3 ms·
I'm more curious about congressional runs than the presidential ones. The presidential run is too big and quirky to ever be truly controlled by money alone. But
by erikpukinskis 9y ago
I'm more curious about congressional runs than the presidential ones. The presidential run is too big and quirky to ever be truly controlled by money alone. But with hundreds of congressional campaigns up for grabs, that seems like a tractable problem to solve with cash.
Also, at this point most of the money can be spent outside the campaigns entirely. Robert Mercer can just run his simulations and use bots and paid posters to move public opinion around. He doesn't need to work directly with the campaign at all.
- dogma1138 9y agoWell in 2008 Obama came out of nowhere and outspent Clinton even in the primaries. So while it won't win you an election it sure can put you on the map. Trump is an odd case I'm not sure if the actual spending is truely accounted for, but he just seemed to get as much free press as you can. Trump is also the first candidate that was really hooked into every social media outlet, and did so correctly so in effect they did much more with their money than the Dems. In presidential elections the Democrats tend to tie or outspend the republicans, for congressional and especially local elections they seem to fall behind.
- erikpukinskis 9y agoMy sense is that Obama/Axelrod won because of next gen volunteer coordination software. And Trump/Mercer won because of next gen media-sentiment modeling software. Both strategies played to the candidate's strengths.