4 ms·

You get to vote for a lot of people, but most people simply ignore this. Take Obama - started as a state senator, ran for Congress, then ran for the Senate, the

You get to vote for a lot of people, but most people simply ignore this. Take Obama - started as a state senator, ran for Congress, then ran for the Senate, then for the presidency. In each of these elections he had to get through both a primary and general election. In each of these elections he also had to rely on a network of supporters and surrogates, the most important of which are other elected officials (many at the local level). He also had to work with the state party (also elected). The vast majority of people ignore 99% of the elections out there, and then wonder why they don't have an influence on things. I mean, seriously - we often have elections here with turnout in the teens. And I've worked the polls for those elections - even the minority of people who bother showing up have no clue to who's even on the ballot. Many times when I ask people who they voted for, they can't even remember (again, the few who bothered to vote). It's like staying at home while other people work on a year long project, then showing up 3 days before release and complaining that you have no control over it. Well, yeah.

Retric 11y ago
There are ~320 million people in the US the first filter that drops 99.99% of them is by far the most important. EX: Pro life democrat or pro choice republican running for president = good luck. Further, I don't think a great president looks much like a great senator.
beatpanda 11y ago
You're still ignoring the role of money here. Yes, there are a lot of elections, and in every election, the amount of money a candidate is able to spend is a huge influencing factor on whether they can beat their opponents. This is also true in primaries, and in state legislature elections, and governor's races, and everywhere else. If you can't buy advertising to get in front of people, you can't get name recognition, which means you don't poll well, which means the media won't cover you, and nobody will think of you when it comes time for them to vote. It's all very straightforward.
- Chathamization 11y ago
  But that's the thing - no matter the amount of money poured in, the vast majority of campaigns still feature candidates ignored by almost everyone. For most campaigns, the money doesn't affect someone's opinion of the candidates, because they aren't even aware of the candidates. You see this more and more as you move away from the big races - I've seen numerous examples where the loser outspent the victor 20 or 50 to 1. Heck, there was even a situation recently where someone with just about no political or financial backing came in second (doing better than several candidates with much better funding and much more insider connection) simply because his name sounded like another politicians. When I look at things like this, it seems like apathy influences our politics much, much more than money.

Retric 11y ago

There are ~320 million people in the US the first filter that drops 99.99% of them is by far the most important. EX: Pro life democrat or pro choice republican running for president = good luck. Further, I don't think a great president looks much like a great senator.

beatpanda 11y ago

You're still ignoring the role of money here. Yes, there are a lot of elections, and in every election, the amount of money a candidate is able to spend is a huge influencing factor on whether they can beat their opponents. This is also true in primaries, and in state legislature elections, and governor's races, and everywhere else. If you can't buy advertising to get in front of people, you can't get name recognition, which means you don't poll well, which means the media won't cover you, and nobody will think of you when it comes time for them to vote. It's all very straightforward.

Chathamization 11y ago
But that's the thing - no matter the amount of money poured in, the vast majority of campaigns still feature candidates ignored by almost everyone. For most campaigns, the money doesn't affect someone's opinion of the candidates, because they aren't even aware of the candidates. You see this more and more as you move away from the big races - I've seen numerous examples where the loser outspent the victor 20 or 50 to 1. Heck, there was even a situation recently where someone with just about no political or financial backing came in second (doing better than several candidates with much better funding and much more insider connection) simply because his name sounded like another politicians. When I look at things like this, it seems like apathy influences our politics much, much more than money.