3 ms·

>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 e

>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