Political myth of the week: Money rules. (Let's deal with Bloomberg and Steyer.)
I think it's time to do another "Political myth of the week." I had intended to make this a regular feature of In Tenure Veritas, but I keep shifting directions. Meh.
Anyway, Michael Bloomberg and Tom Steyer. Occasionally, we talk about them, but really, the focus in the Democratic contest lately has been on the tension between Warren and Sanders, along with Biden's stubborn poll numbers, and somehow... Buttigieg. With respect to Bloomberg and Steyer, the news is about how much money they are spending.
And yet, we all pretty much know that neither has a snowball's chance in hell of winning. Sure, a few weirdos put a few pennies on them in the prediction markets, like PredictIt, but no. Ain't happenin', and it tells you something about how far Warren has fallen that as of this morning, she's trading a penny below Bloomberg at PredictIt. OK, I didn't see that coming. I admit it. She was the betting favorite not too long ago, with leads in some early state polls, and strong showings in the national polls! That didn't make her a lock, but that's quite a fall. I wouldn't write her off just yet, and I think she has more of a chance than Bloomberg, but that kind of shows how fluid the race is.
If you are looking for an historical comparison for the Democratic contest right now, it would be the GOP contest from 2012. Boomlets for a bunch of non-Romneys, boosted by media attention, with stable numbers for Romney. As each non-Romney collapsed under scrutiny, the last one standing was Romney. Good book: The Gamble, by John Sides and Lynn Vavreck.
Care to guess who the Romney of this year is?
Anyway, that's kind of what's happening. Among the people who will lose, though, are Tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg. To the degree that you encounter news stories about them, those news stories will be about the massive amounts of money they are spending on ads. Maybe you are encountering those ads too. If so, I'm sorry. If you are reading this blog, you know where I teach, which means you know my state of residence, and perhaps you have a sense of why my life is so much more pleasant for not watching television. Those who do watch television during presidential elections in my home state? Pity them. And tell them to turn off the tv, and pick up a book. Readers know that I have plenty of recommendations!
Regardless of my hipster, holier-than-thou attitude about tv, there's more than just tv ads. Steyer and Bloomberg are running a social science experiment, trying to see just how nuts they can drive people with ads across media platforms. Cackling all the way. And that's the story about them.
OK, so let's return to the basic claim that you will encounter about politics every-bloody-where. Money. Money-money-money. Money is the mother's-milk of politics. Money isn't the most important thing, it's the only thing, and blah-blah-blah. Listen, in particular, to the ranting-and-raving of most Democratic candidates, and you would think that money just controls every outcome. Sanders ran his 2016 campaign based on the premise that "campaign finance reform" was the foundational first step that would usher in a socialist utopia in America. Seriously. Pass campaign finance reform, and we become a socialist paradise. Don't pass it, and nothing good will ever happen and everything is always the worst ever. This was his 2016 campaign. Money controls everything. Pay no attention to the fact that he lost to a candidate he out-raised and out-spent.
Scratch that. Pay attention.
And pay attention now to the fact that two richy-riches are trying to buy their way to a presidential nomination. It won't work.
Now, be a social scientist. What does that tell you? It should tell you that money doesn't do what Sanders, and generally speaking, the campaign finance reform alarmists tell you.
Observe. You see, if money buys elections, then it shouldn't matter whether I spend my money or your money. A dollar is a dollar is a dollar. The reflexive property of dollar-ness. Yet, self-funders lose. I'll get to Bloomberg's mayoral history in a moment. For right now, we've got two self-funders in the presidential contest. They'll both lose. Just like the big-spender, Sanders, lost last time around, while whining about the supposed influence of money in total cluelessness about the implications of his loss.
Reference time. Jennifer Steen, Self-Financed Candidates in Congressional Elections. Yes, I'm talking about presidential elections now, but hang on. Self-funders lose. Why? Short version: if you have to spend your own money, it's because other people with money won't give you theirs. Because you're a schlub, and they know you'll lose. Translation: the money won't help you if you're a schlub. Rich twits can't buy their way to office. So, the self-financed candidates lose.
But, if a dollar is a dollar is a dollar, and money buys everything, it wouldn't work that way! Spend enough, and you could buy your way into office! This would be a bidding war between Bloomberg and Steyer! What does it tell you that it isn't? It tells you that the money-controls-everything line is nonsense.
OK, now you're wondering about Bloomberg and his history as mayor of NYC. You know what you're not wondering about? Al Checchi. Or Michael Huffington. Or... Ross Bloody Perot!
Do you even know the name, Al Checchi? Nope. Didn't think so. Dude tried to buy the Governor's office in California. I could have asked about Meg Whitman. She tried that, and you might know her name from eBay, but not know or remember that she tried that. Or, Carly Fiorina! She of the HP-Compaq fiasco! She tried for a CA Senate seat! (And the presidency! Ha!) Did you remember that?! Linda McMahon from professional wrestling? Remember how she tried to buy the Connecticut Senate seat? Twice?! And of course, failed both times?
Did you remember that Ariana had a husband? Yeah, dude tried to buy a Senate seat. To quote Nelson Muntz: ha-ha!
Ross Perot? After all of his shenanigans in 1992 and 1996, you know who tied him in the electoral college without spending a dime?
Me! Me and Ross? We got the exact same number of votes in the electoral college in 1992 and 1996! I was just more efficient about it.
So, you were going to ask me about Mikey Bloomberg's successful purchase of a mayoral office? My response? What weren't you asking me? You weren't asking me about all of the people who tried and failed. That's the social science point.
Social science is about patterns, not individual cases. You remember the dramatic stories, and forget the non-events. This is really insidious when the non-events are the norms. The non-event is when the self-funder loses. It is a non-event because it is the norm. See: Steen, Jennifer. But, you forget those cases, and remember the anomalies, and that convinces your statistically disinclined brain that the anomaly is actually the norm.
Your brain doesn't work. And it fails to work in ways that are well-described by the analysis of Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, whose studies earned a Nobel Prize. You try to estimate probabilities, and you do so with bias because the cases that come to your mind are not representative of reality. Your brain has a kind of sampling bias because you rely on heuristics to estimate probabilities. Bloomberg's mayoral victories are easier for you to remember than Meg Whitman's loss, and Al Checchi's loss, and Carly Fiorina's loss, and, and, and... and all of the other cases that, statistically, overwhelm Bloomberg, but that you either never knew or forgot.
And you know what? In four years, or eight years, or twelve, you'll probably forget about Bloomberg and Steyer's presidential campaigns! Why? 'Cuz they're-a-gonna lose! But, sometime between now and then, some other richy-rich is gonna get lucky, like Mikey, and that's the case that your statistically disinclined brain is going to remember, causing you to think that it's all about money, and if you aren't careful, you'll revert to Sanders-ism. Outspending your opponent, losing, and whining about the influence of money, in total cluelessness.
Instead, have a nice glass of wine. No "h."
Anyway, Michael Bloomberg and Tom Steyer. Occasionally, we talk about them, but really, the focus in the Democratic contest lately has been on the tension between Warren and Sanders, along with Biden's stubborn poll numbers, and somehow... Buttigieg. With respect to Bloomberg and Steyer, the news is about how much money they are spending.
And yet, we all pretty much know that neither has a snowball's chance in hell of winning. Sure, a few weirdos put a few pennies on them in the prediction markets, like PredictIt, but no. Ain't happenin', and it tells you something about how far Warren has fallen that as of this morning, she's trading a penny below Bloomberg at PredictIt. OK, I didn't see that coming. I admit it. She was the betting favorite not too long ago, with leads in some early state polls, and strong showings in the national polls! That didn't make her a lock, but that's quite a fall. I wouldn't write her off just yet, and I think she has more of a chance than Bloomberg, but that kind of shows how fluid the race is.
If you are looking for an historical comparison for the Democratic contest right now, it would be the GOP contest from 2012. Boomlets for a bunch of non-Romneys, boosted by media attention, with stable numbers for Romney. As each non-Romney collapsed under scrutiny, the last one standing was Romney. Good book: The Gamble, by John Sides and Lynn Vavreck.
Care to guess who the Romney of this year is?
Anyway, that's kind of what's happening. Among the people who will lose, though, are Tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg. To the degree that you encounter news stories about them, those news stories will be about the massive amounts of money they are spending on ads. Maybe you are encountering those ads too. If so, I'm sorry. If you are reading this blog, you know where I teach, which means you know my state of residence, and perhaps you have a sense of why my life is so much more pleasant for not watching television. Those who do watch television during presidential elections in my home state? Pity them. And tell them to turn off the tv, and pick up a book. Readers know that I have plenty of recommendations!
Regardless of my hipster, holier-than-thou attitude about tv, there's more than just tv ads. Steyer and Bloomberg are running a social science experiment, trying to see just how nuts they can drive people with ads across media platforms. Cackling all the way. And that's the story about them.
OK, so let's return to the basic claim that you will encounter about politics every-bloody-where. Money. Money-money-money. Money is the mother's-milk of politics. Money isn't the most important thing, it's the only thing, and blah-blah-blah. Listen, in particular, to the ranting-and-raving of most Democratic candidates, and you would think that money just controls every outcome. Sanders ran his 2016 campaign based on the premise that "campaign finance reform" was the foundational first step that would usher in a socialist utopia in America. Seriously. Pass campaign finance reform, and we become a socialist paradise. Don't pass it, and nothing good will ever happen and everything is always the worst ever. This was his 2016 campaign. Money controls everything. Pay no attention to the fact that he lost to a candidate he out-raised and out-spent.
Scratch that. Pay attention.
And pay attention now to the fact that two richy-riches are trying to buy their way to a presidential nomination. It won't work.
Now, be a social scientist. What does that tell you? It should tell you that money doesn't do what Sanders, and generally speaking, the campaign finance reform alarmists tell you.
Observe. You see, if money buys elections, then it shouldn't matter whether I spend my money or your money. A dollar is a dollar is a dollar. The reflexive property of dollar-ness. Yet, self-funders lose. I'll get to Bloomberg's mayoral history in a moment. For right now, we've got two self-funders in the presidential contest. They'll both lose. Just like the big-spender, Sanders, lost last time around, while whining about the supposed influence of money in total cluelessness about the implications of his loss.
Reference time. Jennifer Steen, Self-Financed Candidates in Congressional Elections. Yes, I'm talking about presidential elections now, but hang on. Self-funders lose. Why? Short version: if you have to spend your own money, it's because other people with money won't give you theirs. Because you're a schlub, and they know you'll lose. Translation: the money won't help you if you're a schlub. Rich twits can't buy their way to office. So, the self-financed candidates lose.
But, if a dollar is a dollar is a dollar, and money buys everything, it wouldn't work that way! Spend enough, and you could buy your way into office! This would be a bidding war between Bloomberg and Steyer! What does it tell you that it isn't? It tells you that the money-controls-everything line is nonsense.
OK, now you're wondering about Bloomberg and his history as mayor of NYC. You know what you're not wondering about? Al Checchi. Or Michael Huffington. Or... Ross Bloody Perot!
Do you even know the name, Al Checchi? Nope. Didn't think so. Dude tried to buy the Governor's office in California. I could have asked about Meg Whitman. She tried that, and you might know her name from eBay, but not know or remember that she tried that. Or, Carly Fiorina! She of the HP-Compaq fiasco! She tried for a CA Senate seat! (And the presidency! Ha!) Did you remember that?! Linda McMahon from professional wrestling? Remember how she tried to buy the Connecticut Senate seat? Twice?! And of course, failed both times?
Did you remember that Ariana had a husband? Yeah, dude tried to buy a Senate seat. To quote Nelson Muntz: ha-ha!
Ross Perot? After all of his shenanigans in 1992 and 1996, you know who tied him in the electoral college without spending a dime?
Me! Me and Ross? We got the exact same number of votes in the electoral college in 1992 and 1996! I was just more efficient about it.
So, you were going to ask me about Mikey Bloomberg's successful purchase of a mayoral office? My response? What weren't you asking me? You weren't asking me about all of the people who tried and failed. That's the social science point.
Social science is about patterns, not individual cases. You remember the dramatic stories, and forget the non-events. This is really insidious when the non-events are the norms. The non-event is when the self-funder loses. It is a non-event because it is the norm. See: Steen, Jennifer. But, you forget those cases, and remember the anomalies, and that convinces your statistically disinclined brain that the anomaly is actually the norm.
Your brain doesn't work. And it fails to work in ways that are well-described by the analysis of Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, whose studies earned a Nobel Prize. You try to estimate probabilities, and you do so with bias because the cases that come to your mind are not representative of reality. Your brain has a kind of sampling bias because you rely on heuristics to estimate probabilities. Bloomberg's mayoral victories are easier for you to remember than Meg Whitman's loss, and Al Checchi's loss, and Carly Fiorina's loss, and, and, and... and all of the other cases that, statistically, overwhelm Bloomberg, but that you either never knew or forgot.
And you know what? In four years, or eight years, or twelve, you'll probably forget about Bloomberg and Steyer's presidential campaigns! Why? 'Cuz they're-a-gonna lose! But, sometime between now and then, some other richy-rich is gonna get lucky, like Mikey, and that's the case that your statistically disinclined brain is going to remember, causing you to think that it's all about money, and if you aren't careful, you'll revert to Sanders-ism. Outspending your opponent, losing, and whining about the influence of money, in total cluelessness.
Instead, have a nice glass of wine. No "h."
Comments
Post a Comment