4 ms·

There's just a ton more money on the right - the Koch network and GOP billionaire donors dwarf the spending by progressives. So it's a lot easier for right-win

by mhneu 9y ago

There's just a ton more money on the right - the Koch network and GOP billionaire donors dwarf the spending by progressives. So it's a lot easier for right-wing purchased media and social media and purchased think tanks (Cato/Koch) and foundations (Bradley, DeVos) and right-wing news outlets to spread propaganda. Because they have more money to spend. So I think rightfully, people feel that the bigger threat is from the right. It's not a coincidence that CA was heavily funded by a GOP billionaire who wants to damage gov't services to cut his own taxes (Mercer is in an $8B dispute with the IRS). I think the real problem is what Zeynep Tufeksi has been writing about: informed consent. Even if some tiny print says it's ok in a click-contract where they have a majority of the negotiating power, Facebook is releasing data on its uses without their informed consent. That's what we as a society need to re-evaluate.

skookumchuck 9y ago
> There's just a ton more money on the right - the Koch network and GOP billionaire donors dwarf the spending by progressives. Clinton heavily outspent Trump in the last election. "Clinton's unsuccessful campaign ($768 million in spending) outspent Trump's successful one ($398 million) by nearly 2 to 1. The Democratic National Committee and left-leaning outside groups also outspent their Republican counterparts by considerable margins." https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/04/14/somebody-just-put-a-price-tag-on-the-2016-election-its-a-doozy https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/04/14/someb...
- ejstronge 9y ago
  Comparing the campaign spending does not capture the (vast) amounts of money spent by PACs. Indeed, one would expect Democrats to have more small-money, campaign donors, as opposed to large-dollar PAC donors. I'm not satisfied with the off-hand dismissal of outside spending from the linked article. Since 2010, this has (arguably) been the more interesting area to scrutinize, and deserves more than a sentence.
  - skookumchuck 9y ago
    I also recall the heavy domination of social media like Reddit by Clinton supporters. CNN was solidly in the Clinton advocacy camp, too. Despite all that, she still had to manipulate the DNC party rules to get the nomination. Trump was nominated despite the rather intense opposition from the GOP establishment. The polls all predicted an easy coast to victory for Clinton. Even Trump on election night appeared shocked that he won, and seemed to have made no plans in case he won. How do you reconcile that with the claim that the Trump supporters vastly outspent the Clinton supporters? Do you have any figures?
    - ejstronge 9y ago
      I tried not to discuss my political views in my comment - I'm sorry if you feel that I lent support to one candidate or the other. > Despite all that, she still had to manipulate the DNC party rules to get the nomination I don't think this is true. Irrespective of whether there was impropriety at any particular election, there was no way Clinton would have lost the nomination by the time that Sanders was in his stride. The superdelegates all but assured this. Incidentally, the Sanders campaign went from decrying the presence of superdelegates to courting them - they may be an unreasonable mechanism for elections, but both groups tried to use them to their advantage. > claim that the Trump supporters vastly outspent the Clinton supporters I made no such claim. I suspect that it's true, but my point is that looking at campaign donations (and Reddit activity) highlights the activity of low-dollar donors. Finally, to put into perspective the numbers from the article you cited, it seems that PACs spent 4 billion USD (across all races) in 2016[1] - around four times the spending of the two presidential campaigns. It seems complicated to total super-PAC spending. Many websites state that there was more money supporting Clinton/Democrats, but this may ignore Republican PACs that do not declare a party preference[2]. [1] https://www.fec.gov/updates/statistical-summary-24-month-campaign-activity-2015-2016-election-cycle/ https://www.fec.gov/updates/statistical-summary-24-month-cam... [2] https://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/summ.php?cycle=2016&disp=O&type=S&chrt=D https://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/summ.php?cycle=2...
      - skookumchuck 9y ago
- danmaz74 9y ago
  That is the money spent in normal campaigning. If Trump spent money on CA, or if he received help from Putin's troll farms, do you really think those contributions would be accounted for in the official contributions/spending reports? By the way, the same thing would be valid if H. Clinton used them. But for now we only have proof he did.
nezzle 9y ago
It's not just about money, but the appropriate application of money. Sure the Dems may have bought some likes and upvotes, while CA applied information warfare technique normally reserved for military activity. From the Guardian: >He had recently been exposed to a new discipline: “information operations”, which ranks alongside land, sea, air and space in the US military’s doctrine of the “five-dimensional battle space”. This is a fatal vulnerability to the ideal of democracy. The only way to beat this game is to play it, and whoever can play it faster, smarter, and harder wins. The only limitation is when these actions cross the line and cost you support by alienating your base, but I don't think that line exists for Trump.

by mhneu 9y ago

skookumchuck 9y ago

> There's just a ton more money on the right - the Koch network and GOP billionaire donors dwarf the spending by progressives. Clinton heavily outspent Trump in the last election. "Clinton's unsuccessful campaign ($768 million in spending) outspent Trump's successful one ($398 million) by nearly 2 to 1. The Democratic National Committee and left-leaning outside groups also outspent their Republican counterparts by considerable margins." https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/04/14/somebody-just-put-a-price-tag-on-the-2016-election-its-a-doozy https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/04/14/someb...

ejstronge 9y ago
Comparing the campaign spending does not capture the (vast) amounts of money spent by PACs. Indeed, one would expect Democrats to have more small-money, campaign donors, as opposed to large-dollar PAC donors. I'm not satisfied with the off-hand dismissal of outside spending from the linked article. Since 2010, this has (arguably) been the more interesting area to scrutinize, and deserves more than a sentence.
- skookumchuck 9y ago
  I also recall the heavy domination of social media like Reddit by Clinton supporters. CNN was solidly in the Clinton advocacy camp, too. Despite all that, she still had to manipulate the DNC party rules to get the nomination. Trump was nominated despite the rather intense opposition from the GOP establishment. The polls all predicted an easy coast to victory for Clinton. Even Trump on election night appeared shocked that he won, and seemed to have made no plans in case he won. How do you reconcile that with the claim that the Trump supporters vastly outspent the Clinton supporters? Do you have any figures?
  - ejstronge 9y ago
    I tried not to discuss my political views in my comment - I'm sorry if you feel that I lent support to one candidate or the other. > Despite all that, she still had to manipulate the DNC party rules to get the nomination I don't think this is true. Irrespective of whether there was impropriety at any particular election, there was no way Clinton would have lost the nomination by the time that Sanders was in his stride. The superdelegates all but assured this. Incidentally, the Sanders campaign went from decrying the presence of superdelegates to courting them - they may be an unreasonable mechanism for elections, but both groups tried to use them to their advantage. > claim that the Trump supporters vastly outspent the Clinton supporters I made no such claim. I suspect that it's true, but my point is that looking at campaign donations (and Reddit activity) highlights the activity of low-dollar donors. Finally, to put into perspective the numbers from the article you cited, it seems that PACs spent 4 billion USD (across all races) in 2016[1] - around four times the spending of the two presidential campaigns. It seems complicated to total super-PAC spending. Many websites state that there was more money supporting Clinton/Democrats, but this may ignore Republican PACs that do not declare a party preference[2]. [1] https://www.fec.gov/updates/statistical-summary-24-month-campaign-activity-2015-2016-election-cycle/ https://www.fec.gov/updates/statistical-summary-24-month-cam... [2] https://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/summ.php?cycle=2016&disp=O&type=S&chrt=D https://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/summ.php?cycle=2...
    - skookumchuck 9y ago
danmaz74 9y ago
That is the money spent in normal campaigning. If Trump spent money on CA, or if he received help from Putin's troll farms, do you really think those contributions would be accounted for in the official contributions/spending reports? By the way, the same thing would be valid if H. Clinton used them. But for now we only have proof he did.

nezzle 9y ago

It's not just about money, but the appropriate application of money. Sure the Dems may have bought some likes and upvotes, while CA applied information warfare technique normally reserved for military activity. From the Guardian: >He had recently been exposed to a new discipline: “information operations”, which ranks alongside land, sea, air and space in the US military’s doctrine of the “five-dimensional battle space”. This is a fatal vulnerability to the ideal of democracy. The only way to beat this game is to play it, and whoever can play it faster, smarter, and harder wins. The only limitation is when these actions cross the line and cost you support by alienating your base, but I don't think that line exists for Trump.