Recent debate between Senate candidates includes accusation of owning a McMansion

In the debate last week between the two Senate candidates in Michigan, a particular housing term came up:

Photo by Betu00fcl u015een on Pexels.com

Mike Rogers and Abdul El-Sayed tried to discredit each other’s fitness to serve us in the U.S. Senate by bringing up property they own outside Michigan. Rogers said El-Sayed owns a home in the United Arab Emirates. El-Sayed questioned why Rogers took the “McMansion” he owns in Florida off the market. You’ll have to decide how relevant their real estate holdings are.

To call someone’s house a McMansion is not something usually said positively. I would guess most people would not talk to their friends or family about their McMansions. To call someone’s house a McMansion typically is meant to critique their taste and lifestyle. Here, the debate reference to a McMansion seems to be about the money acquired and spent and the kind of home purchased.

This does not mean McMansions are uncommon. Whether talking Michigan or Florida, there are many McMansions built in those states in recent decades. The average voter may not live in a McMansion given their price and where they are located. At the same time, some of those McMansion residents might be suburban swing voters.

How many politicians actually live in McMansions? Does the percentage of politicians living in McMansions exceed that of the general population or do politicians live disproportionately live in others kinds of housing? Or perhaps there are at least a few major politicians who live in average or smaller housing; are there any major politicians living in single-family homes under 1,500 square feet? If housing is a reflection of one’s political values and actions (as suggested above), such answers might matter to some.

Add political ads to political yard signs in a third season

On Monday, I proposed adding political yard sign season to the Chicago seasons of winter and construction. I want to amend that third season: include political ads with political yard signs.

Photo by Home Decor Interiors on Pexels.com

Political ads are everywhere this time of year and they are hard to avoid:

-During all TV broadcasts. Whether watching football games or news broadcasts or sitcoms, candidates are all over the screen.06

-Internet and social media ads. I do not see many of these due to using adblockers but the ads are over the place.

-Mailings as candidates flood mailboxes with appeals and glossy photos and policy positions.

-Texts asking you to vote for candidates or support a candidate. How many of these numbers do we need to block?

-On the radio. Perhaps not as pervasive as TV but still there.

And I do not even live in a battleground state where I would guess there are even more ads.

The political ads must work to some degree as millions are spent on them. Who exactly is convinced by them? Do they primarily rile up a base who then votes in larger numbers? At the same time, I remember hearing a talk by a sociologist who interviewed campaign managers who reported that social media ads are preferable because it is easier to measure who responds or engages compares to mass media ads.

Commercials are part of the American way of life. Anywhere you turn, you see brands, logos, and appeals for particular products. Given that landscape where we see thousands of ads, why not throw in politicians and parties and issues as just another brand or product to sell?

Like the political yard signs, the ads will disappear after Election Day. They will be back for the next races as different actors try to position their candidates in front of the public in a truly American way.