The 2022 midterm congressional political advertising spend is projected at over $9.7 billion, up from the $5.95 billion spent in the 2020 congressional election cycle. The tracking was reported by AdImpact Politics.
The record spending on political advertising belies the country’s sharp partisan division, the tight margins separating control of the two houses of Congress – particularly in the Senate – and the intensity of partisan division heading into the 2024 presidential election.
So why is the level of spending necessary? To be sure, control of Congress impacts every segment of the American economy and the social climate on a myriad of issues. A recent Pew Research Center poll aimed at both Democrat and Republican registered voters indicated that the top issues are the economy, the future of democracy, education, health care, and energy policy – and those issues resonated with voters from both parties.
The Pew poll identified a middle tier of issues that are surprising given the frequency and passion with which the issues are debated nationally including gun rights, voting rights, abortion, Supreme Court appointments, and immigration.
The same poll identified a third tier of issues that voters were concerned about that included climate change, racial issues, investigations into Donald Trump, investigations into President Joe Biden, and COVID.
The liberal Brookings Institution offered its list of top five issues in the runup to the midterms, which included inflation, abortion, climate, health care and education. The conservative Heritage Foundation put a harder focus on foreign policy issues – principally U.S.-China relations – along with crime, immigration, the economy and election integrity.
But regardless of partisan identification, it was clear Tuesday that 2022 was for most voters and particularly for voters who had identified as undecided voters throughout the midterm campaigns that this was a “pocketbook election” in which the combined impacts of the COVID shutdown, the global semiconductor shortage, resulting supply chain issues and the worst protracted round of inflation since the 1970s combined to produce angry, unsettled voters who weren’t particularly happy with either major party.
It is that dynamic that should concern both parties as they move toward 2024. The extremes of both the Republican and Democratic parties are fairly well entrenched on issues like abortion, gun rights and immigration, but middle-of-the-road voters are less so on issues like foreign policy, crime, education, health care and Social Security.
It is important to note after the midterms that neither Democrats nor Republicans are viewed favorably by a majority of voters. Another Pew poll shows that 41 percent viewed the Democrats favorably while 37 percent viewed the GOP favorably. At the same time. Some 47 percent of voters ages 18-49 wish there were more than two political parties to choose from.
What has been missing for much of the midterm election cycle is specificity. Solving inflation requires solutions that incorporate some of the root causes of rising prices. Food costs more because of supply chain shortages and high fuel prices. The war in Ukraine impacted global grain markets. The global semiconductor shortage is an issue that crosses multiple issue boundaries.
But in the primaries and carrying over to the general election, most of the political rhetoric has focused on more incendiary partisan issues. Brookings senior fellow Christopher A. Thomas wrote this month: “Semiconductors are the lifeblood of the digital economy. The semiconductor industry has moved to the foreground of political discourse both in the U.S. and other countries. The pushes from America’s economic rivals and the challenges faced by its domestic industry, coupled with supply chain shortages, prompted calls for the U.S. government to ‘do something’ to support the industry. The most visible response is the CHIPS Act, which allocates $39 billion in government funding for domestic semiconductor manufacturing facilities and billions more for semiconductor research and development (R&D) and workforce programs.”
Mississippi’s senior U.S. Sen. Roger Wicker made a courageous vote to support the CHIPS Act as a measure that takes a long and globally strategic view that America should not be dependent on our adversaries for computer chips – the building blocks of the global economy.
As
we leave the 2022 midterms and plunge almost immediately into the 2024
presidential campaign, the partisan divide - on both sides – has
become an impediment to advancing the quality of life for all
Americans. Without that, the number of voters who reject both parties
will grow and the two-party system that has served our nation will
continue to struggle and stumble.
Sid Salter is a syndicated columnist. Contact him at sidsalter@sidsalter.com
16 comments:
How is the two party system struggling? There have been ample opportunities in the past, including yesterday, for the voters to elect someone who didn’t represent either major party. Not a single one has even gotten close, so don’t tell me how badly the voters want someone else.
Peoples vote for the party not the person. Right. Right.
So what, Sid?
I thinK I am done with political knowledge and research.
I am going to try to stop caring about this useless drama and just enjoy life.
Best to all.
There has always been another party to choose from. The people may act like that is what they want but they will not vote for a third party. That has been proven over and over. The real problem is we do not have a third party as the two we have are the same thing. There is no real difference in the republicans and the democrats. They can and do change sides when their chance of getting elected is greater when they belong to the other side. Same people, different party, but the same crooked people in charge. Voters seem to be drawn to crooks. The bigger, the better.
I did not choose to vote this time and will not be voting in the future. I refuse to be part of any criminal enterprise.
The Citizens United ruling was terrible for country, regardless of party.
The contributions flowing through super PACs, dark money, etc. mean the will of the people is largely ignored and replaced with the interests of a wealthly few.
9:46 AM - AND I QUOTE "There is no real difference in the republicans and the democrats". VERY TRUE STATEMENT.
"Would you rather have Hillary/Trump?"
"If you vote for the Republican/Democrat, you're just giving it away to the Democrat/Republican."
"If you vote the Libertarian/Green/Reform/Taxpayers/Constitution Party candidate, you're just throwing away your vote because he doesn't have a chance to win."
I hear this litany every time an election rolls around. People treat a vote like it's a wager, as though if you pick the winner correctly, you get something in return. And, too, almost nobody votes FOR a candidate; almost everybody votes AGAINST a candidate.
Well, you don't get anything if you correctly pick the winner, as everyone reading here well knows. So why, then, don't people vote their conscience instead of voting for who they think has the best chance of winning?
Media conditioning. It's everywhere, the constant blue and red color motif to subtly remind the voters it's either Democrat or Republican, Left or Right, blue or red, fish or fowl, washer or dryer, and that's all it can ever be, one or the other one, this one or that one.
What's the solution? There are too many people with the franchise who don't have the gumption to wield the vote intelligently. Go to Walmart, look around, and there's your electorate. There needs to be a paring down of the electorate -- which, of course, will never happen.
And there needs to be a third party, and a fourth and a fifth and perhaps even a sixth. Sure, that would make it difficult to get anything in government done. And that's a good thing, because if the politicians can't get it done, it probably didn't need doing anyway.
Instead of having a third or more parties it would be much better if we did away with all parties. People vote for the party, not the person. If we voted for the person we probably would not even have an election. I can't think of a single person who could win without being either a democrat or a republican.
There should not be an election. If we have to have a presidential election the person with the most votes should be president and the person with the second most votes should be vice president.
Most third world countries have a more honest election that we do.
Inflation has hit for Street Money Votes.
@11:10 "A pairing down of the electorate"
With liberty and freedom to some I guess huh?
Your vote hasn't determined the outcome of a selection, excuse me, election in over 100 years. Don't expect it to in the future.
@1:29, the SOME can have all the liberty and freedom they want, but they simply shouldn’t be allowed to vote their freedom and liberty to leach productive citizens.
Things. Didn’t turn out the way people expected despite the money spent. Is just me that thinks women spoke with their vote .
What we have is mob rule. That's where 51% impose their will on the other 49%. That's a guarantee to never have peace.
In my opinion , odays lost for the dems does not tell the story. Given that the Reps are going to go full out on asinine hearings that will turn off more people than they already have, the dems will have a clear majority when Biden is re-elected in ‘24. What will they call it then ?
Post a Comment