4 ms·

That sounds like a lot of money. Really surprised the article didn't provide an answer to the most obvious question "how much was this in context to the total a

by bko 2y ago

That sounds like a lot of money. Really surprised the article didn't provide an answer to the most obvious question "how much was this in context to the total amount raised and which side benefited from having the most money". > The Democrats, their allied super PACs and other groups raised about $2.9 billion, versus about $1.8 billion for the Republicans Seems like money in politics isn't really about money in politics. It's all just so exhausting... https://archive.is/VYuSz#selection-5043.0-5043.128 https://archive.is/VYuSz#selection-5043.0-5043.128

Retric 2y ago
You aren’t wrong, however election spending was a well above 2.8 + 1.8 billion = 4.6 billion. “The 2024 presidential election was the second most expensive since at least 1998. In total, $5.5 billion dollars was spent on the race by presidential candidates, political parties and independent interest groups trying to influence federal elections, according to Open Secrets. Adjusted for inflation, that’s $2.2 billion less than the 2020 race, the most expensive on record. When congressional races are factored in, the cost of 2024 campaigns jumps to $15.9 billion. In 2024, Democrats spent about $6.7 billion, Republicans spent about $7.6 billion, and third-party candidates, including Robert F. Kennedy Jr., spent a little more than $500 million. Adjusted for inflation, that’s more than 2.5 times as much as any third-party candidate since 2000, when third-party candidates spent nearly $197 million.” https://www.pbs.org/newshour/live-update/election-news-2024/the-cost-of-this-election https://www.pbs.org/newshour/live-update/election-news-2024/... Though 2020 was an odd benchmark as Michael Bloomberg spent 1 billion on the nomination before dropping out.
- bko 2y ago
  I think money only goes so far. Consider the employees of every large tech company are over 90% one side. Also Trump received 85% unfavorable coverage on ABC, CBS, and NBC. In contrast, Harris enjoyed 78% positive coverage from the same networks How do you quantify that monetarily? I agree local non presidential politics is more balanced but that's kind of pointless considering reelection rate is around 90% https://www.vox.com/2018/10/31/18039528/tech-employees-politics-liberal-employers-candidates https://www.vox.com/2018/10/31/18039528/tech-employees-polit...
  - Retric 2y ago
    It’s an interesting question. I’m not sure negative stores from ABC etc meaningfully hurt Trump any more than FOX etc hurt Harris. Media is so polarized and increasingly online that who shows up to the polls is really the most important factor. As someone not particularly interested in politics I knew almost nothing about Harris beyond party affiliation. Differentiation is a big deal in primaries but by the general election it’s go Red team go Blue team. Many Republicans I know felt I’d rather have a clown in office than a Democrat, but a votes a vote it doesn’t matter how much you like them as long as you show up.

by bko 2y ago

Retric 2y ago

You aren’t wrong, however election spending was a well above 2.8 + 1.8 billion = 4.6 billion. “The 2024 presidential election was the second most expensive since at least 1998. In total, $5.5 billion dollars was spent on the race by presidential candidates, political parties and independent interest groups trying to influence federal elections, according to Open Secrets. Adjusted for inflation, that’s $2.2 billion less than the 2020 race, the most expensive on record. When congressional races are factored in, the cost of 2024 campaigns jumps to $15.9 billion. In 2024, Democrats spent about $6.7 billion, Republicans spent about $7.6 billion, and third-party candidates, including Robert F. Kennedy Jr., spent a little more than $500 million. Adjusted for inflation, that’s more than 2.5 times as much as any third-party candidate since 2000, when third-party candidates spent nearly $197 million.” https://www.pbs.org/newshour/live-update/election-news-2024/the-cost-of-this-election https://www.pbs.org/newshour/live-update/election-news-2024/... Though 2020 was an odd benchmark as Michael Bloomberg spent 1 billion on the nomination before dropping out.

bko 2y ago
I think money only goes so far. Consider the employees of every large tech company are over 90% one side. Also Trump received 85% unfavorable coverage on ABC, CBS, and NBC. In contrast, Harris enjoyed 78% positive coverage from the same networks How do you quantify that monetarily? I agree local non presidential politics is more balanced but that's kind of pointless considering reelection rate is around 90% https://www.vox.com/2018/10/31/18039528/tech-employees-politics-liberal-employers-candidates https://www.vox.com/2018/10/31/18039528/tech-employees-polit...
- Retric 2y ago
  It’s an interesting question. I’m not sure negative stores from ABC etc meaningfully hurt Trump any more than FOX etc hurt Harris. Media is so polarized and increasingly online that who shows up to the polls is really the most important factor. As someone not particularly interested in politics I knew almost nothing about Harris beyond party affiliation. Differentiation is a big deal in primaries but by the general election it’s go Red team go Blue team. Many Republicans I know felt I’d rather have a clown in office than a Democrat, but a votes a vote it doesn’t matter how much you like them as long as you show up.