In a post asserting that the just-argued case which threatens to throw out the Roe v. Wade decision will not affect upcoming elections, which I otherwise am inclined to agree with, Erick Erickson falls for the old dollars buy votes line:
All one needs to know is the name Ed Stezler. He is a State Representative and authored the fetal heartbeat law in Georgia. His district had trended Democrat. Stacey Abrams won it in 2018 and he barely hung. In 2020, after the Georgia legislature passed Ed’s bill, he became the most highly targeted state house Republican in America. Democrats from across the nation poured money into beating Ed. They made their entire campaign about abortion. They targeted voters. They sent door knockers. They had phone banks. They had celebrities. They outspent Ed Setzler and the Republicans.
Biden beat Trump in his district. The Democrats picked up both Senate seats in his district. Ed won with 50.5% of the vote. Making the race against him about abortion failed.
The assumption is that increasing campaign spending will buy votes. It’s as simple as that. And it’s false.
In a district with a substantial portion of single issue voters and highly partisan voters, the number of dollars is going to have a steeper marginal rate drop-off than in other districts. That is, votes that aren’t normally voted, or are changeable, are hard to come by.
Dollars improve messaging, occasionally spark debates that can change minds (think: the gay marriage debates) and can get voters to the polls, although the latter is supposedly vote-indifferent – that is, a ride cannot be conditionalized on who one votes for.
But it’s like giving dollars to a known practicing pedophile. It doesn’t matter how much money is given, that pedophile will not win the seat for which they vie.
While I do think overturning Roe v Wade will be a big fizzle for the Democrats, unless they can persuade that it’s a big deal for the independent, a bigger deal that the rot at the heart of the Democrats, I am not convinced by Erickson’s argument.
