5 ms·

It doesn't, money has surprisingly little effect on competitive elections

by guywithahat 1y ago

iancmceachern 1y ago
Do you have a source?
- MangoCoffee 1y ago
  just google kamala harris campaign fundraising vs trump. 2024 election just happened not too long ago. she got more money than trump and yet lose. money is not the only factor.
  - Chinjut 1y ago
    The election where the billionaire prominently campaigned for by the richest megabillionaire in the world won proves that money plays little role in politics.
  - thejazzman 1y ago
    elon poured a ton of money into strategic locations right at the end, such as running a fake lottery in PA. many attribute the outcome on the role he played. may not be the most money, but it's the most effective use of money. PA roads were littered with trump signs because of people being paid to litter our streets with them. for months. people are, sadly, very easily influenced. companies wouldn't pour so much into advertising, in general, if it didn't have such an effective influence
    - prasadjoglekar 1y ago
      Reid Hoffman poured an equal amount of money thru Future Forward PAC on the Harris side.
  - digital_sawzall 1y ago
    Kamala raised $1.65 billion compared to Trump's $1.1 billion [0]. Not like it was a massive difference. Especially because that does not take into account super pacs, like Musks $200million in Pennsylvania. [0] https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2024-11-15/trump-harris-and-musk-how-money-did-and-didnt-affect-the-election https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2024-11-15/trump-har...
    - tzs 1y ago
      Probably what the money was spent on should be taken into account too. Most campaigns stretch the truth a bit here and there, but from what I personally saw and from what I read from other states where the campaigning was more intense generally the Harris campaign did not stretch nearly as far as the Trump campaign. I'd expect that this let the Tump campaign get more out of a given amount of spending than the Harris campaign could.
  - iancmceachern 1y ago
    Yeah but if you ask chatgpt: "Absolutely, money does have a measurable impact on political outcomes" https://www.investopedia.com/surprising-thing-billionaires-spend-money-on-11756141?utm_source=chatgpt.com https://www.investopedia.com/surprising-thing-billionaires-s... https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/winning-vs-spending https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/winning-vs-sp...
  - myrmidon 1y ago
    Maybe, but Trump spent over half a billion on his 2024 campaign. Are you suggesting the outcome would have been unchanged had he spent a "sane" amount like $50M total? Because I don't think so. Furthermore, in a country with somewhat free media you would always expect populist candidates to outperform with a given budget, because their platform is much better aligned with media interest; mass media does not want boring budget plans or quaint reforms-- rage-bait sells way better and nets populists tons of "free" online presence.
  - guywithahat 1y ago
    For fun I did a non-scientific analysis of presidential candidates a while back, and found funding raised wasn't statistically significant https://thomashansen.xyz/blog/election-spending-isnt-statistically-significant.html https://thomashansen.xyz/blog/election-spending-isnt-statist...
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
decremental 1y ago
[dead]
notRobot 1y ago
So then shouldn't be a problem to stop it entirely, right?
- ch4s3 1y ago
  How do you stop people from running 3rd party ads in the US while not violating the 1sr amendment? You get into dicey territory quickly. The old overturned election laws were used in many cases to prevent books from being published in election years.
  - icandoit 1y ago
    >The old overturned election laws were used in many cases to prevent books from being published in election years. Which laws and which books? I can't find anything.
    - pcfwik 1y ago
      I assume the poster is referencing Citizens United v. FEC, specifically about the government's use of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act to restrict showing of political documentaries (apparently, called "Hillary: The Movie" and "Celsius 41.11"). While (as far as I know) the law was never actually used to ban books (only documentaries), the case became infamous because the government argued that it had the right to ban books if it wanted to. See, e.g., the NYTimes article below: "The [government's] lawyer, Malcolm L. Stewart, said Congress has the power to ban political books, signs and Internet videos, if they are paid for by corporations and distributed not long before an election.". https://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/25/washington/25scotus.html https://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/25/washington/25scotus.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/08-205 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/08-205
      - ch4s3 1y ago
        Yeah I made a mistake. There were a couple of films the FEC went after and they claimed the power extended to books as you pointed out. I was under-caffienated.
myrmidon 1y ago
What does "surprisingly little" mean to you? US election spending in 2024 was almost $2bn (mostly presidential election). If media presence had surprisingly little effect on outcomes, then I would expect candidates to spend surprisingly little or be constantly outperformed by "underfunded" candidates-- neither of which is the case.
- notahacker 1y ago
  The old "half of my advertising budget is wasted, but I have no idea which half" quote springs to mind... Not sure how you're defining "underfunded" candidates, but the incumbents in competitive races where enormous amounts are spent by both sides to try to gain an advantage don't win anywhere near as often as the incumbent in nom-competitive races which parties and PACs barely bother spending in. Ultimately the spending is positional and cancels out, and the biggest spender often loses because there's not nearly enough difference between the candidates' spending levels to affect whether voters hear their messages.
- guywithahat 1y ago
  It's a game theory problem. There are lots of studies around executive performance, and what people find is that the specific executive/CEO has basically no impact, while things like general industry growth and direction is what matters (suggesting executive/CEO decisions are just a game of chance). But obviously I could also choose a bad executive who would tank the company. What's really happening is when everyone is trying their hardest, all of the executives are as good as they can be, and the things they do tend to look more like luck than performance. It's the same thing in elections. Because everyone is competitive, who donates what money or it's amount tends to not really matter. If a candidate were to sabotage their campaign they would lose, but in a competitive election it doesn't end up being statistically significant.
- keiferski 1y ago
  This seems like a big number, but frankly in context it's actually quite trivial. We're talking about the lead office in the world's most dominant country, and the amount spent on the election is roughly equivalent to...the amount spent on ice cream or manga/comic books, per year. There is a lot of money in America, and comparatively not that much is actually spent on the election. Maybe it's still too much in an ostensibly democratic system, but it's worth noting.
intermerda 1y ago
If money has surprisingly little effect on competitive elections, why do candidates ask for it?
Perz1val 1y ago
Yeah, cuz no matter who wins can be bought anyway... That's not good either

It doesn't, money has surprisingly little effect on competitive elections

iancmceachern 1y ago

Do you have a source?

MangoCoffee 1y ago
just google kamala harris campaign fundraising vs trump. 2024 election just happened not too long ago. she got more money than trump and yet lose. money is not the only factor.
- Chinjut 1y ago
  The election where the billionaire prominently campaigned for by the richest megabillionaire in the world won proves that money plays little role in politics.
- thejazzman 1y ago
  elon poured a ton of money into strategic locations right at the end, such as running a fake lottery in PA. many attribute the outcome on the role he played. may not be the most money, but it's the most effective use of money. PA roads were littered with trump signs because of people being paid to litter our streets with them. for months. people are, sadly, very easily influenced. companies wouldn't pour so much into advertising, in general, if it didn't have such an effective influence
  - prasadjoglekar 1y ago
    Reid Hoffman poured an equal amount of money thru Future Forward PAC on the Harris side.
- digital_sawzall 1y ago
  Kamala raised $1.65 billion compared to Trump's $1.1 billion [0]. Not like it was a massive difference. Especially because that does not take into account super pacs, like Musks $200million in Pennsylvania. [0] https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2024-11-15/trump-harris-and-musk-how-money-did-and-didnt-affect-the-election https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2024-11-15/trump-har...
  - tzs 1y ago
    Probably what the money was spent on should be taken into account too. Most campaigns stretch the truth a bit here and there, but from what I personally saw and from what I read from other states where the campaigning was more intense generally the Harris campaign did not stretch nearly as far as the Trump campaign. I'd expect that this let the Tump campaign get more out of a given amount of spending than the Harris campaign could.
- iancmceachern 1y ago
  Yeah but if you ask chatgpt: "Absolutely, money does have a measurable impact on political outcomes" https://www.investopedia.com/surprising-thing-billionaires-spend-money-on-11756141?utm_source=chatgpt.com https://www.investopedia.com/surprising-thing-billionaires-s... https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/winning-vs-spending https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/winning-vs-sp...
- myrmidon 1y ago
  Maybe, but Trump spent over half a billion on his 2024 campaign. Are you suggesting the outcome would have been unchanged had he spent a "sane" amount like $50M total? Because I don't think so. Furthermore, in a country with somewhat free media you would always expect populist candidates to outperform with a given budget, because their platform is much better aligned with media interest; mass media does not want boring budget plans or quaint reforms-- rage-bait sells way better and nets populists tons of "free" online presence.
- guywithahat 1y ago
  For fun I did a non-scientific analysis of presidential candidates a while back, and found funding raised wasn't statistically significant https://thomashansen.xyz/blog/election-spending-isnt-statistically-significant.html https://thomashansen.xyz/blog/election-spending-isnt-statist...
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

decremental 1y ago

[dead]

notRobot 1y ago

So then shouldn't be a problem to stop it entirely, right?

ch4s3 1y ago
How do you stop people from running 3rd party ads in the US while not violating the 1sr amendment? You get into dicey territory quickly. The old overturned election laws were used in many cases to prevent books from being published in election years.
- icandoit 1y ago
  >The old overturned election laws were used in many cases to prevent books from being published in election years. Which laws and which books? I can't find anything.
  - pcfwik 1y ago
    I assume the poster is referencing Citizens United v. FEC, specifically about the government's use of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act to restrict showing of political documentaries (apparently, called "Hillary: The Movie" and "Celsius 41.11"). While (as far as I know) the law was never actually used to ban books (only documentaries), the case became infamous because the government argued that it had the right to ban books if it wanted to. See, e.g., the NYTimes article below: "The [government's] lawyer, Malcolm L. Stewart, said Congress has the power to ban political books, signs and Internet videos, if they are paid for by corporations and distributed not long before an election.". https://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/25/washington/25scotus.html https://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/25/washington/25scotus.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/08-205 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/08-205
    - ch4s3 1y ago
      Yeah I made a mistake. There were a couple of films the FEC went after and they claimed the power extended to books as you pointed out. I was under-caffienated.

myrmidon 1y ago

What does "surprisingly little" mean to you? US election spending in 2024 was almost $2bn (mostly presidential election). If media presence had surprisingly little effect on outcomes, then I would expect candidates to spend surprisingly little or be constantly outperformed by "underfunded" candidates-- neither of which is the case.

notahacker 1y ago
The old "half of my advertising budget is wasted, but I have no idea which half" quote springs to mind... Not sure how you're defining "underfunded" candidates, but the incumbents in competitive races where enormous amounts are spent by both sides to try to gain an advantage don't win anywhere near as often as the incumbent in nom-competitive races which parties and PACs barely bother spending in. Ultimately the spending is positional and cancels out, and the biggest spender often loses because there's not nearly enough difference between the candidates' spending levels to affect whether voters hear their messages.
guywithahat 1y ago
It's a game theory problem. There are lots of studies around executive performance, and what people find is that the specific executive/CEO has basically no impact, while things like general industry growth and direction is what matters (suggesting executive/CEO decisions are just a game of chance). But obviously I could also choose a bad executive who would tank the company. What's really happening is when everyone is trying their hardest, all of the executives are as good as they can be, and the things they do tend to look more like luck than performance. It's the same thing in elections. Because everyone is competitive, who donates what money or it's amount tends to not really matter. If a candidate were to sabotage their campaign they would lose, but in a competitive election it doesn't end up being statistically significant.
keiferski 1y ago
This seems like a big number, but frankly in context it's actually quite trivial. We're talking about the lead office in the world's most dominant country, and the amount spent on the election is roughly equivalent to...the amount spent on ice cream or manga/comic books, per year. There is a lot of money in America, and comparatively not that much is actually spent on the election. Maybe it's still too much in an ostensibly democratic system, but it's worth noting.

intermerda 1y ago

If money has surprisingly little effect on competitive elections, why do candidates ask for it?

Perz1val 1y ago

Yeah, cuz no matter who wins can be bought anyway... That's not good either