3 ms·

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 hu

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.