Will this study rock the use of broadcasters and advertisers in coming elections? Why would you pay for something that brings no benefit to your campaign? Will this cause future campaigns to be run in a new and untried manner? The thought of this type of campaigning flies in the face of conventional thought. It would have saved Hillary Clinton millions of dollars, maybe.
As Written By Ed Morrissey for Hot Air:
What if everything we assumed about political campaigns turned out to be wrong? Well, for one thing, it might explain how Donald Trump beat a talented field of Republican primary candidates, and then won an upset against one of the least competent major-party nominees in decades last November. Hillary Clinton had all of the advantages — better fundraising, better media penetration, and the power of identity politics, and still lost anyway.
That might not have been a fluke. A new study by two California academics concludes that persuasion isn’t effective with voters, especially in the later stages of an election cycle. That has a potentially devastating implication for campaign advertising … and perhaps a sigh of relief for TV and radio audiences who dread election seasons:
The study’s authors combined a hodgepodge of 40 existing experiments on the persuasive effects of advertising and campaign contacts, and then they added nine extensive new studies of their own. The new studies were conducted during the 2016 election with the labor group Working America, an affiliate of the AFL-CIO.
Their conclusion? Advertising and campaign contacts have almost no measurable impact, at least in general elections.
“The best estimate for the persuasive effects of campaign contact and advertising — such as mail, phone calls, and canvassing — on Americans’ candidate choices in general elections is zero,” Kalla and Broockman write. “Our best guess for online and television advertising is also zero, but there is less evidence” in these cases…………
THERE IS MORE HERE KEEP READING HERE: