4 ms·

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, campaig

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
    > I don't think this is true. Donna Brazile (Chairman of the DNC) wrote a book about it. https://www.amazon.com/Hacks-Inside-Break-ins-Breakdowns-Donald/dp/0316478512/ https://www.amazon.com/Hacks-Inside-Break-ins-Breakdowns-Don...
- lobf 9y ago
  >Despite all that, she still had to manipulate the DNC party rules to get the nomination. Are you being serious? She was the overwhelming choice in the primaries... Bernie lost by like 4 million votes. What are you talking about???
  - skookumchuck 9y ago
    > Are you being serious? Yes. Check out the DNC chairman's book on it.
    - lobf 9y ago
      You mean Donna Brazile's book? Can you be specific about what claims she made in this regard?
Ataraxy 9y ago
Or the billions in freely given media coverage.
- skookumchuck 9y ago
  Ironically, that was CNN, etc., giving Trump airtime in the mistaken belief that he'd hang himself on his own words. It wasn't due to media billionaires trying to get Trump elected.
mhneu 9y ago
And not just PACs - there is 'deep spending', on propaganda media: Breitbart, IJR, NY Post, WSJ, and on foundations: Jud Watch (has spent $500M in last decade to attack Bill and Hillary), ALEC, SPN, Cit U (that Supreme Court decision was planned by billionaires). There is a huge incentive for billionaires to spend money on propaganda, because they need votes for their pro-wealthy policies, which almost no voter would support without propaganda.

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
  > I don't think this is true. Donna Brazile (Chairman of the DNC) wrote a book about it. https://www.amazon.com/Hacks-Inside-Break-ins-Breakdowns-Donald/dp/0316478512/ https://www.amazon.com/Hacks-Inside-Break-ins-Breakdowns-Don...
lobf 9y ago
>Despite all that, she still had to manipulate the DNC party rules to get the nomination. Are you being serious? She was the overwhelming choice in the primaries... Bernie lost by like 4 million votes. What are you talking about???
- skookumchuck 9y ago
  > Are you being serious? Yes. Check out the DNC chairman's book on it.
  - lobf 9y ago
    You mean Donna Brazile's book? Can you be specific about what claims she made in this regard?

Ataraxy 9y ago

Or the billions in freely given media coverage.

skookumchuck 9y ago
Ironically, that was CNN, etc., giving Trump airtime in the mistaken belief that he'd hang himself on his own words. It wasn't due to media billionaires trying to get Trump elected.

mhneu 9y ago

And not just PACs - there is 'deep spending', on propaganda media: Breitbart, IJR, NY Post, WSJ, and on foundations: Jud Watch (has spent $500M in last decade to attack Bill and Hillary), ALEC, SPN, Cit U (that Supreme Court decision was planned by billionaires). There is a huge incentive for billionaires to spend money on propaganda, because they need votes for their pro-wealthy policies, which almost no voter would support without propaganda.