5 ms·
Did you even read what I said? > means that the best funded candidate tends to dominate. Not always, but it's a huge uphill battle and makes it nearly impossib
by ebbv 8y ago
Did you even read what I said?
> means that the best funded candidate tends to dominate. Not always, but it's a huge uphill battle and makes it nearly impossible to be an unfunded candidate taking on the two main parties of the US.
Yes Clinton lost despite outspending Trump, but Obama outspent Romney, and lots and lots of other races go in the favor of the candidate who spent the most.
Two high profile exceptions don't prove the rule false.
- sampo 8y ago> Two high profile exceptions don't prove the rule false. Actually, they do.
- ebbv 8y ago> Actually, they do. Really? That's your reasoned stance? So if I say "Not all blonde people eat boogers." but then find two videos of blonde people eating boogers then my rule is no longer valid? Unbelievable.
- repolfx 8y agoYou haven't proven that they "tend to dominate". You'd have to show that statement with statistics. Even if you did it'd be a correlation/causation fallacy (winners may spend more because they have more supporters who donate to start with).