6 ms·

> Obamacare is of no use at all for the wealthy. So why do those in power support it? Health insurance companies love it. > Campaign money does buy you a stag

> Obamacare is of no use at all for the wealthy. So why do those in power support it? Health insurance companies love it. > Campaign money does buy you a stage, but it doesn't buy the votes. You literally just talked about how the people everyone got to select from are those that could raise billions for a campaign. Hell the current president is a billionaire - literally the wealthy - and staffed important posts by other wealthy people. Congress is stacked by wealthy people, in no small part because the salary for congress is not commensurate with the responsibility it has. Also, your numbers seem off for the Harris v Trump campaign (not what I’m seeing looking online) but it doesn’t matter (I highlight where you may have made the error below). > Nobody has ever bought my vote. How about you? No one serious about this issue suggests that they hand out money for votes. Well Elon actually did engage in that in this prior election cycle in swing states so there is that undermining your rhetorical comment. But it’s also the height of naïveté to either not believe advertising/marketing (aka propaganda) works (you know, the trillion billion dollar companies of Google and Facebook) or to believe that politics is somehow immune from its effects as well (which requires ignoring how political movements work or what we learned about propaganda and its efficacy in WWII). And all of that takes big $. Of the 1.2B Kamala raised, 40% was small dollar donations. Of the 400M Trump raised, only 133M was small dollar donations (28.8%). Note: if this is where you’re getting the 3:1 number you’re not reading the data correctly - democrats spent ~1.9B total vs Republicans 1.6B and Trump directly spent >900M (presumably carrying over the donations from the previous campaign? Not sure). And again - I’ll refer you to the research showing the general popularity of a proposal is irrelevant to it getting passed. How popular it is among wealthy does have that effect. And it again, you seem to struggle when I say this and try to point out some particular piece of legislation - it’s percentages. It doesn’t matter if it’s not an absolute. You don’t need to win every battle to win the war. Anyway, Walter you’re a smart guy. I expect more from you than rudely dismissive comments that insinuate committing a crime is the only way money and wealth can influence and “buy” politics (and ignoring that Republicans did attempt to do so this past cycle)

vlovich123 11mo ago
Oh and I suggest you look at how advertising works. It’s classic 0 sum game. If you and I spend 0 on advertising, the outcome is the same as if we both spent $100 on advertising (assuming equivalent efficiency of conversion). However if you spend $100 and I spend 0 you capture the market. If you outspend 2:1 you’ll get 2/3 of the market (roughly). Obviously efficiency of the spend is also important, but it’s literally a 0 sum information war between competitors. If you didn’t think it mattered, you’d have to explain why companies spend hundreds of millions on advertising - that would be money more efficiently invested somewhere else.
- nickpp 11mo ago
  > assuming equivalent efficiency of conversion Is there any case where this is remotely even true?! The way advertising budget is spent always has an enormous impact on the outcome. One competitor spends in print, another on TV. One competitor targets young professionals, another families with kids. One competitor goes to best and most famous agency but buys the cheapest package and fights any decision, another gets a genius kid at the beginning of his career to create a most brilliant TikTok ad. Etc... > I suggest you look at how advertising works A valuable advice, try following it sometimes.
  - vlovich123 11mo ago
    For the purposes of a simplified discussion it’s true enough. It’s also true enough in the commercial context for the biggest players. For example, Coke and Pepsi spend similar amounts of advertising and the market share isn’t really changing. But that’s also because the products are very mature and in repeated games the players are likely to reach a stale mate (and the talent pool for the advertising teams is largely the same). Political contexts are obviously different because it’s constantly one off contests and the teams behind it constantly change. So yes, obviously efficacy of advertising matters. But I don’t see how my simplification meaningfully changes the point that money significantly impacts voting at scale in our society. This wasn’t the gotcha I think you thought it was.
  - WalterBright 11mo ago
    True, but advertising does not buy an election. Have you or anyone you know been paid for your vote? If the answer is no, then your vote was not bought. Saying that election advertising "buys" an election is a misuse of the word.
    - eesmith 11mo ago
      It's in pretty wide use, like at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44209515 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44209515 "Harris outspent Trump 3:1. Hillary outspent Trump 2:1. It's not that easy to buy an election."
WalterBright 11mo ago
Advertising is necessary to sell a product. Campaign money is necessary to buy you a stage. But if you don't like the product, you aren't going to buy it. > Congress is stacked by wealthy people, in no small part because the salary for congress is not commensurate with the responsibility it has. LOL, it seems they get wealthy after they get elected to Congress. (I wonder how that happens!) > rudely dismissive comments that insinuate committing a crime is the only way money and wealth can influence I don't know where you got that from. I don't recall ever voting for someone because they spent more money on their campaign. If elections are being bought, it's not by the campaign money, it's by the taxpayer money. I.e. the "chicken in every pot" promise to give people free stuff. > I’ll refer you to the research showing the general popularity of a proposal is irrelevant to it getting passed. I don't doubt that, but we're talking about an election, not passing legislation. The only election poll that matters is the final vote (note that a lot of people do not bother to vote).
- vlovich123 11mo ago
  You have such an exceedingly narrow definition of what it means when people say that money buys elections that I’m realizing it’s pointless to try to have a conversation. > LOL, it seems they get wealthy after they get elected to Congress. (I wonder how that happens!) Some yes. Insider trading is a problem. But I think you’d be surprised how many people who are already rich then enter politics. They may grow their wealth even more after but they start of supremely wealthy to begin with, not least of which because that also implies a network of rich people who will help you. > If elections are being bought, it's not by the campaign money, it's by the taxpayer money. I.e. the "chicken in every pot" promise to give people free stuff. So money selecting which candidates you can vote on isn’t money buying elections, but policy arguments over how to spend the public purse is buying the public? That’s like having the position that a toddler has a choice when you ask them would they like broccoli or celery - you’ve predefined their choices for them and given them the illusion of choice. > I don't know where you got that from. “No one bought my vote, how about you” is dismissive and rude, not least of which because I’m sure you know buying votes is a crime. It’s not the effective rhetorical device you think it is. It’s also horribly undermined precisely because politics has gotten so messed up Republicans are bold enough to literally trying this strategy now. > I don't doubt that, but we're talking about an election, not passing legislation Actually, no. This conversation started with your bold claim: “Can you show us how the wealthy are battling the poor?”. You’re now trying to shift the goal posts claiming it’s only about elections.

vlovich123 11mo ago

Oh and I suggest you look at how advertising works. It’s classic 0 sum game. If you and I spend 0 on advertising, the outcome is the same as if we both spent $100 on advertising (assuming equivalent efficiency of conversion). However if you spend $100 and I spend 0 you capture the market. If you outspend 2:1 you’ll get 2/3 of the market (roughly). Obviously efficiency of the spend is also important, but it’s literally a 0 sum information war between competitors. If you didn’t think it mattered, you’d have to explain why companies spend hundreds of millions on advertising - that would be money more efficiently invested somewhere else.

nickpp 11mo ago
> assuming equivalent efficiency of conversion Is there any case where this is remotely even true?! The way advertising budget is spent always has an enormous impact on the outcome. One competitor spends in print, another on TV. One competitor targets young professionals, another families with kids. One competitor goes to best and most famous agency but buys the cheapest package and fights any decision, another gets a genius kid at the beginning of his career to create a most brilliant TikTok ad. Etc... > I suggest you look at how advertising works A valuable advice, try following it sometimes.
- vlovich123 11mo ago
  For the purposes of a simplified discussion it’s true enough. It’s also true enough in the commercial context for the biggest players. For example, Coke and Pepsi spend similar amounts of advertising and the market share isn’t really changing. But that’s also because the products are very mature and in repeated games the players are likely to reach a stale mate (and the talent pool for the advertising teams is largely the same). Political contexts are obviously different because it’s constantly one off contests and the teams behind it constantly change. So yes, obviously efficacy of advertising matters. But I don’t see how my simplification meaningfully changes the point that money significantly impacts voting at scale in our society. This wasn’t the gotcha I think you thought it was.
- WalterBright 11mo ago
  True, but advertising does not buy an election. Have you or anyone you know been paid for your vote? If the answer is no, then your vote was not bought. Saying that election advertising "buys" an election is a misuse of the word.
  - eesmith 11mo ago
    It's in pretty wide use, like at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44209515 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44209515 "Harris outspent Trump 3:1. Hillary outspent Trump 2:1. It's not that easy to buy an election."

WalterBright 11mo ago

Advertising is necessary to sell a product. Campaign money is necessary to buy you a stage. But if you don't like the product, you aren't going to buy it. > Congress is stacked by wealthy people, in no small part because the salary for congress is not commensurate with the responsibility it has. LOL, it seems they get wealthy after they get elected to Congress. (I wonder how that happens!) > rudely dismissive comments that insinuate committing a crime is the only way money and wealth can influence I don't know where you got that from. I don't recall ever voting for someone because they spent more money on their campaign. If elections are being bought, it's not by the campaign money, it's by the taxpayer money. I.e. the "chicken in every pot" promise to give people free stuff. > I’ll refer you to the research showing the general popularity of a proposal is irrelevant to it getting passed. I don't doubt that, but we're talking about an election, not passing legislation. The only election poll that matters is the final vote (note that a lot of people do not bother to vote).

vlovich123 11mo ago
You have such an exceedingly narrow definition of what it means when people say that money buys elections that I’m realizing it’s pointless to try to have a conversation. > LOL, it seems they get wealthy after they get elected to Congress. (I wonder how that happens!) Some yes. Insider trading is a problem. But I think you’d be surprised how many people who are already rich then enter politics. They may grow their wealth even more after but they start of supremely wealthy to begin with, not least of which because that also implies a network of rich people who will help you. > If elections are being bought, it's not by the campaign money, it's by the taxpayer money. I.e. the "chicken in every pot" promise to give people free stuff. So money selecting which candidates you can vote on isn’t money buying elections, but policy arguments over how to spend the public purse is buying the public? That’s like having the position that a toddler has a choice when you ask them would they like broccoli or celery - you’ve predefined their choices for them and given them the illusion of choice. > I don't know where you got that from. “No one bought my vote, how about you” is dismissive and rude, not least of which because I’m sure you know buying votes is a crime. It’s not the effective rhetorical device you think it is. It’s also horribly undermined precisely because politics has gotten so messed up Republicans are bold enough to literally trying this strategy now. > I don't doubt that, but we're talking about an election, not passing legislation Actually, no. This conversation started with your bold claim: “Can you show us how the wealthy are battling the poor?”. You’re now trying to shift the goal posts claiming it’s only about elections.