Election rule #2 -- ignore all the advertising

Several days ago I over-nighted it in Las Vegas.  Now I know why Nevada is considered a "battleground state" in the upcoming election -- anybody who spends much time there is going to be bombarded with election advertising, and is at risk of becoming shell-shocked or of developing some form of PTSD.  I pity the poor residents of the Las Vegas area and of Nevada.  Between now and election day in November they will be constantly confronted with slick campaign advertising that, at best, tells only half a story.  Both sides are guilty of misrepresentation, and both sides are spending way too much money and saying far too little with it.

Therefore, my Election Rule #2 -- ignore all political advertising.  Most of it is claptrap that is inaccurate, incomplete, below my modest level of intelligence, or just plain offensive.  The remainder--which might not be claptrap--is nonetheless guilty by association.

Those of us who live in California can watch TV and listen to the radio with very little interference from campaign advertising--at least the advertising for the presidential election, which is what it is pretty much all about at this stage--because spending advertising money in California is considered to be wasteful by both the Obama and the Romney campaigns since it would yield nothing additional for either side.  So, too, for any thought of advertising in Texas, or New York, or Wyoming, or Mississippi, or Alabama, or most of the other states.  As time passes, this will probably change, even if only in a token way.

Blame this on the Electoral College. 

Well, first of all let's blame it on the Supreme Court, since their Citizens' United decision has allowed what is essentially unlimited campaign spending by anybody or anything with enough money to want to try to buy an election.  Got lots of money burning a hole in your pocket?  Want to have some influence with the elected political mucky-mucks?  Well, go for it!  The Supreme Court says it's OK for you to take as much of that money as you want to and use it in election advertising.  And if your side wins, then it's probably pretty reasonable to think that you would expect, and receive, some extra-special consideration from them as a result of all the helpfulness of your money.  It used to be that we thought that sort of outcome was illegal (silly us) or maybe even immoral and unethical (remember those days?).  But we all have the same First Amendment free speech rights, don't we?  It's just that without any campaign contribution limits, those with lots of money can do the free speech thing so much louder than all the rest of us.  It ends up being an assault on the senses.  Look at that:  I just used another battleground verb.

Back to the Electoral College. 

Question:  What do these States have in common -- Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, New Hampshire and Florida?

Answer:  You've probably already guessed this -- they are all identified as "Swing States" on the Democratic election strategy map that is on my desk in front of me.  The Republicans probably have a similar map, but they haven't sent it to me (do I have to contribute money to everybody just to get a lousy paper map?).

The Obama for President and the Romney for President campaigns--and campaign surrogates (don't forget the Citizens United decision)--are going to carpet-bomb the poor people in those nine states.  Notice how I managed to slide in another battleground predicate.  Why would these campaigns be so ruthless?

It's all because their total of 120 electoral votes is considered to be up-for-grabs.

California has 55 electoral votes, but they are considered to be in the bag for President Obama.  Texas has 38 electoral votes, but likewise, those are considered to be locked for Mr. Romney.

The two states with the biggest populations are going to be largely ignored during the presidential campaign.  Aren't we lucky?

In fact, forty-one of the fifty states will be given short shrift in the activities of the presidential campaigning because of the mathematics of the Electoral College.

From the standpoint of our mental health, that's pretty good for those of us in those forty-one states.  Conversely, if you live in one of those other nine states then maybe you'd better pull the plugs on your TVs at home and just watch the boob tube in sports bars, where it's usually too noisy to hear the TV's audio anyway.

From the standpoint of a healthy democratic process, it's a perverse way to run an election.