble identifying their state representatives, let alone their city council, county council, or township elected officials.

There is a small core of people who are either in the political world or political junkies, who have the news on all day. These people really do not need political advertising to tell them how to vote. They will seek out ways on their own to learn about candidates and tend to be strong partisans, who won’t be convinced by opposition advertising.

But the large majority of Americans are not like this. Most people “outsource” their political engagement to others. This is not necessarily a matter of intelligence or civic-mindedness. A small business owner, who works 60-hour weeks, can be very involved in their community but has no time to investigate candidates on their own. So he or she may rely on people they trust, like the local Chamber of Commerce, to tell them which candidates are in their best interest.

It’s not realistic in a bustling society like the United States for every voter to be an expert on every candidate that will be on the ballot. But this means that the main way politicians can influence voters is through political advertisements. For a democratic republic to survive, voters have to be engaged in the political process.

The only way the barrage of political ads will go away is for the entire electorate to be so well-educated that political advertising would be worthless. And as long as most want to live a normal lifestyle, enduring political advertisements will be one of the costs of living in a free society.

Chris Palko works as an assistant media analyst at Smart Media Group, a Republican political media buying agency in Alexandria, Va. He is a graduate of American University and George Washington University’s Graduate School of Political Management.

A version of this post was also published on Campaign and Election’s blog, Campaign Insider.

Top Ten 3rd Party Spenders of the 2010 Election Cycle

Monday, December 6th, 2010

1-Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee – $40.6 million

2-National Republican Congressional Committee – $34.5

3-Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee – $28.9 million

4-American Crossroads – $27.5 million

5-US Chamber of Commerce – $25.5 million

6-American Action Network – $17 million

7-Service Employees International Union – $14.6 million

8-National Republican Senatorial Committee – $13.7 million

9-American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees – $10.2 million

10-American Future Fund – $8.6 million

Source:  Center for Responsive Politics

Journalistic Standards Rise as The Wall Street Journal Cites SMG’s Twitter Account

Tuesday, October 26th, 2010

Wall Street Journal 10-25-2010

Political Ads Inundate Media Markets

Rates Soar Fivefold in Cities With Tight Races, Like Syracuse and Seattle, Prompting Candidates to Find Creative Solutions

By Elizabeth Williamson and Suzanne Vranica

U.S. political candidates have amassed more advertising cash this year than ever before. The hard part is finding places to spend it.

In the busiest markets, which include California, Nevada, Arizona and Florida, prime spots are virtually closed to nonpolitical advertisers until after Nov. 2.

Ad rates are up fivefold in markets with newly tight races, including Syracuse, N.Y., the site of two toss-up House races, and Seattle, where Democratic Washington Sen. Patty Murray is fighting a surge by Republican challenger Dino Rossi.

The glut has forced candidates and their ad buyers to wait, innovate or try to game the system.

Given its small budget and soaring prices, the Louisiana Democratic Party couldn’t afford to run in prime time a documentary-style, two-minute ad about Republican Sen. David Vitter’s admitted past ties to a Washington madam. Instead, it ran late-night ads for a week in early September. A longer version ran on two separate websites.

Vitter spokesman Luke Bolar said Democratic nominee Charlie Melancon “is obviously really desperate if he has to resort to personal attacks to duck and divert attention from his abysmal voting record on the issues.”

A Supreme Court ruling in January freed corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts on independent campaign advertising. Combined with a series of competitive races in high-priced television markets, ad spending is on track to top $4.2 billion this year, compared with about $2.5 billion in 2008.

“It’s the strongest market I have ever seen for a non-presidential race,” said Paul Wasserman, general sales manager at WLPG in Miami, an ABC affiliate owned by the Washington Post Co., where ad rates adjacent to news programming, a favorite slot, have doubled from pre-election levels.

As a result, digital-ad agencies have seen political spending on the Web change this season, with more campaigns paying to run video ads on Web sites. Previously, they would post TV commercials on YouTube and hope they went viral.

After the Supreme Court ruling, one veteran buyer booked nine months’ worth of prime TV spots in expected competitive states on behalf of outside political groups backing Republicans, the buyer said. That locked out some Democratic buyers, he said, and locked in a low rate. The buyer cancels unneeded time two weeks in advance, as is generally required in such contracts.

Ad buyers with union clients are doing the same, said Eric Adelstein of Chicago-based buyers Adelstein Liston. “You try to max out the best-rated stations first” for groups, he said. Some stations have started turning down ad buys from candidates, because by tradition they pay a lower rate than independent advocacy groups.

Smart Media Group, a suburban Washington ad buyer with GOP clients, maintains a Twitter feed of Democratic ad cancellations. The feed alerts Republicans to buying opportunities, and serves as a barometer of Democrats’ shifting spending priorities.

In California, some GOP-backing groups are finding inexpensive time on Christian and talk-radio stations instead of regular broadcast and cable TV. Online, conservative groups compete for spots on the Drudge Report, while liberal groups vie for placement on the Huffington Post Web site.

In Illinois, ads for federal and local races have jammed Chicago news broadcast schedules, forcing some political buyers to chase tiny audiences in the wee hours, use cable, or make a single, expensive network buy, for example, during a football game.

The Susan B. Anthony List, an antiabortion group, is doing a lot more direct mail. Postage alone comes to $300,000. “We’re keeping the postal service in business by ourselves,” said group spokeswoman Kerry Brown.

Some things haven’t changed this year from prior campaigns: production quality. Revere America, a nonprofit that supports opponents of the health-care overhaul, is saving money with ads that superimpose candidates’ names and faces in several races across the country over the same generic video and voiceover.

Political campaigns “will always have sloppier creative ads,” said Josh Koster, managing partner of Washington-based agency Chong and Koster, who is advising a number of candidates for the midterms. “Where else do you see ads that go from script to airing in less than 24 hours?”

Spending Mirrors Election Results in HI-01

Thursday, May 27th, 2010

For the three major candidates each vying for a seat in Hawaii’s First Congressional District, it turns out that it pays to advertise. The three candidates spent a combined total of $1.7 million in the special election held on May 22nd in an effort secure spot in Washington.

Charles Djou (R) spent a total of $745k on broadcast and cable in Honolulu, or 44% of the $1.7 million total. Colleen Hanabusu (D) placed a total of $517k, or 30% of the total spend. Finally, Ed Case (D) placed a total of $443k, or 26% of all the paid political advertising in Honolulu.

Each candidate’s spending reflects a striking resemblance to the election results. Djou won nearly 40% of the vote, while Hanabusu won 31% and Case won 28%.

This chart compares each candidate’s share in the total spend with the percentage of votes they won on Election Day.

Although the DCCC placed $229k in attack ads against Djou in April, he still managed to place an effective media buy and become the next Representative for HI-01.

What Can Brown Do For You, Massachusetts?

Wednesday, January 20th, 2010

Scott Brown made history on Tuesday, becoming the first Republican to win a Massachusetts Senate seat in over thirty years. Brown won 52% of the vote, beating his opponent Martha Coakley by a margin of five percent. He gained the winning majority of the vote in 65% of the Commonwealth’s 351 precincts.

This television market map shows Brown’s margin of victory by county:
ma-dma-with-margin-of-victory

Martha Coakley spent $628,000 on broadcast and cable during the Democratic primary from 11/13-12/8. At that time, Coakley was ahead of Brown in the polls by 15%-30%. Brown first placed advertising the week of 12/30, spending $380,000 on broadcast and cable, airing positive ads such as “JFK”, “Hey, Dad”, and “Response”. For the last two weeks leading up until the election, Brown spent a total of $2.7 million, gaining an even position with Coakley in the polls. Coakley responded with negative ads on 1/7, and placed $2.1 million for the last two weeks of the election. While these negative response ads were airing, Brown skyrocketed ahead in the polls as far as a nine point lead two days before the election.

Both candidates spent the bulk of their dollars in the Boston market, each placing around $2.4 million.

This map shows Coakley’s spending by television market: ma-dma-with-coakley-spending

This map shows Brown’s spending by television market: ma-dma-with-brown-spending

This chart shows each candidate’s spending by week: Massachusetts Broadcast and Cable Spending

Several issue groups also placed advertising in Boston regarding this special election, including American Future Fund, Americans For Responsible Healthcare, Chamber of Commerce, Citizens for Strength & Security, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Employment Policies Institute, League of American Voters, League of Conservation Voters, National Republican Trust PAC, SEIU, Tea Party Express.

Unofficial election results from www.boston.com
Polling data from www.politico.com

Evan Tracey “Political Spending Could Reach $1 BILLION in 2009″

Thursday, October 1st, 2009

To the chagrin of all TV reps Evan Tracey announced in September that political spending will reach $1 billion in 2009.  While I have not seen any numbers to refute this claim, I have to believe we are well below the billion dollar mark.  In 2008, spending was 2.5 billion, but this includes all Presidential, Congressional and Issue spending.

While the races in New Jersey and Virginia have been hotly contested, they have been more like a bump than a boom for TV stations.  Sure Mayor Bloomberg has spent good deal of money, but the lack of opposition seems to be even curbing his spending.  While political advertising is now a legitimate and growing category, spending in 2009 is not going to replace the auto industry.  2010 is another story… stay tuned.

Did Big Money Equal Big Wins for DCCC in 2008?

Tuesday, July 28th, 2009

In the 2008 election, the DCCC spent $60 million dollars to help the Democrats gain 21 seats in Congress, outspending the NRCC by a 3-1 margin. Did this financial advantage allow the DCCC to spend in more races or spend a lot in a few key races?

When looking at the highest spending races, both parties were effective in different ways. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) placed over $1 million dollars on TV advertising in 34 different races, while the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) could only match in 7 of those same races. Strangely enough, each committee won 70% of the races they placed in. Even further, the DCCC also spent $2 million or more in 9 races, losing 4 of them (including NJ-07 and NY-26), despite the NRCC not being able to match those amounts.

GOP incumbents were a major target for the DCCC, going on the offensive in 15 of the 34 races they spent a million or more, while only trying to defend 8 Democratic incumbents, while the remaining 11 were open seats. Meanwhile, the NRCC defended 6 of their incumbents in the 7 races they spent 1 million plus, successfully defending 4 of them. Using the limited resources at their disposal, the NRCC was able to defend the same amount of seats that the DCCC spent $2 to even $3 million in losing efforts in other races. While the NRCC appears to have been more efficient, the DCCC had the ability to take more chances in expensive races, but in the end both sides came away with the same winning percentage.

Republican and Democratic Winning Percentage Chart by Spending Level and Incumbency

Republican

Democratic

Victories

%

Victories

%

DCCC spent $1 mil+

11

32%

23

68%

NRCC spent $1 mil+

5

71%

2

29%

DCCC spent $2 mil+

4

44%

5

56%

Republican Incumbent

6

40%

9

60%

Democratic Incumbent

2

25%

6

75%

McAuliffe Proves Money Isn’t Everything

Friday, June 26th, 2009

Terry McAuliffe placed a total of $2.1 million on broadcast, cable, and radio advertising in the Virginia democratic primary, outspending his opponent Creigh Deeds 2 to 1 and proving that money couldn’t disguise his Syracuse accent in the Old Dominion.

McAuliffe was up on broadcast and cable for five months in Norfolk, Richmond, and Roanoke, but he spent 50% of his overall budget in one week when he entered into all markets in Virginia from 6/1-6/9, placing a total $1.1 million in advertising.

Creigh Deeds spent a total of $1.1 million on broadcast, cable and radio advertising for the entire election. Instead of running ads for several months like his opponent did, Deeds only went up on air during the last five weeks leading up until the primary. Like McAuliffe, Deeds spent 50% of his total budget for broadcast and cable for the week of 6/1-6/9, placing $502k in all markets across the state.

McAuliffe spent 28% of his overall budget in the inefficient Washington, DC market, spending more than three times as much there than Deeds did. He placed nearly $600k in broadcast and cable during the last week, while Deeds placed $162k. Despite this spending advantage, Deeds won the market by a moderate margin.

Spending and Voting Comparison