3 ms·

>They get seats by spending money on campaigns. Public is easily manipulated by political marketing. The only thing that could put them out of there seats would

>They get seats by spending money on campaigns. Public is easily manipulated by political marketing. The only thing that could put them out of there seats would be more money spent for a smear campaign against them. This is overly simplistic. If it were exclusively about cash resources, the most cash-rich candidates would win every time. We know that doesn't happen. Yes, money does play an important role (because it costs money to run ads, print signage, get people to hang said signage, staff phone banks, etc. -- not because there's some reptilian overlord that has to be paid before he lets you become POTUS), but it's not the only role. More important than money is to control a media outlet that the general public trusts. Pundits have more power than politicians because it's so easy for them to generate outrage. ABC, CBS, NBC, and the cable channels really hold the bulk of political sway in this country. They can frame not only the political discourse, but all significant social discourse, in the terms that they prefer. The internet is dampening and decentralizing their power a bit, which is why non-establishment candidates like Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders were able to gain any traction at all, but their influence is still massive.

alanwatts 11y ago
>If it were exclusively about cash resources, the most cash-rich candidates would win every time. Correct me if I'm wrong but haven't the past 3 presidential elections been won by the candidate with the biggest cash flow? And yes, of course it is not the only factor as you noted, media coverage is crucial and information via the internet is rapidly becoming a more important factor. But the problem is: the same people who own and operate these massive media corporations also own the internet infrastructure and are also the ones who are pouring massive amounts of bribes/funding into the elections.
- cookiecaper 11y ago
  >Correct me if I'm wrong but haven't the past 3 presidential elections been won by the candidate with the biggest cash flow? First, correlation is not causation. Second, this chart [0] shows Romney and Obama were neck-and-neck as far as dollars raised, and that Romney actually had spent slightly more than Obama. This chart says it covers through September 2012, so maybe Obama did end up spending a bit more (or maybe he didn't), but the difference in spending is very small. When you ask why Romney lost in 2012, there are a couple answers that get cited. First, Romney's leaked "47% comment" was disastrous for him. Second, Obama's team used technology much more effectively to get out the vote. Apparently there was a group working on software on Romney's side, but it wasn't managed correctly and the software was not usable by election day. [0] http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance
scotty79 11y ago
> This is overly simplistic. Only in the same way law of conservation of energy is overly simplistic. All the people that say "It's not only about money!" then give examples which boil down to "Tt's also how you spend it!" to which I can only reply "Duh!"

alanwatts 11y ago

>If it were exclusively about cash resources, the most cash-rich candidates would win every time. Correct me if I'm wrong but haven't the past 3 presidential elections been won by the candidate with the biggest cash flow? And yes, of course it is not the only factor as you noted, media coverage is crucial and information via the internet is rapidly becoming a more important factor. But the problem is: the same people who own and operate these massive media corporations also own the internet infrastructure and are also the ones who are pouring massive amounts of bribes/funding into the elections.

cookiecaper 11y ago
>Correct me if I'm wrong but haven't the past 3 presidential elections been won by the candidate with the biggest cash flow? First, correlation is not causation. Second, this chart [0] shows Romney and Obama were neck-and-neck as far as dollars raised, and that Romney actually had spent slightly more than Obama. This chart says it covers through September 2012, so maybe Obama did end up spending a bit more (or maybe he didn't), but the difference in spending is very small. When you ask why Romney lost in 2012, there are a couple answers that get cited. First, Romney's leaked "47% comment" was disastrous for him. Second, Obama's team used technology much more effectively to get out the vote. Apparently there was a group working on software on Romney's side, but it wasn't managed correctly and the software was not usable by election day. [0] http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance

scotty79 11y ago

> This is overly simplistic. Only in the same way law of conservation of energy is overly simplistic. All the people that say "It's not only about money!" then give examples which boil down to "Tt's also how you spend it!" to which I can only reply "Duh!"