9 ms·

>You cannot conflate persuasion with "buying votes". You don't think money is persuasive? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent https://en.m.w

• bhupy 6y ago
  Money, on its own, carries no persuasion whatsoever — unless you're bribing people to vote for someone (which is illegal[1]). In reality, money buys you a platform to sell your ideas, some people like those ideas, and THAT'S what results in votes. If you don't believe me, I'll start with anecdotes, and then close with data. Hillary Clinton outspent Donald Trump by 2x in the 2016 election, and still lost. In fact, she had far more corporate backing than Donald Trump, and still lost. In the 2020 Democratic Primaries, Michael Bloomberg spent $1 billion (!!) on his campaign, and won just 9.4% of the popular vote (1.38% of pledged delegates). Tom Steyer (a no-name billionaire), spent $343 million on his election, and won a humiliating 0.38% of the popular vote (0% of pledged delegates). Interestingly, you would think he would have at least 1/3 of Bloomberg's vote, which suggests that the vast majority of the variance in Bloomberg's vote share can be attributed to his existing name recognition as a famous businessman/politician. No amount of money was enough to make their core message resonate with ordinary voters. Bernie Sanders spent $195 million on his election, having spent less than Bloomberg + Steyer and while having handily beaten both. Joe Biden spent $105 million on his campaign, less than Bernie, and still beat him by 3 million votes. Elizabeth Warren spent $121.31 million on her campaign, and also handily beat Bloomberg + Steyer while having spent far less than them, while losing to Biden while having spent more than him. Those are just the anecdotes (of which there are many more). Decades of research[2] suggest that money probably isn’t the deciding factor in who wins a general election, and especially not for incumbents. Most of the research in the last century found[3] that spending didn’t affect wins for incumbents and that the impact for challengers was unclear[4]. Even the studies[5] that showed spending having the biggest effect, like one that found a more than 6 percent increase in vote share for incumbents, didn’t demonstrate that money actually causes wins. In fact, those gains from spending likely translate to less of an advantage today, in a time period where voters are more stridently partisan. There are probably fewer and fewer people who are going to change their vote because they liked your ad. Yes, money helps you broadcast your message. If your message resonates, you can even win elections (what a concept). But money alone isn't persuasive. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/597 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/597 [2] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2605401 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2605401 [3] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0002764203260415 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0002764203260415 [4] https://www.jstor.org/stable/2138764?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents https://www.jstor.org/stable/2138764?seq=1#metadata_info_tab... [5] http://www.sas.rochester.edu/psc/clarke/214/Gerber98.pdf http://www.sas.rochester.edu/psc/clarke/214/Gerber98.pdf
  • banads 6y ago
    It's silly to think money is literally the only form of power and persuasion. As Alvin Toffler wrote in Powershift: Knowledge, Wealth and Violence at the Edge of the 21st Century, and as evidenced by GOOG and FB, information and attention are the new money. >Hillary Clinton outspent Donald Trump by 2x in the 2016 election, and still lost. In fact, she had far more corporate backing than Donald Trump, and still lost. Those statistics dont factor in the absurd amount of attention liberal media paid to Trump throughout the election. His antics, and the attention it garners among their target market, are great for their bottom line https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powershift_(book) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powershift_(book)
    • bhupy 6y ago
      > Those statistics dont factor in the absurd amount of attention liberal media paid to Trump throughout the election. His antics, and the attention it garners among their target market, are great for their bottom line Yes, this has nothing to do with money, and everything to do with the free press (or in your words "liberal media"). That's entirely my point. You also seem to keep citing books as though they are somehow equivalent to peer-reviewed academic research. Books aren't peer-reviewed, anyone can publish their opinions. Publishing houses are not staffed by true peers of the author, and are ill-equipped to check information. While books are good and important, they are not authoritative for the discussion at hand. I provided more than enough academic research, statistical results, and empirical results in recent history. Unless you can do the same, your entire argument is based on your personal perception of the world.
      • deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      • banads 6y ago
        >> Those statistics dont factor in the absurd amount of attention liberal media paid to Trump throughout the election. His antics, and the attention it garners among their target market, are great for their bottom line >Yes, this has nothing to do with money, and everything to do with the free press (or in your words "liberal media"). That's entirely my point. Nahhh; corporate media is very much concerned with money. No amount of academic research, statistical results, or empirical results can help you make sense of the world if you can't make assumptions based on common sense perception.