3 ms·

Trump is a big outlier though, in both the primaries and the general. More spending usually does correlate with success. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/a

Trump is a big outlier though, in both the primaries and the general. More spending usually does correlate with success. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/11/does-more-campaign-money-actually-buy-more-votes-investigation/355154/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/11/does-mo...

alexanderstears 9y ago
Why should we care about the correlation? It's apparent that an election isn't an auction.
- microcolonel 9y ago
  For what it's worth, I did say "correlate", I think delecti is responding to that.
- bllguo 9y ago
  what an odd response. We care because it suggests very strongly that money is important in winning elections. What is your point here? That it doesn't guarantee success?
  - alexanderstears 9y ago
    My point is 'how much can money matter when a 3x-10x spending advantage doesn't translate into victory'? One part of me wonders if we see the correlation because candidates who are more likely to win get more money as sort of an 'advance' for favors? If I knew that my grocer was about to become a sheriff, I'd volunteer to pay $6 for a banana just to be sure we were on good terms. I think speeches work broadly the same way - banks pay politicians 400k to recite a 15 minute stump speech they've already delivered and both parties get to act like it was a legitimate transaction without any additional elements. the only way I could test that hypothesis is by comparing the money a candidate raises verses their expected chance of victory. But I think I'm somewhat vindicated, candidates in races that are perceived as close seem to haul less than candidates in safe races. Pelosi raises a ton of money and I'm not sure all of it is given to beat the helpless Republican who runs against her. Now there are other factors at play but it's not coincidental that candidates who are the most appealing to the establishment seem to out-raise people who threaten the establishment. I think the deeper problem is that the political class thinks they can compensate for an unappealing candidate with money.
    - bllguo 9y ago
      Thanks for clarifying, that makes much more sense. So you're basically asking a chicken-or-egg kind of question. Do candidates succeed because of money or do they get money because they are perceived to be likely to succeed? Certainly there is evidence suggesting both..
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
      >I think the deeper problem is that the political class thinks they can compensate for an unappealing candidate with money. I love the fact that what they think isn't true, at least not always.
mjevans 9y ago
I agree, that might be how much actual money the campaign spent, but what about the foreign powers accused of influencing the election? How about all of the free TV time from the grandstanding and sensational nature of the campaign?
- delecti 9y ago
  I agree entirely, but the parent was purely talking about spending by the candidates' campaigns, so I responded in kind. Even if none of the suspected Russian meddling actually happened, Trump got an immense amount of free media coverage by being such a spectacle.
- AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
  You think other side would have rejected free TV time? May be she did. She might have avoided unscripted exposure. That actually makes Trump's run that much more effective.

alexanderstears 9y ago

Why should we care about the correlation? It's apparent that an election isn't an auction.

microcolonel 9y ago
For what it's worth, I did say "correlate", I think delecti is responding to that.
bllguo 9y ago
what an odd response. We care because it suggests very strongly that money is important in winning elections. What is your point here? That it doesn't guarantee success?
- alexanderstears 9y ago
  My point is 'how much can money matter when a 3x-10x spending advantage doesn't translate into victory'? One part of me wonders if we see the correlation because candidates who are more likely to win get more money as sort of an 'advance' for favors? If I knew that my grocer was about to become a sheriff, I'd volunteer to pay $6 for a banana just to be sure we were on good terms. I think speeches work broadly the same way - banks pay politicians 400k to recite a 15 minute stump speech they've already delivered and both parties get to act like it was a legitimate transaction without any additional elements. the only way I could test that hypothesis is by comparing the money a candidate raises verses their expected chance of victory. But I think I'm somewhat vindicated, candidates in races that are perceived as close seem to haul less than candidates in safe races. Pelosi raises a ton of money and I'm not sure all of it is given to beat the helpless Republican who runs against her. Now there are other factors at play but it's not coincidental that candidates who are the most appealing to the establishment seem to out-raise people who threaten the establishment. I think the deeper problem is that the political class thinks they can compensate for an unappealing candidate with money.
  - bllguo 9y ago
    Thanks for clarifying, that makes much more sense. So you're basically asking a chicken-or-egg kind of question. Do candidates succeed because of money or do they get money because they are perceived to be likely to succeed? Certainly there is evidence suggesting both..
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
    >I think the deeper problem is that the political class thinks they can compensate for an unappealing candidate with money. I love the fact that what they think isn't true, at least not always.

mjevans 9y ago

I agree, that might be how much actual money the campaign spent, but what about the foreign powers accused of influencing the election? How about all of the free TV time from the grandstanding and sensational nature of the campaign?

delecti 9y ago
I agree entirely, but the parent was purely talking about spending by the candidates' campaigns, so I responded in kind. Even if none of the suspected Russian meddling actually happened, Trump got an immense amount of free media coverage by being such a spectacle.
AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
You think other side would have rejected free TV time? May be she did. She might have avoided unscripted exposure. That actually makes Trump's run that much more effective.