4 ms·

Clinton outspent Trump nearly 2:1 in the last election ($768m, $398m respectively) and still lost. Yes she won the popular vote by about 3m votes but that’s ha

by tyre 7y ago

Clinton outspent Trump nearly 2:1 in the last election ($768m, $398m respectively) and still lost. Yes she won the popular vote by about 3m votes but that’s hardly a dollar to vote ratio. People vote their emotions, and emotions are surprisingly difficult to buy.

__s 7y ago
rectang isn't talking about the presidential election
- h5erahear5 7y ago
  The claim "one dollar is one vote" is directly refuted by tyre's data. It is absolutely relevant to the assertion made. But keep on downvoting HNers, ignorance is bliss is why we come to this website after all
  - pessimizer 7y ago
    One dollar being one vote is a cliché that refers to the wealthy having the most say in governance, not that US elections are literally the process of counting the individual candidates donations and declaring the candidate that got the most the winner. Also, stop playing the victim.
  - bduerst 7y ago
    Tyre didn't provide data, and neither did you. The 2016 election was complex, especially due to the foreign influence, campaign hacking, fraudulent spending, and free coverage from media. The fact that both the president's campaign manager and his personal lawyer (also RNC finance chair) are currently in prison points to there not being clear visibility into his campaign spending to this day. This doesn't refute the fact that wealth correlates with influence in U.S. politics, in fact, you could even say that a billionaire winning an election supports it. Also, why did you create an account for just this comment?
    - cwkoss 7y ago
      Even more complex as the Clinton campaign colluded with the media to deliberately elevate Trump as part of their "pied piper strategy" to promote candidates they perceived as easy-to-beat. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/fileid/1120/251 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/fileid/1120/251 Pretty depressing to consider that a portion of donations to the HRC campaign in 2015 were spent promoting Trump.
      - bduerst 7y ago
        Hillary Clinton is currently not the president, and those surrounding her campaign are not currently in prison for fraud. Please stop deflecting to conspiracies that are not relevant.
        cwkoss 7y ago
        Did you read the linked document? It is an internal document from HRC's campaign. If you're analyzing why Trump won, knowing that her campaign intentionally elevated his campaign is certainly relevant. I hope our country can take off the hyperpartisan tribalist blinders and address the reality of why Trump won so we don't end up with another 4 years of him.
zanny 7y ago
> People vote their emotions When its plastered all over TV. We just had elections days ago - obviously turnout is even worse than year than last where the national average was 50%. But nobody was voting emotionally there because largely you weren't voting for people or even positions you knew or recognized. You voted for the names you were familiar with - put in your head by advertising. Because there isn't a large central institution around your county commissioner election where media will give all candidates ample airtime to actually know who they are. I remember last year my district had a major election for the federal house - I live in PA and due to redistricting by the state supereme court we were having an election without an incumbent. Only 3,000-25,000 people in a district of 250,000 adults watched their public TV debate. The winner was just the guy that outspent his opponent by an order of magnitude via local companies subsidizing his campaign with 10 million bucks.

by tyre 7y ago

__s 7y ago

rectang isn't talking about the presidential election

h5erahear5 7y ago
The claim "one dollar is one vote" is directly refuted by tyre's data. It is absolutely relevant to the assertion made. But keep on downvoting HNers, ignorance is bliss is why we come to this website after all
- pessimizer 7y ago
  One dollar being one vote is a cliché that refers to the wealthy having the most say in governance, not that US elections are literally the process of counting the individual candidates donations and declaring the candidate that got the most the winner. Also, stop playing the victim.
- bduerst 7y ago
  Tyre didn't provide data, and neither did you. The 2016 election was complex, especially due to the foreign influence, campaign hacking, fraudulent spending, and free coverage from media. The fact that both the president's campaign manager and his personal lawyer (also RNC finance chair) are currently in prison points to there not being clear visibility into his campaign spending to this day. This doesn't refute the fact that wealth correlates with influence in U.S. politics, in fact, you could even say that a billionaire winning an election supports it. Also, why did you create an account for just this comment?
  - cwkoss 7y ago
    Even more complex as the Clinton campaign colluded with the media to deliberately elevate Trump as part of their "pied piper strategy" to promote candidates they perceived as easy-to-beat. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/fileid/1120/251 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/fileid/1120/251 Pretty depressing to consider that a portion of donations to the HRC campaign in 2015 were spent promoting Trump.
    - bduerst 7y ago
      Hillary Clinton is currently not the president, and those surrounding her campaign are not currently in prison for fraud. Please stop deflecting to conspiracies that are not relevant.
      - cwkoss 7y ago
        Did you read the linked document? It is an internal document from HRC's campaign. If you're analyzing why Trump won, knowing that her campaign intentionally elevated his campaign is certainly relevant. I hope our country can take off the hyperpartisan tribalist blinders and address the reality of why Trump won so we don't end up with another 4 years of him.

zanny 7y ago

> People vote their emotions When its plastered all over TV. We just had elections days ago - obviously turnout is even worse than year than last where the national average was 50%. But nobody was voting emotionally there because largely you weren't voting for people or even positions you knew or recognized. You voted for the names you were familiar with - put in your head by advertising. Because there isn't a large central institution around your county commissioner election where media will give all candidates ample airtime to actually know who they are. I remember last year my district had a major election for the federal house - I live in PA and due to redistricting by the state supereme court we were having an election without an incumbent. Only 3,000-25,000 people in a district of 250,000 adults watched their public TV debate. The winner was just the guy that outspent his opponent by an order of magnitude via local companies subsidizing his campaign with 10 million bucks.