http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...ada_story.html
... of 2016 "political advertising" on television, radio, and other media - including the internet. With (literally) billions of dollars being thrown at these politicians, the only way you'll be able to escape it is by watching Netflix movies. (And maybe even that won't work!)
I wonder if politicians are creating a "reverse tipping point" where money - and desired results - are in inverse proportion ... meaning the more money a candidate raises and spends, the less desirable that candidate becomes to voters. Stated another way, people get fed up with their favorite television programs being saturated with political ads. This may have been part of the dynamic at work in the 2014 mid-term elections - people were so turned off by the constant unrelenting advertising that they just decided "To hell with all of them!" and chose to stay home and not vote.
If Republicans spend billions and manage to lose the Presidency again, it might start dawning on them that spending drug dealer amounts of money on advertising might not be the best strategy. Maybe they might try something like bringing jobs back to the United States and adopting policies that raise the wages and living standards of the 99 percent who aren't billionaire donors and casino moguls.
Maybe the British have it right. As I understand it, when an election date is set over there, campaigning - and presumably fundraising - is limited to a 60-90 day period immediately preceding the election date. There is no perpetual 365-day-a-year jockeying with each week featuring another candidate announcing that he (or she) is running for President.