5 ms·

Just FYI based on your comment you might not be aware but just on ads D's outspent the R's 4.5 billion to 3.5 billion (https://www.axios.com/2024/10/31/democrat

Just FYI based on your comment you might not be aware but just on ads D's outspent the R's 4.5 billion to 3.5 billion (https://www.axios.com/2024/10/31/democrats-republicans-ad-spending-election-day https://www.axios.com/2024/10/31/democrats-republicans-ad-sp...). In general D's always outspend and out raise R's.

returningfory2 2y ago
(Not the GP) I've been aware of this for a while but thank you for sharing a reference! It's sort of fascinating how so many Democrats think that money-in-politics rigs the system against them even though Democrats benefit more from it.
- paulryanrogers 2y ago
  Money may influence certain blocks of voters more than others, and the parties may spend it differently. That still doesn't mean it's an unalloyed good that we pour so much money into it when it could be used on more productive efforts.
- hackernewds 2y ago
  it's prisoners dilemma. if another party is outspending you, what do you do?
- awb 2y ago
  I don’t think many in either party are worried about small donations. But the concern from Dems is usually the unlimited donations as one billionaire could match the financial influence of millions of non-billionaires. Kamala raised 2:1 from campaign contributions (limits: https://www.fec.gov/updates/fec-announces-2023-2024-campaign-cycle-contribution-limits/ https://www.fec.gov/updates/fec-announces-2023-2024-campaign...), while the inverse was true for Trump. Source: https://www.opensecrets.org/ https://www.opensecrets.org/ In politics what’s pretty consistent is it’s almost always a debate about what’s to my advantage or not, masquerading as a principled argument.
shirro 2y ago
I don't doubt it. Even to an outsider there is a obvious economic divide between blue and red states and I am sure both parties exploit that to some extent. Judging from what I have seen of the foreign reach of "US" politics I am certain there is a lot of dark money and influence going around beyond any official numbers. I have doubts if those sorts of operations have any influence on the swing voters that were required for a victory. It seems more likely their needs were simply ignored.
- plewd 2y ago
  I wonder if there is even that much dark money is circulating beyond official numbers. Why would they bother, given that they have the legal loophole of PACs, Super PACs, and 501(c) groups. It already seems so easy to throw money at a candidate if you wanted to, without even needing to do it behind closed doors.
- ImaCake 2y ago
  >there is a lot of dark money and influence going around I personally suspect, but can't really know, that this is what explains the dysfunctional state of US politics. It is simply too big a target for corruption for it to ever be able to operate effectively. You can see that many US states seem to have much more effective governance than the Feds despite having nominally the same two major parties. I also think this explains why Australia is better run than the USA, and why New Zealand and Norway are better run than Australia.
hackernewds 2y ago
are you seriously suggesting the parties bought a ridiculous $8B in ads?
- xp84 2y ago
  Are you saying they didn't? Why is that hard to believe?

returningfory2 2y ago

(Not the GP) I've been aware of this for a while but thank you for sharing a reference! It's sort of fascinating how so many Democrats think that money-in-politics rigs the system against them even though Democrats benefit more from it.

paulryanrogers 2y ago
Money may influence certain blocks of voters more than others, and the parties may spend it differently. That still doesn't mean it's an unalloyed good that we pour so much money into it when it could be used on more productive efforts.
hackernewds 2y ago
it's prisoners dilemma. if another party is outspending you, what do you do?
awb 2y ago
I don’t think many in either party are worried about small donations. But the concern from Dems is usually the unlimited donations as one billionaire could match the financial influence of millions of non-billionaires. Kamala raised 2:1 from campaign contributions (limits: https://www.fec.gov/updates/fec-announces-2023-2024-campaign-cycle-contribution-limits/ https://www.fec.gov/updates/fec-announces-2023-2024-campaign...), while the inverse was true for Trump. Source: https://www.opensecrets.org/ https://www.opensecrets.org/ In politics what’s pretty consistent is it’s almost always a debate about what’s to my advantage or not, masquerading as a principled argument.

shirro 2y ago

I don't doubt it. Even to an outsider there is a obvious economic divide between blue and red states and I am sure both parties exploit that to some extent. Judging from what I have seen of the foreign reach of "US" politics I am certain there is a lot of dark money and influence going around beyond any official numbers. I have doubts if those sorts of operations have any influence on the swing voters that were required for a victory. It seems more likely their needs were simply ignored.

plewd 2y ago
I wonder if there is even that much dark money is circulating beyond official numbers. Why would they bother, given that they have the legal loophole of PACs, Super PACs, and 501(c) groups. It already seems so easy to throw money at a candidate if you wanted to, without even needing to do it behind closed doors.
ImaCake 2y ago
>there is a lot of dark money and influence going around I personally suspect, but can't really know, that this is what explains the dysfunctional state of US politics. It is simply too big a target for corruption for it to ever be able to operate effectively. You can see that many US states seem to have much more effective governance than the Feds despite having nominally the same two major parties. I also think this explains why Australia is better run than the USA, and why New Zealand and Norway are better run than Australia.

hackernewds 2y ago

are you seriously suggesting the parties bought a ridiculous $8B in ads?

xp84 2y ago
Are you saying they didn't? Why is that hard to believe?