4 ms·

I'm not sure what you mean by a mount of evidence contradicting? https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/money-and-elections-a-complicated-love-story/ https://fiv

by chid 4y ago

I'm not sure what you mean by a mount of evidence contradicting? https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/money-and-elections-a-complicated-love-story/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/money-and-elections-a-c... Obviously it's not going to be 100% success... but are you saying that marketing doesn't work?

ask_b123 4y ago
> Turns out, advertising, the main thing campaigns spend their money on, doesn’t work all that well. But > unlike in the general election, early fundraising strongly predicted who would win primary races.
thaumasiotes 4y ago
> I'm not sure what you mean by a mount[ain] of evidence contradicting? > https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/money-and-elections-a-complicated-love-story/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/money-and-elections-a-c... Your own link is fairly explicit about this: > “I think where you have to change your thinking is that money causes winning,” said Richard Lau, professor of political science at Rutgers. “I think it’s more that winning attracts money.” > decades of research suggest that money probably isn’t the deciding factor in who wins a general election, and especially not for incumbents. > Most of the research on this was done in the last century, Bonica told me, and it generally found that spending didn’t affect wins for incumbents and that the impact for challengers was unclear. > the strong raw association between raising the most cash and winning probably has more to do with big donors who can tell (based on polls or knowledge of the district or just gut-feeling woo-woo magic) that one candidate is more likely to win — and then they give that person all their money. > 80 to 90 percent of congressional races have outcomes that are effectively predetermined by the district’s partisan makeup — and the people that win those elections are still given (and then must spend) ridiculous sums of money because, again, big donors like to curry favor with candidates they know are a sure thing.

by chid 4y ago

ask_b123 4y ago

> Turns out, advertising, the main thing campaigns spend their money on, doesn’t work all that well. But > unlike in the general election, early fundraising strongly predicted who would win primary races.

thaumasiotes 4y ago

> I'm not sure what you mean by a mount[ain] of evidence contradicting? > https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/money-and-elections-a-complicated-love-story/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/money-and-elections-a-c... Your own link is fairly explicit about this: > “I think where you have to change your thinking is that money causes winning,” said Richard Lau, professor of political science at Rutgers. “I think it’s more that winning attracts money.” > decades of research suggest that money probably isn’t the deciding factor in who wins a general election, and especially not for incumbents. > Most of the research on this was done in the last century, Bonica told me, and it generally found that spending didn’t affect wins for incumbents and that the impact for challengers was unclear. > the strong raw association between raising the most cash and winning probably has more to do with big donors who can tell (based on polls or knowledge of the district or just gut-feeling woo-woo magic) that one candidate is more likely to win — and then they give that person all their money. > 80 to 90 percent of congressional races have outcomes that are effectively predetermined by the district’s partisan makeup — and the people that win those elections are still given (and then must spend) ridiculous sums of money because, again, big donors like to curry favor with candidates they know are a sure thing.