5 ms·

> Presidential elections in the US are always and only won by the candidates who spend the most money. Did Trump outspend Rodham?

by rudrigu 10y ago

BillyParadise 10y ago
Touche! Maybe this old adage should be updated - (s)he who gets the most airtime wins.
- fosco 10y ago
  this can be explained by the mere exposure effect [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere-exposure_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere-exposure_effect
averagewall 10y ago
I was a bit inaccurate there. I meant only the candidates who spend on the order of republican and democrat nominees. Independents can't afford to and they don't get votes. Except one or two guys in the 90's/2000's who got a big share at a huge financial expense. Who even knows the name of any independent candidate? They don't have advertising to tell us what they stand for or make us believe they're big enough to win.
- blfr 10y ago
  The alternative explanation is that candidates who run as independent aren't popular enough to garner either donations or votes. If they were, they could have won the primaries for one of the major parties. Like Trump did, certainly no favourite of the Republican establishment.
- mike_hearn 10y ago
  Arguably both Sanders and Trump were effectively independent. Neither had the support of their chosen parties.
6d65 10y ago
She won the popular vote though. Which partially proves his point. That being said, correlation doesn't mean causation.
- ntelson1s 10y ago
  Debatable. Take these sites with grains of salt, but leave with the idea that the results of each in combination taken with salt still skew the results ALOT. Potentially millions of Illegals voted. (potentially) http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/trump-is-right-millions-of-illegals-probably-did-vote-in-2016/ http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/trump-is-right-... Here's one illegal that voted FIVE times. http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Trial-Begins-in-Alleged-Illegal-Voting-in-Tarrant-County-413091043.html http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Trial-Begins-in-Alleged-Ill... AND the DHS supposedly under Obama administration tried to hack electronic voting polls for six states. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-08/georgia-accuses-homeland-security-attempting-hack-states-election-database http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-08/georgia-accuses-hom... EDIT: I only said supposedly on the third because SIX is the supposed number, but the Georgia one DID happen.
  - LogicX 10y ago
    Thanks for the opportunity to educate myself on your questionable new sources: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-29/unmasking-the-men-behind-zero-hedge-wall-street-s-renegade-blog https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-29/unmasking...
  - snsr 10y ago
    Illegal voting had nothing to do with Trump's unprecedented loss of the popular vote.
    - JonFish85 10y ago
      Unprecedented? It happened with George W. Bush not long ago...
      - 10y ago
dredmorbius 10y ago
He absolutely dominated news coverage, with over twice the airtime devoted him than Clinton, 1144 minutes vs. 506. Andrew Tyndell produces an annual report of major commercial TV news coverage: http://tyndallreport.com/yearinreview2016/ http://tyndallreport.com/yearinreview2016/ He gained insane amounts of "earned coverage" -- airtime obtained without paying for it. Over $2 billion. A conservative media source: http://conservativeintel.com/2015/09/11/trumps-earned-media-value-huge/ http://conservativeintel.com/2015/09/11/trumps-earned-media-... The NY Times if you prefer: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/upshot/measuring-donald-trumps-mammoth-advantage-in-free-media.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/upshot/measuring-donald-t...
- Shivetya 10y ago
  however how much of his coverage was positive versus her positive coverage? If anything the press's doubling down against him helped him because it also showed independents how in bed the press had become with one party. Love him or hate he has a personality and he correctly realized that with a highly negative press it was best to portray them as the establishment as well. The part I respect is he stomped on all three establishments which do their best to control Washington (RNC, DNC, and the Press).
  - dredmorbius 10y ago
    Given that the utterly misleading emails story dominated both Clinton coverage aand polling of voter awareness, whilst Trump's Russian connections and worse continuously were swept under the rug,vry much of it.
  - dredmorbius 10y ago
    A study of the News in Tweets: https://medium.com/echelon-indicators/the-year-in-news-2016-41f876d4c618 https://medium.com/echelon-indicators/the-year-in-news-2016-... Discussion: https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/6MMZjbxWELP https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/6MMZjbxW... This is an indirect measure, but shows major themes in discussion of news on Twitter, by Echelong Insights. Included, and pictured, is Twitter discussion of 17 major election-related stories. Three of these, the Electoral College, Fake News, and Steve Bannon, are principally or completely post election day phenomena, but the remaining 14 occur during the election cycle. The two most dominant stories -- Wikileaks/Hacking (33.083m) and Clinton's Email (21.124m) stories dwarf the others (Deplorables, 5.989m being the runner-up). None of the Trump negative stories (Tapes, Taxes, Melania's speech, Paul Manafort, Trump University) come close, and several discussions which could have appeared quite notably don't: Donald Trump's live speech requesting that Russia hack his opponent's emails, or Clinton's claims that Trump would be Putin's puppet. These make absolutely no appearance here -- though whether that represents poor methodology or lack of actual impact isn't clear. Keep in mind that Twitter isn't a public opinion survey, nor is it front-of-mind awareness of news. It's a proxy for both, and proxies can be useful or deceptive. If there's an element here that's most powerful and useful, it's the relationship between leading and non-leading items: power relations are strong. Again, from first to third ranking here is a five-fold reduction in tweets. From first to 17th, a 25-fold reduction of interest and attention, at least on Twitter.

> Presidential elections in the US are always and only won by the candidates who spend the most money. Did Trump outspend Rodham?

by rudrigu 10y ago

> Presidential elections in the US are always and only won by the candidates who spend the most money. Did Trump outspend Rodham?

BillyParadise 10y ago

Touche! Maybe this old adage should be updated - (s)he who gets the most airtime wins.

fosco 10y ago
this can be explained by the mere exposure effect [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere-exposure_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere-exposure_effect

averagewall 10y ago

I was a bit inaccurate there. I meant only the candidates who spend on the order of republican and democrat nominees. Independents can't afford to and they don't get votes. Except one or two guys in the 90's/2000's who got a big share at a huge financial expense. Who even knows the name of any independent candidate? They don't have advertising to tell us what they stand for or make us believe they're big enough to win.

blfr 10y ago
The alternative explanation is that candidates who run as independent aren't popular enough to garner either donations or votes. If they were, they could have won the primaries for one of the major parties. Like Trump did, certainly no favourite of the Republican establishment.
mike_hearn 10y ago
Arguably both Sanders and Trump were effectively independent. Neither had the support of their chosen parties.

6d65 10y ago

She won the popular vote though. Which partially proves his point. That being said, correlation doesn't mean causation.

ntelson1s 10y ago
Debatable. Take these sites with grains of salt, but leave with the idea that the results of each in combination taken with salt still skew the results ALOT. Potentially millions of Illegals voted. (potentially) http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/trump-is-right-millions-of-illegals-probably-did-vote-in-2016/ http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/trump-is-right-... Here's one illegal that voted FIVE times. http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Trial-Begins-in-Alleged-Illegal-Voting-in-Tarrant-County-413091043.html http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Trial-Begins-in-Alleged-Ill... AND the DHS supposedly under Obama administration tried to hack electronic voting polls for six states. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-08/georgia-accuses-homeland-security-attempting-hack-states-election-database http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-08/georgia-accuses-hom... EDIT: I only said supposedly on the third because SIX is the supposed number, but the Georgia one DID happen.
- LogicX 10y ago
  Thanks for the opportunity to educate myself on your questionable new sources: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-29/unmasking-the-men-behind-zero-hedge-wall-street-s-renegade-blog https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-29/unmasking...
- snsr 10y ago
  Illegal voting had nothing to do with Trump's unprecedented loss of the popular vote.
  - JonFish85 10y ago
    Unprecedented? It happened with George W. Bush not long ago...
    - 10y ago

dredmorbius 10y ago

He absolutely dominated news coverage, with over twice the airtime devoted him than Clinton, 1144 minutes vs. 506. Andrew Tyndell produces an annual report of major commercial TV news coverage: http://tyndallreport.com/yearinreview2016/ http://tyndallreport.com/yearinreview2016/ He gained insane amounts of "earned coverage" -- airtime obtained without paying for it. Over $2 billion. A conservative media source: http://conservativeintel.com/2015/09/11/trumps-earned-media-value-huge/ http://conservativeintel.com/2015/09/11/trumps-earned-media-... The NY Times if you prefer: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/upshot/measuring-donald-trumps-mammoth-advantage-in-free-media.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/upshot/measuring-donald-t...

Shivetya 10y ago
however how much of his coverage was positive versus her positive coverage? If anything the press's doubling down against him helped him because it also showed independents how in bed the press had become with one party. Love him or hate he has a personality and he correctly realized that with a highly negative press it was best to portray them as the establishment as well. The part I respect is he stomped on all three establishments which do their best to control Washington (RNC, DNC, and the Press).
- dredmorbius 10y ago
  Given that the utterly misleading emails story dominated both Clinton coverage aand polling of voter awareness, whilst Trump's Russian connections and worse continuously were swept under the rug,vry much of it.
- dredmorbius 10y ago
  A study of the News in Tweets: https://medium.com/echelon-indicators/the-year-in-news-2016-41f876d4c618 https://medium.com/echelon-indicators/the-year-in-news-2016-... Discussion: https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/6MMZjbxWELP https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/6MMZjbxW... This is an indirect measure, but shows major themes in discussion of news on Twitter, by Echelong Insights. Included, and pictured, is Twitter discussion of 17 major election-related stories. Three of these, the Electoral College, Fake News, and Steve Bannon, are principally or completely post election day phenomena, but the remaining 14 occur during the election cycle. The two most dominant stories -- Wikileaks/Hacking (33.083m) and Clinton's Email (21.124m) stories dwarf the others (Deplorables, 5.989m being the runner-up). None of the Trump negative stories (Tapes, Taxes, Melania's speech, Paul Manafort, Trump University) come close, and several discussions which could have appeared quite notably don't: Donald Trump's live speech requesting that Russia hack his opponent's emails, or Clinton's claims that Trump would be Putin's puppet. These make absolutely no appearance here -- though whether that represents poor methodology or lack of actual impact isn't clear. Keep in mind that Twitter isn't a public opinion survey, nor is it front-of-mind awareness of news. It's a proxy for both, and proxies can be useful or deceptive. If there's an element here that's most powerful and useful, it's the relationship between leading and non-leading items: power relations are strong. Again, from first to third ranking here is a five-fold reduction in tweets. From first to 17th, a 25-fold reduction of interest and attention, at least on Twitter.