5 ms·

Jeb spent $2845 per vote in Iowa

40 points by shihn 11y ago

yostrovs 11y ago
Another example of money having little power in elections.
- ajarmst 11y ago
  I'm not sure that's in any way demonstrated here. If Bush didn't have quite a bit of money he wouldn't even be on the ballot for the vote he lost. We've got ample evidence that money is extremely powerful in elections. It would be more accurate to say the money, while still a necessary condition for competing, is not a sufficient condition for winning. You have to have...well, a personality, too.
- jrock08 11y ago
  You mean, except for Marco Rubio who was the 3rd largest spend per vote, and a total spend of 11.8 million to Bush's 14.9 [1], and likely placed 3rd at least partially because of his ad spend. Bush is ultimately just not well liked by the new Republican base, and yes, no amount of money will change that. But among the candidates that resonate with that base, money has power. [1] http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/and-the-total-amount-spent-campaign-ads-iowa http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/and-the-total-amount-spent-campai...
- protomyth 11y ago
  If you factor in the TV time spent covering the individual campaigns, which is the broadcasters betting their money, I'm not so sure money had little influence. I wonder if anyone has compiled the coverage times of each campaign.
adamnemecek 11y ago
Dude, just drop out already.
mrdrozdov 11y ago
They took the dollars that each candidate spent on advertising and divided it by the number of votes they received. They only highlighted the total dollars spent ($14.9M) and total votes received (5,235) by Jeb Bush, but didn't bring up the totals of any of the other candidates. For all we know, he could have spent the least amount of money. It's impossible to tell without the other candidates' totals. If I paid my friend $10 to vote for me, then I'd be spending $10/vote which all of a sudden sounds pretty good. Although, if I spent $5k to convince that same friend then all of a sudden my efficiency has dropped below Jeb's. EDIT: Was easy enough to find those other numbers. http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/and-the-total-amount-spent-campaign-ads-iowa http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/and-the-total-amount-spent-campai... Total Iowa ad spending so far: Team Bush: $14.9 million (all from the Right to Rise Super PAC) Team Rubio: $11.8 million ($4.6 million from campaign, $4.7 million from Super PAC, $2.5million from 501c4 Team Clinton: $9.4 million (all but $50K from campaign) Team Sanders: $7.4 million (all from campaign) Team Cruz: $6.0 million ($2.2 million from campaign, rest from outside groups) Team Trump: $3.3 million (all from campaign) Team Carson: $3.5 million ($3.2 million from campaign, $300K from Super PAC) Team Jindal: $3.3 million Team Huckabee: $2 million (all from Super PAC) Team Paul: $1.1 million Team Walker: $1 million Team Perry: $814,000 Team O’Malley: $219,000 (all from Super PAC) Team Santorum: $3,000 (all from campaign)
- shihn 11y ago
  The bottom of the page has a link for the source with all the absolute number: https://morningconsult.com/briefs/campaigns-brief-how-to-watch-the-iowa-caucuses/ https://morningconsult.com/briefs/campaigns-brief-how-to-wat...
emilsedgh 11y ago
Could someone elaborate on the reasons for his lack of popularity? Is it because of his Brother/Father's track record? Sorry for my ignorance, I don't live in the U.S so I'm just an observer.
- yuncun 11y ago
  Probably because he's too moderate. There are more extreme candidates that people gravitate to.
- Uhhrrr 11y ago
  People are understandably wary of having a de facto monarchy (this hurts Hillary Clinton as well). Also, W was not very popular by the end of his second term. Besides that, Jeb is not super charismatic, and is at odds with the base on immigration.
  - finid 11y ago
    > Besides that, Jeb is not super charismatic His brother was not particularly charismatic either, but he's a former 2-term president and also a former 2-term Texas governor.
    - hga 11y ago
      Uhhrrr was perhaps being polite, he's much less charismatic than his brother.
    - Uhhrrr 11y ago
      In person, W was apparently very charismatic. I remember seeing an Atlantic article and an article by one of his ghostwriters which spoke to this, but I can't find them quickly. "Journeys With George" shows some of it, though: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEzTn1khVAM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEzTn1khVAM .
- protomyth 11y ago
  Somewhat, but we are only talking about Republican voters here. The problem with Jeb is he got slammed with Common Core (a big no-no with Republican rank-and-file) and his dumb attack on Rubio. He is not really regarded as a conservative and really doesn't know how to energize voters. It doesn't really help that many of his backers are regarded as "establishment" and that is really ticking off the local voters since they seem to squander every opportunity given. You can see some of this split in the opinions about Fox News and the, hell with it, Trump voters. His child on the other hand will probably do very well when he runs for national office as he has the charisma his father lacks. One thing about watching this stuff from the outside, understand the media is primarily coastal-based and their opinion of either President Bush probably is not reflective of the voters in Iowa. Look at a county election map of the US for some insight. I would also say Nate Silver is doing a pretty good job of it again.
Mark222 11y ago
The real story here seems to be Trump's impressive showing, having both the most votes per $ AND the most votes per day spent there.
bduerst 11y ago
I wish someone would do this with the Walker *recall (not impeachment) advertising dollars, from several years ago. I think it was somewhere around a magnitude more than the challenger.
- hga 11y ago
  Recall, you're thinking recall, not impeachment. And Walker's fight was viewed as one for the Right for the whole country, I, for example, sent him $200 for that, did my part to validate the recall petitioner signatures on a web site they set up (didn't find any bad ones), etc. Rather a different thing than a normal election. Oh, and Walker won.
  - bduerst 11y ago
    Fixed. And yeah, he only won 52% to 46% (w/ 4% margin of error), despite spending 7x. * Walker Spending Dollars: $30.5 million * Barret Spending Dollars: $4 million * Walker cost per vote: $23.10 * Barret cost per vote: $3.49 Thanks for interfering with another state's recall, I guess. You fell for their schtick that the entire country was threatened, when in reality it was just WI public sector workers losing their universal rights.
    - hga 11y ago
      The same universal "rights" FDR thought it was unconscionable for them to have? Wasn't until JFK at the national level, and as I recall Wisconsin a few years before, that this ripoff of taxpayers started, public sector unions negotiating with politicians for the mutual benefit. I, for one, want that replicated in my state, so we don't go bankrupt like Illinois and California are frequently close to, so establishing that a governor and ruling party could do this without losing in the polls was essential, my state is very much threatened.
      - bduerst 11y ago
        The same Universal Rights as declared by the United Nations. I don't really care about whatever fallacious reasoning you've come up with to appease your cognitive bias. It's pretty obvious your critical thinking is impaired if you think setting a state budget has anything to do with collective bargaining. Or that the people whom you paid $200 to take rights away from are even a threat. Good job.

40 points by shihn 11y ago

yostrovs 11y ago

Another example of money having little power in elections.

ajarmst 11y ago
I'm not sure that's in any way demonstrated here. If Bush didn't have quite a bit of money he wouldn't even be on the ballot for the vote he lost. We've got ample evidence that money is extremely powerful in elections. It would be more accurate to say the money, while still a necessary condition for competing, is not a sufficient condition for winning. You have to have...well, a personality, too.
jrock08 11y ago
You mean, except for Marco Rubio who was the 3rd largest spend per vote, and a total spend of 11.8 million to Bush's 14.9 [1], and likely placed 3rd at least partially because of his ad spend. Bush is ultimately just not well liked by the new Republican base, and yes, no amount of money will change that. But among the candidates that resonate with that base, money has power. [1] http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/and-the-total-amount-spent-campaign-ads-iowa http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/and-the-total-amount-spent-campai...
protomyth 11y ago
If you factor in the TV time spent covering the individual campaigns, which is the broadcasters betting their money, I'm not so sure money had little influence. I wonder if anyone has compiled the coverage times of each campaign.

adamnemecek 11y ago

Dude, just drop out already.

mrdrozdov 11y ago

They took the dollars that each candidate spent on advertising and divided it by the number of votes they received. They only highlighted the total dollars spent ($14.9M) and total votes received (5,235) by Jeb Bush, but didn't bring up the totals of any of the other candidates. For all we know, he could have spent the least amount of money. It's impossible to tell without the other candidates' totals. If I paid my friend $10 to vote for me, then I'd be spending $10/vote which all of a sudden sounds pretty good. Although, if I spent $5k to convince that same friend then all of a sudden my efficiency has dropped below Jeb's. EDIT: Was easy enough to find those other numbers. http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/and-the-total-amount-spent-campaign-ads-iowa http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/and-the-total-amount-spent-campai... Total Iowa ad spending so far: Team Bush: $14.9 million (all from the Right to Rise Super PAC) Team Rubio: $11.8 million ($4.6 million from campaign, $4.7 million from Super PAC, $2.5million from 501c4 Team Clinton: $9.4 million (all but $50K from campaign) Team Sanders: $7.4 million (all from campaign) Team Cruz: $6.0 million ($2.2 million from campaign, rest from outside groups) Team Trump: $3.3 million (all from campaign) Team Carson: $3.5 million ($3.2 million from campaign, $300K from Super PAC) Team Jindal: $3.3 million Team Huckabee: $2 million (all from Super PAC) Team Paul: $1.1 million Team Walker: $1 million Team Perry: $814,000 Team O’Malley: $219,000 (all from Super PAC) Team Santorum: $3,000 (all from campaign)

shihn 11y ago
The bottom of the page has a link for the source with all the absolute number: https://morningconsult.com/briefs/campaigns-brief-how-to-watch-the-iowa-caucuses/ https://morningconsult.com/briefs/campaigns-brief-how-to-wat...

emilsedgh 11y ago

Could someone elaborate on the reasons for his lack of popularity? Is it because of his Brother/Father's track record? Sorry for my ignorance, I don't live in the U.S so I'm just an observer.

yuncun 11y ago
Probably because he's too moderate. There are more extreme candidates that people gravitate to.
Uhhrrr 11y ago
People are understandably wary of having a de facto monarchy (this hurts Hillary Clinton as well). Also, W was not very popular by the end of his second term. Besides that, Jeb is not super charismatic, and is at odds with the base on immigration.
- finid 11y ago
  > Besides that, Jeb is not super charismatic His brother was not particularly charismatic either, but he's a former 2-term president and also a former 2-term Texas governor.
  - hga 11y ago
    Uhhrrr was perhaps being polite, he's much less charismatic than his brother.
  - Uhhrrr 11y ago
    In person, W was apparently very charismatic. I remember seeing an Atlantic article and an article by one of his ghostwriters which spoke to this, but I can't find them quickly. "Journeys With George" shows some of it, though: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEzTn1khVAM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEzTn1khVAM .
protomyth 11y ago
Somewhat, but we are only talking about Republican voters here. The problem with Jeb is he got slammed with Common Core (a big no-no with Republican rank-and-file) and his dumb attack on Rubio. He is not really regarded as a conservative and really doesn't know how to energize voters. It doesn't really help that many of his backers are regarded as "establishment" and that is really ticking off the local voters since they seem to squander every opportunity given. You can see some of this split in the opinions about Fox News and the, hell with it, Trump voters. His child on the other hand will probably do very well when he runs for national office as he has the charisma his father lacks. One thing about watching this stuff from the outside, understand the media is primarily coastal-based and their opinion of either President Bush probably is not reflective of the voters in Iowa. Look at a county election map of the US for some insight. I would also say Nate Silver is doing a pretty good job of it again.

Mark222 11y ago

The real story here seems to be Trump's impressive showing, having both the most votes per $ AND the most votes per day spent there.

bduerst 11y ago

I wish someone would do this with the Walker *recall (not impeachment) advertising dollars, from several years ago. I think it was somewhere around a magnitude more than the challenger.

hga 11y ago
Recall, you're thinking recall, not impeachment. And Walker's fight was viewed as one for the Right for the whole country, I, for example, sent him $200 for that, did my part to validate the recall petitioner signatures on a web site they set up (didn't find any bad ones), etc. Rather a different thing than a normal election. Oh, and Walker won.
- bduerst 11y ago
  Fixed. And yeah, he only won 52% to 46% (w/ 4% margin of error), despite spending 7x. * Walker Spending Dollars: $30.5 million * Barret Spending Dollars: $4 million * Walker cost per vote: $23.10 * Barret cost per vote: $3.49 Thanks for interfering with another state's recall, I guess. You fell for their schtick that the entire country was threatened, when in reality it was just WI public sector workers losing their universal rights.
  - hga 11y ago
    The same universal "rights" FDR thought it was unconscionable for them to have? Wasn't until JFK at the national level, and as I recall Wisconsin a few years before, that this ripoff of taxpayers started, public sector unions negotiating with politicians for the mutual benefit. I, for one, want that replicated in my state, so we don't go bankrupt like Illinois and California are frequently close to, so establishing that a governor and ruling party could do this without losing in the polls was essential, my state is very much threatened.
    - bduerst 11y ago
      The same Universal Rights as declared by the United Nations. I don't really care about whatever fallacious reasoning you've come up with to appease your cognitive bias. It's pretty obvious your critical thinking is impaired if you think setting a state budget has anything to do with collective bargaining. Or that the people whom you paid $200 to take rights away from are even a threat. Good job.