It’s called “clearing the field”. They can increase the price of television spots to the point at which it’s impossible to carry on from lack of funds. Or they can crowd the rest of the field out.
It’s called “clearing the field”. They can increase the price of television spots to the point at which it’s impossible to carry on from lack of funds. Or they can crowd the rest of the field out.
Be interesting to see how much they actually part with. Trump turned out to be a cheapskate. Bloomberg so far about 1/3 of a billion. My own opinion is you can overdo media and have negative results. I don’t suppose Steyer or Bloomberg can play the saxophone in shades.
Trump was able to be a cheapskate because he got the MSM to provide free coverage of him both during the primaries and the Presidential campaign. Why pay when it’s being provided gratis.
Bloomberg and Steyer can play one tune: I hate Trump and I’m richer than him so vote for me. OK, two tunes: Vote for me so I can make you do what I think is right for you.
Tars:
I think Trump had that planned all along, working the media, if that had not played out, he would not have spent even 10% of his own on the campaign, and neither will Bloomberg. IMO.
I doubt money can clear the field.
Sanders and Buttigieg have enough core supporters willing to donate that they can run as long as they want.
It begs the question how much money can buy – from 2 to 20 million per quarter helps a lot, but 20 to 200 buys a lot less, and 200 to 2 billion probably buys very little.
Then you could follow Trumps strategy – reportedly his “earned†media was worth about 1 billion in 2016. Saying crazy things to stay in the news can be effective….
Air time is a limited commodity. It can get completely bought out or the prices increased.