3 ms·
Not just money; I've read that political scandals have a much larger effect size on who wins political elections than all of campaign spending does[0]. This sug
by xvedejas 5y ago
Not just money; I've read that political scandals have a much larger effect size on who wins political elections than all of campaign spending does[0]. This suggests to me that there's a huge political incentive to fabricate scandals, and to get a large cohort of people talking about it and spreading it as fast as possible.
[0](I wish I could find the article, if this rings a bell to anyone, let me know)
- native_samples 5y agoRussiagate and its slow-mo collapse seems a good example of this incentive to fabricate scandals. Matt Taibbi has been writing about it for years, the details are too much inside baseball for me, but it's clear that the whole set of claims has been falling apart for years and that the TV channels and newspapers that were pushing it have never really admitted any fault.
- pphysch 5y agoGood point. Contemporary American political campaigning is just marketing. All about the eyeballs.
- johntfella 5y agoprobably not what you're thinking of but this came to mind per your comment; (pdf) https://www.uakron.edu/bliss/state-of-the-parties/papers/Kolodny.pdf https://www.uakron.edu/bliss/state-of-the-parties/papers/Kol...
- BurningFrog 5y agoAbove the level to get your basic message out, campaign spending doesn't have much effect. So I'm not surprised that learning about the candidates character had bigger impact.