“Bang for Your Buck” in Left-Leaning Political Contributions

As the new year impends, I’m looking for ways to make my political contributions matter. I want the money I can spare to make an impact, perhaps even a measurable one. I want it to “move the needle” in saving our Republic from despotism, restoring Enlightenment values, and resisting the abject idiocy, cruelty and dysfunction of the Trump regime and its many sycophants. And I want everyone who gives a dollar to a Democratic or left-leaning cause to have the same impact.

But how can I know? I have some reasonable hypotheses.

First, I think that most money spent on “traditional” for-profit “Democratic” media like MSNBC and CBS is wasted, for several reasons. First, our nearly entirely for-profit media charge outrageous sums for thirty-second video clips or radio sound bites that merely “preach to the choir” because their audiences are already left-leaning. I have heard that $1,000 per minute is not an unusual fee for a single video or audio clip—even on a purely local medium, such as a rural radio station. That sum would support a door-to-door field volunteer for weeks.

These pricey video clips have minimal impact on the most important groups of potential voters: reluctant, occasional, confused and undecided ones. Those voters, by and large, don’t use traditional media. And no thirty-second ad, no matter how expensive or clever, is going to persuade a died-in-the-wool Fox viewer to vote for a candidate like Kamala Harris. For all the evil that it does, Fox is, IMHO, the most effective political propaganda organization in human history. It’s all the more so because its motives are “pure” and untainted by sycophancy: a mindlessly loyal and devoted audience, private profit, lower taxes and less government regulation.

Second, IMHO traditional “political operatives” work like most of the rest of our corrupt and money-obsessed society. They and the people who appoint them measure their success by the amount of money they control, i.e., the amount of your and my contributions that they spend in whatever misguided attempt to move the needle. To put it bluntly, in our current twisted political universe the people who waste the biggest share of your and my (and big donors’) money have the most clout. This is perverse.

Third, our media universe itself is in the process of undergoing radical transformation in two ways. The media giants with the most cash are eating smaller media combines and independent stations like spiders eating their children. At the same time, the same “tech bros” who applauded Elon Musk’s chain saw are now putting their billions into buying and/or controlling “traditional” media firms. Billionaire Larry Ellison’s contribution to his son David’s bid for Paramount to buy CBS is just the most recent and glaring example. (I don’t believe that Larry Ellison or his son is a friend of real democracy.)

Finally, as a lifelong professional first trained as a scientist and later as a lawyer, I can’t see any means of assessing the impacts of these expensive political ads that strikes me as even remotely rational or scientific. The rationale for a lot of the left’s political spending, it seems to me, is as thoughtless and stupid as “the more you spend, the more you get.” (If occasional voters are anything like me, they watch the thirty-second clips only occasionally and only for amusement, if only because there are so many of them.)

So what to do? In the last election cycle, President Biden delayed far too long before bowing out, giving no chance for his chosen one, Sen. Harris, to move the needle on her own behalf on the then-most- important issue: immigration. I will go to my grave believing that if Biden had just publicly and forcefully turned the whole issue over to her, and she, not he, had turned off the immigration tap as he belatedly did, she would be president today, and our long national nightmare would be coming to a close. But second-guessing is never as much fun as winning, let alone as effective.

Anyway, the hypotheses listed above have led me to three tentative conclusions. First, the traditional Democratic-party apparatus is clueless about social and media changes and therefore useless in winning elections. With rare exceptions, I don’t contribute to the party, its internal organizations, or even individual candidates.

Second, the Democratic Party has largely “missed the boat” on the changes in how people get news and information today. The Dems have mostly ignored the vast and ongoing shift, particularly among the vital contingent of young and emerging voters, from traditional media to social media, podcasters, and self-appointed (and poorly paid) “influencers.” Their ignorance hurts us in two ways: ignoring the best and most effective channels and wasting money. The new channels, by and large, are more complex but far less expensive than the old.

Finally, as many polls and election analyses show, the principal “deciders” in our nearly-evenly-split electorate are new, reluctant, occasional and generally “undecided” voters. They are mostly but not exclusively young people.

New to the election game, young people are persuadable, and their persuasion (or failure to persuade them) will fix our nation’s political future and maybe its fate. That’s why, in the last election cycle, I contributed enough to buy a small car, almost exclusively to GOTV field organizations. These organizations tried to persuade uncommitted voters the old-fashioned way: literally meeting them, in person, where they live.

My tiny drop in the bucket had no visible effect. Trump won. Furthermore, as a consistent self-evaluator, I recognize that I, at age 80, know virtually nothing about the most important new media, their real influence, and how they work. So how can I know where to put my money this cycle?

Enter AI. It may not be the most scientific or reliable means of ascertaining reality. But, without significant experience in elections or polling, it’s all I’ve got. (My ignorance might also be a strange advantage: ignoring the conventional wisdom that “more (money) is better” may give me new and more realistic insights.) Maybe by pulling together a lot of information from the Internet—much of which I may be unaware of, and the vast volume of which far exceeds my individual grasp—I can begin to evaluate my hypotheses above with something resembling real data, i.e., science.

What follows, in this and maybe future essays, is my attempt to answer these questions through our modern “oracles,” various AI outlets. In each case, I will publish my AI prompt in full, verbatim. If the AI under query allows, I will also publish a link to the full result. But because I expect the results on such a fraught topic to be prolix, I may attempt to summarize them in my own words, quoting verbatim only portions I find particularly interesting or cogent. Not knowing what to expect, I will treat this project and the AI medium with respect and care: step by step.

What follows is my first inquiry. In these early inquiries I will use only “free” (unpaid) AIs. If I think it worth the money, I will “graduate” to paid access to the AIs I think most likely to give useful answers.

First AI prompt and response:

Here’s the first prompt, submitted to Google free AI on December 27, 2025:

Conventional wisdom and the results of the last presidential election suggest that voters in our nation are nearly equally divided between “progressive” and “conservative” ideologies. These, respectively, are labelled “blue” and “red” views or ideologies, and states or political districts that are mixed or undecided are labelled “purple.”

Among many other differences, “blue” voters tend to vote more favorably for equal treatment of racial, ethnic, religious and sexual minorities, and “red” voters tend to vote less favorably for that equality. In general, “blue” voters tend to focus more on rights and paths to success for individuals, while “red” voters tend to be more concerned with rights and freedoms for businesses and business owners.

Polls suggest that a large fraction of the electorate is deeply committed to blue or red ideologies and therefore unlikely to change political party or position in any particular election. Therefore conventional wisdom sees the results of vital elections, at both the national level and in “purple” states, as depending on persuading new, young, undecided, uncommitted and occasional voters to support a particular ideology, candidate or party.

What is the most cost-effective way of persuading those voters to vote progressive or “blue”? Is it traditional media advertising, consisting of short video or audio clips? Is it using “new” media like podcasts, social media, TikTok and “influencers” on them? Is it in-person, door-to-door canvassing by so-called “get out the vote (GOTV)” organizations? Or is it something else?

In preparing your answer, please avoid speculation and conjecture. Focus on published, quantitative polls and studies by reputable organizations on which political parties and candidates rely. Try, as much as you can, to eliminate or downplay propaganda and publications intended to mislead voters or organizations on the other side. Focus on hard data on which either or both sides in this national political battle appear to rely.

GOOGLE AI’s RESPONSE (response time: less than 30 seconds):

Shared link to complete results: https://share.google/aimode/BLGPkDECPjnAFd8Xn (Use this link to see and access cited source material; I have removed the distracting colored formatting and black background of Google’s original response below for easier reading; the table format and occasional emphases are also mine.)

Research and quantitative studies from the 2024 and 2025 election cycles indicate that there is no single “most” cost-effective method; rather, effectiveness depends on whether the goal is voter mobilization (getting people to the polls) or voter persuasion (changing their minds).

1. In-Person Canvassing (Highest Certainty)

Traditional door-to-door canvassing remains the gold standard for mobilization, though its cost-effectiveness for persuasion varies.

Cost per Vote: Historically, studies show that in-person canvassing can yield one additional vote for every 14 people contacted, at an estimated cost of $19 to $33 per vote.

Turnout Impact: Recent data confirms that face-to-face contact can increase voter turnout by approximately 6% to 8.7 percentage points.

"Deep Canvassing": Newer "deep canvassing" techniques—longer, empathetic conversations—are more time-consuming but significantly more effective at long-term persuasion than standard scripts.

2. Digital Media and Influencers (Rising Efficiency)

Digital strategies are often more cost-effective for reaching large numbers of voters quickly, though their impact on individual voting decisions is harder to quantify.

Influencer Impact: In 2024, approximately 6% of voters reported that influencer-produced content helped determine their voting decisions. This method is particularly effective for Gen Z, where 70% are involved in social or political causes.

Visual Content: Short-form video (TikTok, Instagram) and infographics are significantly more effective at engaging young voters than text-based content.

Micro-targeting: Digital ads allow campaigns to reach specific demographics at a fraction of the cost of direct mail. One study found digital impressions could be delivered for less than $0.01 each, compared to $0.30 for mail.

3. Comparison of Methods

Reputable political science experiments (such as those by Gerber and Green) provide a comparative look at cost per additional vote:

Method	Estimated Cost per Vote	Effectiveness
Door-to-Door Canvassing	$19 – $33	High (Most reliable for turnout)
Volunteer Phone Banking	~$36	Moderate (Personalized calls only)
Direct Mail	$59 – $200	Low
Digital Ads	Variable	High reach; uncertain persuasion
Robocalls/Mass Email	Ineffective	Negligible effect

4. Key Strategic Insights for 2025

Persuasion vs. Turnout: Studies show that late-campaign contacts have minimal persuasive effect on undecided voters but are highly effective at ensuring supporters actually vote.

Authenticity: Young voters increasingly distrust traditional media (only 36% trust it) and prioritize “relatable” voices like doctors, teachers, or trusted influencers over partisan ads.

Relational Organizing: Persuasion is most effective when it comes from “trusted messengers”—friends or family—rather than “faceless” campaign entities.

Permalink to this post