2 ms·
> Money only matters to the extent that it buys ads that move voters. And there's only a limited amount that matters in an election. If you take a house race an
by saraid216 12y ago
> Money only matters to the extent that it buys ads that move voters. And there's only a limited amount that matters in an election. If you take a house race and outspend your opponent $10 Billion to $1 Billion, but have a worse message, you will lose.
I found this dubious, so I went googling. I felt I ought to share what I found:
http://www.benzinga.com/general/politics/14/11/5012697/why-money-didnt-buy-the-2014-midterms http://www.benzinga.com/general/politics/14/11/5012697/why-m...
- jim-greer 12y agoThanks - my point is actually narrower. It's that if both sides have enough money to saturate the voters with their message, additional money is of low marginal utility. Otherwise we'd have Meg Whitman as our governor in CA. She outspent Jerry Brown by nearly 5x in 2010, and lost by 13 points. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/01/meg-whitman-outspent-bro_n_816677.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/01/meg-whitman-outspen...