Meanwhile, back at the presidential election, Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton used vast piles of money scare off challengers, but each of them had a scrappy low-budget nemesis.
If Bernie Sanders had been a little more hardcore (early on he let go of the email issue) and if the DNC hadn't (apparently) rigged it, he could have been the Democratic Party candidate.
Jeb Bush and his super-PAC spent over $110 million and never got anywhere in the primaries. Trump spent the least of the 17 contenders for the GOP nomination.
In the general election, Hillary spent far more than Trump. She spent heavily on those things that campaigns tell donors they need so badly:
Clinton's campaign placed a far greater emphasis than Trump on television advertising, a more traditional way of reaching swaths of voters. She spent $72 million on TV ads and about $16 million on internet ads in the final weeks. The former secretary of state also spent more than $12 million on travel—about double what Trump spent. Clinton, who not only had a money advantage over Trump but a staffing edge, spent more than $4 million on a nearly 900-strong payroll.But Trump did rallies and social media and won.
Is the money-in-politics issue dying?
Posts
169 comments:
To argue that all the money flowing into the political system doesn't distort the outcome seems a bit nutty to me. A bit like Trump arguing that he doesn't want 'poor' people in some cabinet jobs, with poor defined as something less than a billionaire. It's oligarchs all the way down.
Is the money-in-politics issue dying?
The reason you don't hear about the issue is that Obama, Hillary, Ossoff, and the other Dems all had more. As long as they always have more, the money in politics issue will slip under the radar.
Imagine the outcry from the Left if Ossoff had been outspent 7-1 only to lose by a few points. Why, Democracy itself would have been "gutted".
A useful article -- the first I have seen that breaks down the spending -- but with a deceptive headline.
From what I can see, Handel raised $4.5 million (I believe that she spent 3.9 mil of that) and spending from outside groups was $18.2 mil -- total of $22.1 to $22.7 mil
Ossof raised >$24 mil, and spending from outside groups was $8 mil -- total of $32 mil
So the total spent on behalf of each candidate is closer than it would appear, but still favors Ossof heavily.
Feel free to check my math here.
It turned out to be all about ratings. The most watchable won. Only they got their messages across.
Only until it works. It's like the First World War. This time sending masses of infantry into the machine guns will succeed. On to Berlin! Or Paris.
Eventually it will work.
All you have to do is look at the amount of dark money pouring into the Wisconsin Senate race to see the obscene amount of money in po;tics is not going away, but growing. Already Trump is fund raising for 2020.
Don't confuse us with facts!
"If Bernie Sanders had been a little more hardcore (early on he let go of the email issue) and if the DNC hadn't (apparently) rigged it, he could have been the Democratic Party candidate. "
"If" the queen had balls, she would be...wait, that's not true anymore. He could still be the Queen.
Money in politics will be at huge problem as long as Democrats keep losing.
Who, me, cynical?
Already Trump is fund raising for 2020.
Unlike Obama, Bush, and Clinton, who all waited four years to begin planning their reelection bids...
The beauty of one data point is you can make it say anything you want. 2+2 truly does equal 5 when it's the first time you've ever been exposed to the symbols 2, 5, + and =. They are whatever the person introducing them tells you they are.
Why do we think our media and educational institutions are so busy scrubbing history such that one data point is all we'll ever be provided?
Domitian, the Proud Sexy Gay Commenter says...
While walking at the park I met a guy who said he was a Political Consultant. He wore an embroidered Versace T-shirt -- those things cost over a thousand dollars! -- and he was incredibly fit, muscular but not that freaky muscular some guys get...
He told me about his job, which I didn't really pay much attention to: I'm not big into politics, but it seemed like most of his job was getting people to contribute money, and he seemed pretty fabulous doing it...
I brought him back to the condo and he proceeded to suck my Horse Cock. He was pretty good at it, too, but his damned iPhone kept going off: he'd stop sucking my cock, read his text and reply, then go back to sucking my Cock...
After, like, the fifth time I asked him to shut the phone off and just suck my Cock, but he said he needed to be connected at all times, otherwise he might miss out on Big Money...
So he sucked and texted, sucked and texted, and I was getting pissed off, so when I shot my load I sprayed it all over his thousand-dollar embroidered T-Shirt: good luck at the dry-cleaners with THAT...
He didn't seem that upset, though: he was already back to texting, with my jizz dripping down on his Diesel jeans. We said good-bye, and he left, his fingers clicking madly at his phone. I get it, people, but is it too much to ask that when someone is sucking your cock that they actually pay attention to sucking your cock...?
Bye, everyone! Suck suck!
I am Laslo.
"Roesch/voltaire said...
All you have to do is look at the amount of dark money pouring into the Wisconsin Senate race to see the obscene amount of money in po;tics is not going away, but growing. Already Trump is fund raising for 2020."
New flash R/V, if you know about it, how "dark" can it be?
...Hillary spent far more than Trump.
Yes, but did she spend more than Trump and Putin combined?
No amount of money can polish a turd.
Electoral politics will attract big money so long as elected officials have goodies to sell. An elected official serving in a Federal Government whose powers "are few and defined", would lack a salable inventory of goodies.
JM, #45
Freakonomics eviscerated the lie that money determines winners in politics.
It has shifted to the new term "Dark Money," which I gather means, money that doesn't support Democrats.
"No amount of money can polish a turd."
Mythbusters showed you can polish a turd. Doesn't take money, though. Just elbow grease.
"So the total spent on behalf of each candidate is closer than it would appear, but still favors Ossof heavily."
-- You put it at $32M vs. $22.7M. Being 1/3 more strikes me as "not very close at all." Which may just be arguing semantics.
I'm with Roy. The Dems will keep the issue on life support by talking about "dark money", most expensive campaign evah! But stay quiet about who had the money.
Then when a Republican outraises a Dem then all hell will break loose and reform will be the most important issue facing the country.
Althouse's schtick of pretending shock at what leftists do is tiresome. There are no first principles. Just the need to win to exercise power.
"It has shifted to the new term "Dark Money," which I gather means, money that doesn't support Democrats."
Yep. Money the control freaks can't control.
When democrats do it - it's pure, good, lightness, and purity.
If an R fights back - fights for the people, it's all bad, evil and bad.
32 mm vs. 22.7 mm is nearly twice as much.
Freakonomics eviscerated the lie that money determines winners in politics.
And yet the pro-science party can't stop yapping about it...
Diminishing marginal returns are a thing.
The very first comment in this thread wishes us to forget a basic economic truth.
Leftists are economic denialists.
Sorry, brainfart.
Nearly half again as much!
Speaking for myself, there's a tipping point where spending money to reach me as a voter goes over the top. Like when a candidate touts his or her "green" credentials, but floods my mailbox with stuff destined for the trash heap. Or talks about his respect for my privacy but his staff calls me twice a day. Or pays people to say what an exciting candidate he is, but interrupts a TV show with the same boring ad three times in the same hour. Pretty soon I equate the message with hypocrisy. I agree with Tip O'Neill. Just ask me for my vote and go away. That's not very expensive, and it's pretty much what Trump did. He held a rally, invited people to come, and asked them to vote for him.
Hagar said...
32 mm vs. 22.7 mm is nearly twice as much.
22.7/32 = 0.71
No the "money in politics" issue is not dying, because people keep talking about it.
SHOULD the issue die? Probably. For the reasons Althouse cites in her post, and more.
We principled movement conservatives have all agreed on this for a long time. The "money in politics" argument is mostly bullshit. Citizens United was a great decision.
But can we all please recall that presidential candidate Donald Trump was on the opposite side of this issue? Candidate Trump was attacking "the donors." Here are our old friends at MSNBC, proclaiming that Trump is wrong about practically everything, except for his opposition to the Citizens United decision:
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/trump-wrong-about-basically-everything-except
I love it when Democrats spend more, and still lose.
FU, Soros.
No. Only the definition of what counts as bad money will change. Whatever the GOP does better will be the problem.
Trump is an outlier because he said and did outrageous things and the media played into it, giving him free coverage.
It was a smart move by Trump. I still remember after the first debate, I tuned into FOX to get good analysis on where each candidate stood on positions. Instead, I was treated to a 24/7 spat between Trump and MeAgain Kelley. Really pissed me off BUT from Trump's pov it sucked all the oxygen out of the room and asphyxiated the other candidates. Trump "won" the first debate by gaming it AFTER it was over. Didn't matter what Cruz or Walker said during the debate, because for the next 3 days everyone was talking about Trump.
From the other angle, the media gave Trump millions of dollars worth of free coverage because 1) outrage was good for ratings 2) they could censor the other candidates by omission and 3) they could be Kingmakers, selecting a Doofus as the GOP nom to give Hillary an easy win. SO KARMIC that it backfired and blew up in their faces.
But back to point, you can't use Trumps official expense numbers for 2016 to compare to Hillary's. The media gave him millions in free advertising, and I think (?) one org did the math and came up with $1 billion. But that can't be true, right? Right? Maybe I'm remembering wrong.
Citizens United was and is another example of a big lie pushed by the hack-D press.
Citizens United isn't about money in politics. It's about the right to speak out against politicians before elections, namely corrupt Hillary.
Thank heavens Hillary did not win. She would have taken a sledge hammer to the 1st Amendment.
Is the money-in-politics issue dying?
Reality was always irrelevant to money-in-politics. It gives people an excuse to hate those they already hate and thus it will live forever.
To add to that Fen, Hillary (and her media) got what she/they wanted. A face-off with Trump. Hillary was terrified of facing someone like Rubio.
Rene Saunce said...
Citizens United was and is another example of a big lie pushed by the hack-D press.
Citizens United isn't about money in politics. It's about the right to speak out against politicians before elections, namely corrupt Hillary.
Thank heavens Hillary did not win. She would have taken a sledge hammer to the 1st Amendment.
True; true; and true.
"Citizens United v. FEC" was indeed about pre-election communication. And "SpeechNow v. FEC" was about spending and fundraising.
Curious I only know the amounts but not where it comes from, hence the term dark- been covered and mentioned forever, I thought by now everybody understood the term.
"Polish a turd"
Yah I forgot about that - you can spend $1 trillion on a candidate like Hillary Clinton and it won't help. Not unless it covers a personality transplant. Look, I hated her but I was stunned at how wooden and robotic she was.
Very poor choice, even without all the corruption. I'm very happy that she was not our 1st female President, because she would have been our last female President too.
The 'money in politics' issues is not about the quantity, just the possibility of corruption with quid pro quos. But any cure is worse than the disease, since it involves tampering with the 1st Amendment. I'm not even that keen on "transparency," now that people are getting harassed and threatened over their political donations (like the Brendan Eich case). At most the public reporting requirements should be for really serious amounts of money, like six figures.
"To argue that all the money flowing into the political system doesn't distort the outcome seems a bit nutty to me. A bit like Trump arguing that he doesn't want 'poor' people in some cabinet jobs, with poor defined as something less than a billionaire. It's oligarchs all the way down."
Presicely. Now will we continue to hear how "Trump, the Oligarch will save us from the Oligarchs" from those poor souls who still think he cares about improving the circumstances of the working class? He wants poor people (non multi millionaires and billionaires) to stay away from him and his Cabinet, that's your hero you thought would rescue you.
Trump's hypocrisy doesn't seem to bother his followers though. His bashing of the "donor class" was merely lip service to reel in the dupes.
For decades, the big expense in political advertising was for TV commercials.
However, the advent of TiVo and commercial skip features on DVRs let you skip commercials entirely, making TV commercials less effective.
Plus, Internet advertising is far cheaper and more easily micro-targeted--and may be more widely viewed by young people.
Here in the 21st century, the whole value of TV commercial advertising should be questioned. Not just for political advertising, but for all advertising. People don't just sit in front of a TV and watch everything that comes on the screen the way they used to.
The "circle of friends" community supercedes the influence of press and money.
Hillary was terrified of facing someone like Rubio.
Little Marco was easily disposed of by Christie, and Hillary would have made short work of him. Fiorina would have been more difficult for her.
Trump is always one step ahead of everyone else. Notice how much oxygen that he is sucking out of the MSM with his Tweets. Tweet away, I say.
Inga: "those poor souls who think he cares about the working class"
Trump is revitalizing the Rust Belt. The working class is going to be so happy, that Democrat "firewall" will flip red for generations. And you are going to help Trump by insulting all those people as rubes who got conned.
Thank you Inga, for your contribution to Trump 2020.
When your candidate is too chronically ill to do big rallies or a lot of grip-n-grin retail politicking, TV ads are pretty much all you have left.
The Freakonomics Podcast is pretty much the last word on the subject, not that that will make the subject go away.
"Trump is revitalizing the Rust Belt. The working class is going to be so happy, that Democrat "firewall" will flip red for generations. And you are going to help Trump by insulting all those people as rubes who got conned."
Yeah and the tooth fairy is real and yes you people did get conned. Keep believing.
The problem is that after a certain point, any additional dollars spent is worthless. Wow, if only I saw one more ad telling me how horrible Scott Walker is.
Maybe Hillary should have spent some of that money to pay her people not to go to Trump rallies and act like douchebags.
Also, complaints about Big Money in politics are silly if you don't include Big Media. The MSM is basically a multi-BILLION dollar PAC for the Democrat Party. They really should be subject to campaign finance laws.
Why are Leftists economic denialists? Do they not understand diminishing marginal returns?
And here come other Leftists to ignore economic truth. Perhaps it will work this one time. My money is on the immutable laws of economics and Leftist tools soon parting with their money.
I was going to use succor for the homonym effect... But I have up and used cash. I suck.
Fen,
It may be a trillion of you include networks and Hollywood.
It will be an issue so long as the Republicans are seen as the party of the wealthy. That perception is outdated, but it is still the conventional wisdom.
"You people did get conned"
LOL we are only into the 6th month of his Presidency, and you traitorous twats have been distracting him with your fake Russia Hacked narrative.
Don't be so desperate. In football terms, we are at 7:50 left in the 1st Quarter.
Presicely. Now will we continue to hear how "Trump, the Oligarch will save us from the Oligarchs" from those poor souls who still think he cares about improving the circumstances of the working class?
Why should that bother us when we've been perfectly OK letting Ivy League lawyers tell the working class how much they "feel their pain" and know exactly how to improve their lives? To these people, "dead broke" was a multi-million dollar book deal.
If one group, says you should be rich like them, while the other says you should be educated like them, can either be said to truly understand your struggles or adequately "represent" you?
Why is one hypocrisy evil and another saintly?
"Is the money-in-politics issue dying?"
Not while the Democrats can use it to suppress Republican donors.
Citizens United....Hillary wanted to make it illegal for private citizens to pool their money and make a movie critical of Hillary.
"Curious I only know the amounts but not where it comes from, hence the term dark- been covered and mentioned forever, I thought by now everybody understood the term."
-- You know the organization it came from; they're not just dropping sacks with dollar bills on campaign doorsteps.
Yeah and the tooth fairy is real and yes you people did get conned. Keep believing.
The tooth fairy is living in the woods around Chappaqua. Believe away.
As most here know, the whole "dark money" thing is that the organization's name is known, but not that groups donors. The fascist left wants to get the names of who makes up these organizations so they can harass the members and dry up their cash flows.
I just know that if Republicans complain about dark money they'll be called racist.
Inga, what are your thoughts on how Trump is handling timber imports from Canada. I'm not joking, it a serious issue. But I have a suspicion that since HuffPo and Vox haven't covered the talking points for it, you'll be floundering.
I think everyone here would be interested in hearing your opinion on something if would be hard to crib from another site, as it would demonstrate *your* critical thinking skills.
So. Trump and Canadian timber imports. Do you approve or disapprove of the way Trump is handling the issue? And why?
Money-grubbing liars who lie care about people. Because single payer.
If you invest billions to achieve Trump-like name recognition then mere millions may suffice for your Presidential campaign.
Trump is an outlier because he said and did outrageous things and the media played into it, giving him free coverage.
And didn't Trump redistribute some of that free TV exposure back to Hillary each time the crowd broke into a sustained chant of "Lock Her Up"?
I've never seen a valuation of the free publicity to Hillary's campaign in this regard.
and 32/22.7 = 1.4.
Dave from MN
Citizens United....Hillary wanted to make it illegal for private citizens to pool their money and make a movie critical of Hillary.
Exactly. And Obama lied about it, too. Oh no! I just called Obama a liar.
Am I a racist? I must be.
Media reporters routinely get confused as to which number should be the base for their calculations to accord with their headlines.
I expected better from ARM.
If only Hillary's campaign had the funds to get her to Wisconsin or Michigan...
Your donations could have made all the difference.
"The problem is that after a certain point, any additional dollars spent is worthless."
There is a fine balance between just enough and too much. In military planning, additional fighting troops require additional support and brings up additional issues with command and control. The result can be a loss of flexibility and the focus moves from the objective to supporting the force trying to achieve the objective.
Politically, it costs money to raise money. More promises must be given for each dollar raised. A larger army of staffers and hacks require more layers of management. And finally, within the operational part of the campaign, the rubble can only be bounced so much before it its turned to dust.
Lastly, the source of the money becomes an issue to be used against you. Ossoff lost a ton of votes because people didn't like Hollywood money flowing into where they live.
American companies are looking to expand their business in... America.
oh no! Damn you, Trump. Caring about America first - why - that's Xenophobic.
If Hillary were prez - it would be same old situation. American biz looking to expand overseas because of our oppressive punitive taxes and regulations. But hey - if you make a generous donation to the Clinton Foundation, perhaps a few fees can we waived.
$$ in politics is a boring news story. Adults would rather hear about scandals. Bread & circuses.
Money in politics is probably like the immune system. You need a certain amount activated to fight off an infection. Past a certain point, it's extraneous.
For enough Vitamin D, we don't need to sit in the sun and get a burn. We need 10-20 minutes of sunlight on a swath of skin.
Georgia had money and publicity. Political nerds heard about that race, but didn't hear nearly as much about SC. $$s most important when you don't have name recognition or news coverage.
Lol Keven. And that was the debate response that finally pulled me off the fence.
"Hillary, if I were President, you would be in jail"
Holy shit, I thought, a Republican candidate who fights back? Sign me up!
"As most here know, the whole "dark money" thing is that the organization's name is known, but not that groups donors. The fascist left wants to get the names of who makes up these organizations so they can harass the members and dry up their cash flows."
I used to believe in transparency, but the left poisoned the well.
The money in politics issue died in 2008-2010, it's not going away, but now it's just a zombie issue. 2002 was the high water mark with the passage of McCain-Feingold. But McCain got beat in 2008, when Obama forwent the public money. and Feingold got beat in 2010.
Matthew, ARM, Hagar:
I would agree that the difference -- whether you consider it as almost half again as much, or in absolute terms about $10M more -- is significant.
Ossoff certainly seems to have had a large advantage in money that was spent.
It is also amazing that such a poor candidate (Ossoff) could raise so much money.
"roesch/voltaire said...
Curious I only know the amounts but not where it comes from, hence the term dark- been covered and mentioned forever, I thought by now everybody understood the term."
Yeah, it's the term used to make any Republican group seem scary and criminal.
chuck @ 8:19 - thank you.
Money is speech.
Liberals want to control everything, because they are enlightened and they know best.
Markets can't exist without their ministrations, the earth will burn, the poor need a handout, institutions need quotas, the public will not have its mind right... Much good needs to be done amongst the baskets of deplorables.
When the liberals here say the result is "distorted", they mean the election results remain unpleasing.
Campaign finance emerged when the disgraced maverick McCain (Keating 5) reached across the aisle to virtue signal his return to grace with an incumbent preservation plan. The deep state knows what to do with fresh power! Apply and expand it, then sell it off.
Some of McCain-Feingold got rolled back when Hillary's effort to stop a movie about her went to the Supremes, some of whom still like free speech.
You don't see the same enthusiasm for term limits from legislators that you see for advantaging the incumbent through limiting challenger spending.
But the end result is billionaires run because they can self finance. Oops, the system didn't respond as expected! There just WEREN'T ENOUGH CONTROLS!
Can we stop people from spending their own money on themselves?
Further proof that the DemCong got all the smart ones.
In military planning, additional fighting troops require additional support and brings up additional issues with command and control.
When the bullets start to fly, you can't have too many people.
To my knowledge the term "dark money" has never been employed in connection with Democrat fund raising. Perhaps someone could point me to where I am wrong.
But back to point, you can't use Trumps official expense numbers for 2016 to compare to Hillary's. The media gave him millions in free advertising, and I think (?) one org did the math and came up with $1 billion. But that can't be true, right? Right? Maybe I'm remembering wrong.
I agree that Trump got a lot of free advertising and because it was free, it was fully integrated into programming (ie not an obvious commercial). I think this is where Trump's true advantage came from . He basically ran his campaign as a reality TV show and all the cable news networks picked it up. People liked what they saw because it was unfiltered and not "on message." Hillary! would never have been able to pull that off. Even the free publicity TV news puff pieces seemed staged.
I think this tactic can work for many other candidates and it doesn't require a lot of money. You just have to make viral videos that people want to watch. What this says about the state of the Republic, I'll not answer....
Your framing is incorrect, Professor.
Asking "is the issue dying" is asking if the Media is letting go of that story/narrative (that "money is corrupting politics/campaigns").
You're quite understandably assuming that there's a principle involved--that the people who pushed the issue hold some fixed belief and/or were pushing the issue in response to a threat to an actual principle. If that were the case it'd make sense to ask if the issue is dying out.
But the Media doesn't see "big money hurts democracy" as a principle or a fixed belief. "Money in politics" is a tool--a weapon--that the Left sometimes uses against the non-Left. When that tool is useful they pick it up--"they" meaning the Media and Dem. politicians. When the tool is not useful, like when the Dems vastly outspend the Repubs, when Obama talks up public financing but then refuses it when he can spend more without the public fin. restrictions, when the Dems get most of the billionaire donations, etc...well then that tool is simply cast aside.
Have no doubt--the tool will be picked up again as soon as the Media finds it useful and thinks it will effectively harm the non-Left. The Media IS big money, of course, and the Media strongly supports the Left.
I recognize that it's a bit tiring to hear "oh, it's the Media, they're Leftists pushing a Leftist agenda!" in response to so many questions, but if it's the correct explanation (the simplest and most accurately predictive variable) then it's what has to be said.
Having the MSM on their side is no longer an advantage for the Dems. In fact, in many parts of the country it's a huge liability, a 24-7, non-stop negative campaign commercial for whoever is the opposition candidate. They media is so despised in these states that whoever the media supports, people will not walk, but run to vote the other way.
No matter how much the Dems spend on ads, they cannot overcome the MSM constantly telling ordinary Americans, "We are the face of the Democratic Party, we hate you, we're going to slander you and we're going to blame you for every unhappiness in the world. Vote Democrat!"
Ossoff tried to run to the center to distance himself from that, but it didn't work, of course. People know that A) he is a small cog in a big machine and B) if the media is for him, that's all you need to know. People would vote against Jesus Christ if the media was behind him.
"He wants poor people (non multi millionaires and billionaires) to stay away from him and his Cabinet, that's your hero you thought would rescue you."
This may be the most stupid sentence on today's internets. This passes for "thought" on the alt left.
Fen has raised an interesting question about Canadian soft timber and I am curious why we haven't gotten Inga's opinion on the topic. Wisconsin has a huge forestry industry so I am sure she has an opinion.
Don't be so desperate. In football terms, we are at 7:50 left in the 1st Quarter.
6/22/17, 8:41 AM
And we're up by a couple of touchdowns and field goals.
There is such a thing as diminishing returns. My high school economics teacher described it with pizza. If you are starving, that first pizza is wonderful. Then the second pizza is nice, even though you are no longer hungry, because pizza tastes good. Then you get to the point that you have eaten so much pizza that the vomiting commences....
There is no question that money helps in politics. Letting the voting public know that you are running at all is extremely valuable compared to the alternative, and to be able to get your positions across and attack your opponents' positions has certainly changed the outcome of multiple elections. However, it is not mind control. Ted Cruz is not going to win Nancy Pelosi's seat if he spends a trillion dollars compared to $25.31 and some stamps, barring outright buying of votes.
Honestly, with Ossoff I have no idea if he really believes what he says here. He never came across as all that bright when it came to politics. This may be a matter of reflexively repeating talking points. I lost? Money bad!
"To argue that all the money flowing into the political system doesn't distort the outcome seems a bit nutty to me. A bit like Trump arguing that he doesn't want 'poor' people in some cabinet jobs, with poor defined as something less than a billionaire. It's oligarchs all the way down."
Your non-sequiturs are asinine.
From the new lefty edition of the Dictionnaire des idées reçues: "Dark money": money given to political causes by conservatives who haven't been harassed yet; used to frame US politics as "haunted" by sinister forces; frames (see Lakoff, George) conservatives as dark, progressives as light (cf. Obama, Barack: "lightworker").
"If you invest billions to achieve Trump-like name recognition then mere millions may suffice for your Presidential campaign."
This is a point that many overlook. Trump was a brand before he ran.
And as long as we are on the subject:
There were some pictures of middle-aged women crying over the defeat of Ossoff, accompanied by snarky, gloating remarks.
I do not like to see middle-aged women in a state of distress, and found the remarks mean-spirited, although I was glad that Handel beat Ossoff.
But why does the Democrat party run such awful candidates? Clinton was bad enough, but Ossoff? Why, many of the women crying over his defeat would have been far superior candidates!
When I hear some of my friends lamenting Hillary's loss, I think "Gee, there are women in THIS CONVERSATION who would do a betterjob as President than Hillary!"
It is also amazing that such a poor candidate (Ossoff) could raise so much money.
Neither of them did. It was the national "establishments" shadow boxing.
People would vote against Jesus Christ if the media was behind him.
Bob Boyd wins the thread!
Rene Saunce said...
chuck @ 8:19 - thank you.
6/22/17, 9:13 AM
You're more than welcome. You consistently add great value to these comments pages.
And while I was earlier ridiculing candidate/citizen Trump for foolishly adopting the MSM criticisms of "Citizens United," let us all recall that GOP Nominee Trump hired David Bossie. Of Citizens United. As his deputy campaign manager. For Sept./Oct./Nov. of 2106.
One, fleeting, sign that Trump could be trained to be a Republican. On rare occasions.
And (his Citizens United criticism being) one in a long, long, long list of regrettable and dumb things Trump has said along the way.
Does anyone doubt that if Trump had outspent Clinton to the extent that Clinton actually outspent Trump, the press would still be bellowing its outrage?
It's surely true that no amount of money can put a truly awful candidate over the top. And it's probably true that most TV advertising is not effective, although the occasional but rare, truly clever TV ad can be.
And that repeating the same TV ad is sure to produce sharply diminishing returns, at some point perhaps even working against the candidate.
"And it's probably true that most TV advertising is not effective, although the occasional but rare, truly clever TV ad can be."
-- She is not a witch.
I'm convinced you're more likely to blow your own foot off than make a major win with an ad, but you *have* to do ads or you just look lazy.
Some schmuck said...
To argue that all the money flowing into the political system doesn't distort the outcome seems a bit nutty to me. A bit like [blablabla]...
This is what I mean about your low-quality, bad-faith posts. Zero content. Nonresponsive. Demagoguic. Off topic. As someone said elsewhere, it fails to attain the level of sophistry.
There's no point in even responding to you because you haven't responded to anything and won't, except to tax people by asking stupid questions.
Nobody GAF how anything "seems" to you. Let be be finale of seem. Produce some evidence or analysis to back up your otherwise worthless opinions, or, yes, best you STFU.
"Clinton was bad enough, but Ossoff?"
-- It was a district Trump won in Georgia, in a special election in a year where Republicans have been pulling out every special election. No one better may have volunteered than Ossoff.
There's reality warped by the media that most people (including the commenters) focus on.
Then there's the reality.
1. These aren't campaign contributions. They're bribes.
2. Campaigning is expensive, so politicians have to raise money somehow.
3. The time and energy politicians spend to raise money distracts them from doing their job. One lawmaker estimates he spends half his workday involved in fundraising. That's time taken away from doing his/her job.
4. Campaign contributions are bribes.
Unfortunately, the solutions have to come from the politicians, and they're not going to do anything that'll threaten their power. They're not going to lower the bar to allow third-party candidates in; they're not going to increase the number of House members; and they're not going to allow public financing of Senate races, with strict auditing and oversight of how the money is spent, with penalties paid by the candidate should something hinky goes on.
Fen said...From the other angle, the media gave Trump millions of dollars worth of free coverage because 1) outrage was good for ratings 2) they could censor the other candidates by omission and 3) they could be Kingmakers, selecting a Doofus as the GOP nom to give Hillary an easy win. SO KARMIC that it backfired and blew up in their faces.
Yes, this is also my superficial understanding of the dynamics that made Trump possible--the Media was happy to make Trump the story both because it made a good story (bringing in eyeballs) and because it meant Hillary Herself would have what the Media assumed would be a fatally flawed opponent. There are several examples of prominent Lefties saying they PRAYED for Trump as the GOP nominee...which, despite the fact that I didn't vote for him, made election night one during which I laughed for HOURS. I still chuckle today! The screenshot of the glum CNN anchors covering the Ossoff loss gave me flashbacks, I tell you what.
Sad CNN Screenshot
Peter said...
"And that repeating the same TV ad is sure to produce sharply diminishing returns, at some point perhaps even working against the candidate."
That's right.
And the MSM has become one endless Democrat Party negative campaign commercial running on almost every channel and in every newspaper 24-7, year around, every year, election or no.
It used to be the Republicans couldn't hope to buy enough ads to counter it. But now they don't need to. It's starting to work against the Dems. And it's not like they can just pull the commercial. They have created a monster.
Ossoff thought he could buy the election. He was wrong. Hillary thought the same. That's the 'establishment' dem mentality. Bernie proved that you don't need Wall Street money to win primaries. I hope the dems wise up and start raising money from constituents like Bernie did. I remain opposed to idea that money is speech!
No one better may have volunteered than Ossoff.
Really? When the buffoon Trump has been unmasked as a pretender on his way to prison? And with the people beginning to rise up against him, as shown in the ridiculously low favorability ratings measured after his every Tweet?
With all that, they should have had people knocking down the door to run on the D-side.
Kinda makes you wonder if even they believe what they're peddling.
And (his Citizens United criticism being) one in a long, long, long list of regrettable and dumb things Trump has said along the way.
Well, Reagan was once a Democrat. I do wonder to what extent Trump has changed his views, versus revealed his true views after having to play nice with NY politicians for 40 years. He has been much more conservative than anyone expected, which is not to say he is Reagan redux.
I hope the dems wise up and start raising money from constituents like Bernie did.
Ain't gonna happen. The Economic Royalists are not willingly going to give up the their realm. And as long as they have more money than you, they will have more speech than you.
Hoodlum, that also racks up additional Dishonesty Points for the media - if the MSM genuinely thought Trump was the next incarnation of Hitler, why would they want him anywhere near striking range of the nomination for President?
If they really meant it, they would have put everything on the line - their credibility, their jobs, their network - to knock Trump out early, even at the expense of giving Cruz or Walker a leg up.
I really loathe them. I hate them more than Hillary.
Well sunsong, we both share a contempt for the Establishment Wing of each party. Wouldn't it be a laugh if we found ourselves in the same foxhole?
Hagar, I am tired of your bullshit. Your statement "I expected better from ARM." cannot be true. No one has ever said that non-ironically.
Also, in 2016 the GA-6 Dem candidate spent $0 and got more votes than Ossoff was able to garner.
Let that sink in.
Hagar said...
Media reporters routinely get confused as to which number should be the base for their calculations to accord with their headlines.
I expected better from ARM.
Hagar, surely you're smarter than that! Without gotchas he's nothing.
Well sunsong, we both share a contempt for the Establishment Wing of each party. Wouldn't it be a laugh if we found ourselves in the same foxhole?
Hilarious. I am also no fan of the Koch brothers and Soros :-) Don't forget Handel was well financed too. $50 million for a House race! Disgusting
Damn, Liver, you beat me to it.
"Campaign contributions are bribes"
And time is so valuable, the Congressman has to triage.
My father ran campaigns for a State Senator, he shared this story with me:
"John, I need to dicuss something with the Senator, but he won't return my calls. Can you get me in the door? "
"Well Bob, it's like this, how much did you donate to his re-election campaign?"
"Uhm... nothing"
"That's why"
It's a sad truth, but if you only have a 30 min window and two constituents want to see you, are you going to speak with the guy who gave $3000 to your campaign or the guy who didn't even vote for you?
I think thatTrimp has changed his views simply because the Liberals are not treating him well.
If the Liberals had sucked up to him it would be like an Obama 3rd term.
"I think thatTrimp has changed his views simply because the Liberals are not treating him well."
And the "conservatives" are? Well, maybe not as badly as the left, but read J-Pod, most of the NR people, Bret Stephens, etc., not to mention how poorly Paul Ryan treated him during the campaign.
No. But what should be revisited is the 1974 law and raise donation limits. Tighten up the rules, all donee info must be be online 72 hours after the donation is made.
Let's get sunlight into this.
Since it looks like M Kelly's NBC show is tanking, so much WINNING!
How you spend the money you have matters. As I wrote here a couple of days ago, I live in east Tennessee. During the campaign I saw far more Hillary! television ads and far more Hillary! printed and posted ads than I did for Trump. Why was Hillary advertising in East Tennessee? All I can think is that Hillary was trying to reach the parts of western Virginia and North Carolina. All in all, it just seemed a massive waste of funds. I have heard similar stories about her advertising in California- why waste your funds there, too?
We need to make campaign contributions taxable to the politicians who receive them, like our income is taxable.
The problem with too much money in politics is how much time is spent raising it. And if you read the Podesta emails, you saw how much effort is spent in communicating with the donors vs. almost anything else. Tom Steyer, George Soros, and Herb Sandler were coddled. Not that I think the funding should be limited, but you can see how distorting it is.
MayBee,
That is good point. There were numerous photo ops of Clinton attending "private" fundraisers even into late October. I don't remember a single instance of Trump attending a fund raiser- not a one.
AMDG said...
I think thatTrimp has changed his views simply because the Liberals are not treating him well.
Oh, like a normal human being.
If the Liberals had sucked up to him it would be like an Obama 3rd term.
I was terrified they would think of that and try to do it! Thank God, no.
Fen
There appear to be no lefty or alt-left talking points to cut and paste on the topic of Canadian soft timber. Odd.
Most liberals wouldn't know a soft timber two-by-four if it hit them in the donkey.
Most liberals wouldn't know a soft timber two-by-four if it hit them in the donkey.
Now that's funny right there! No matter who you are, that there is funny.
All in all, it just seemed a massive waste of funds. I have heard similar stories about her advertising in California- why waste your funds there, too?
Hillary could not believe she was not up by 50 points. When she asked her campaign staff they must have replied the reason was they hadn't seen her new ads on TV.
"Campaign contributions are bribes"
What are in-person appearances at events by celebrities, the outgoing black president, and the first lady?
You know, the stuff that has zero monetary value in the big scheme of campaign finance.
How much did Beyonce's concert in PA count in the fundraising game? Nada.
"that's your hero you thought would rescue you."
What will it take to get this through your thick skull?
Trump isn't my hero. I don't want him to rescue me. I never wanted him - or anybody - to rescue me.
Trump was simply a better alternative than the vile, lying, corrupt bitch your party nominated.
Period.
The. End.
tcrosse said...No amount of money can polish a turd.
--
One of the challenges of turd parties.
Short version: money in politics is an issue when the Republican spends more than the Democrat. Money in politics is not an issue when the Democrat spends more than the Republican.
More nuanced version:
Democrat spends more than the Republican and wins - the vast sums contributed to the winner reflect how much the people value the Democrat and believe in his ideas, they put their money where their mouth is
Democrat spends more than the Republican and loses - no mention of the money other than a rueful head shake that it wasn't enough; some vague mutters about Republican "dark money", the Republican spent less but even so his money is "tainted" while the Democrat's wasn't
Republican spends more money than the Democrat and loses - money in politics definitely an issue, but accompanied by much gloating that all that tainted money couldn't overturn the will of the people
Republican spends more money than the Democrat and wins - money in politics a huge issue, time for legislation and maybe intervention by the courts
Copied that from the New York Times style guide.
Something doesn't make sense here. How in the world could Hillary have spent twice what Trump did on travel?
For great swaths of the summer and then into August and September Hillary's handlers kept her completely hidden. Meanwhile Trump was crisscrossing the nation like a maniac, in a bigger aircraft.
I do recall Hillary flying her jet 20 miles from Martha's Vineyard to nantucket, spending some ridiculous amount just to fire the engines and take off.
Perhaps when we thought she was hiding Hillary was traveling like crazy too, hoovering up the cash at private fundraisers so she could set it all on fire later. But if so those travels were not so widely reported. It seemed like she was mostly sitting at home, resting. She did not seem to be able to campaign for more that 3-4 hours a day.
Or perhaps she had a captive LLC that billed her campaign 4x what the true charter cost was. That would not surprise me either.
Will,
"Chilling in Cedar Rapids Iowa" is a costly endeavor..
Domitian..those were Grinder notification blowing up his phone. So many horse cocks, so little time.
"Ossoff thought he could buy the election. He was wrong." Indeed. I probably have mentioned here before that I live in the contested district, and all those millions Darth Soros, the Hollywood Left, the Park AQvenue Pinkos (hi, Michael Moore!), et al, poured into his campaign resulted in virtually wall-to-wall Ossoff ads on tv. But the net result may have been that the more the voters got a look at Ossoff, the more they could pick up on what a phony he was.
As with the Wicked Witch in November, next time around the Dems might want to invest in a less repellent candidate. Ossoff tried to come across as regular folks but he lacks the acting chops. Bill Clinton did but Hillary didn't. "Osshole" came across as a less intelligent, less manly version of Sheldon Cooper. Only without Sheldon's charm, warmth and spontaneity.
Erratum to the above: I meant "Bill Clinton had [the acting chops] but Hillary didn't."
They didn't even recruit Madonna to service the voters...
Will, it wasn't necessarily Hillary's travel budget alone. I'm sure her staff / retinue criss-crossed the country hundreds of times looking after the interests of Her Highness.
One of the problems with ruling a group of voters that live on the coasts is that you and your ministers have to make a lot of coast to coast flights and that racks up the expenses. So much easier for the hillbilly red-staters who live in the center of the country and don't want to be "ruled", but "governed" or "represented" instead. You don't have to travel as much, though you need to listen more when you do.
Enough about Bernie and Hillary's emails. It was just not an issue for Democrats. It wasn't really even an issue for Republicans. It was a convenient--and v. effective--stick to beat her with if you were looking for a weapon, but Democrats weren't looking for that weapon. Good evidence is that lack of interest in Trump's carelessness with electronic security. And I say this as someone who was appalled by her server problem--but still voted for her over Bernie and The Donald because of--other things.
walter said...
They didn't even recruit Madonna to service the voters...
134,595 - 124,893 = a 9702 vote shortfall
Avg time for a blowie in pr0n = 10 minutes
97,020 minutes = 1617 hours = 202 8-hour days + 1 hour
...
Ossoff spent $22M, $33M with friends
say he paid for himself and the outside PACs for the oral
10,000,000 / 1617 = $6184.29/hr or $49474.34/day for Madonna (does she get out of bed in the morning for that rate? Well, she wouldn't have to)
10,000 / 9702 = $1030.72/BJ
...
Er, Laslo can take it from there..."The $10 Crack Ho Who Looks Just Like Madonna," say.
She's proven she can't/won't deliver..
Of course readering, enough about Hillary's e-mails. At this point, what difference does it make?
True, walt, nobody likes a welsher.
@ARM 32.7- 22.1 = 10.6 (difference in amount spent) 10.6/22.1= 47.96% Summary: Ossoff spent $10.6 million - or 47.96% - more than Handel. Got it now? A common mistake, especially by people who write for newspapers. As Taranto says: math is hard.
"This is a point that many overlook. Trump was a brand before he ran."
Another point that many overlook is so was Hillary....just not a very good one.
Will,
Hillary's travel budget wasn't just for her, it was for the (not-so-)small army of aides, hangers-on, and guards that attended to her. Trump, meanwhile, had a relatively small personal staff, and didn't have the same bloated organization making arrangements.
khesanh0802 said...
@ARM [miscellaneous pearls before swine...]
khesanh, you're only encouraging him. What is he going to say, what has he ever said, that enriches you or anyone else here? He can do math at this simple level, he is just yanking your chain.
I love the oligarch claim. Here's a summary on Ben Carson - one of the oligarchs: Dr. Ben Carson is an American neurosurgeon who has a net worth of $30 million dollars. Born in Detroit, Michigan, Dr. Ben Carson graduated from Yale University, and then went on to earn his medical degree from the University of Michigan Medical School. Currently, he is a Professor of Neurosurgery, Oncology, Plastic Surgery and Pediatrics at John Hopkins University, and he also operates on approximately 300 children a year. (Down from his original 500 per year.) He is most widely recognized as the man who led the surgery for the first pair of successfully separated conjoined twins. His work on pediatric neurosurgery in particular, has been hailed as groundbreaking, and in 2008, he was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom. He has also published four bestselling books, and has had his findings and research printed in well over a hundred publications. He recently made headlines after he gave what many people felt was a pointedly conservative speech at the 2013 National Prayer Breakfast. Remember Carson started life as a poor black kid in Detroit, but since he made some bucks through his smarts and special skills let's shit on him! Or there's Tom Price who was a successful orthopedic surgeon; he's worth about $10 million so let's shit on him; or General Mattis at $5million, or General Kelly at $4 million (who might have gotten shot at a couple of times), or Mike Pence and Zinke at $800,000. Let's shit on all those nasty guys who did nothing for 30 years or so to earn their money.
Hillary's travel budget wasn't just for her, it was for the (not-so-)small army of aides, hangers-on, and guards that attended to her. Trump, meanwhile, had a relatively small personal staff, and didn't have the same bloated organization making arrangements.
He also owned his own aircraft and probably realized efficiencies that way, plus no sticky fingers in the till. Also if lodging and events are included, likewise by patronizing Trump properties.
@Bad Lieutenant Good advice, but until I see proof that ARM can actually do simple math I will continue to help him out as necessary.
@Khe, brother, I'm saying ivegay imhay the ilentsay eatmenttray. Set phasers to ignore.
ad-Bay ieutenant-Lay, ou-yay are-way uch-say a-way elpful-hay older-way other-bray!
God this is pathetic.
ARM is funny.
God this is pathetic.
Ut-way? Did somebody say something?
Nah.
The interesting thing about Trump's 757 is that it was cheap to purchase since it was so expensive to operate, but he was being reimbursed to run it so he wouldn't care.
I daresay he had the 757 before he ran for President.
@ARM Did you understand my example? Will it be helpful to you on future math problems? Percentages are hard.
@Khe, try it in Pig Latin.
khesanh0802 said...
Did you understand my example?
Given the fraction that I gave, any fool can see that it is not twice as much, yet you had to work it out long hand like a very dim witted 4th grader. I guess you got points for effort in math at school rather for getting the right answer. As you slowly and laboriously worked your way towards your customary D in the math test the smart kids had already left the room having quickly shown, in the shorthand that competent people use, that they understood the problem.
any fool can see
hat-Tay agar-Hay orrected-cay is-hay istake-may (2x vs 1.5x) ithin-way econds-say of-way osting-pay and-way efore-bay ou-yay alled-cay im-hay on-way it-way ike-lay he-they ick-day ou-yay are-way.
@Khe, you see what I'm saying? The biggest sucking chest wound you can deal him is to ignore him.
Bad Lieutenant said...
ignore
Something you are pitifully incapable of because you are frustrated over the fact that no one notices you. You act out, like a troll, in order to gain the attention that you think you deserve. It is sad that someone of your advanced age has so little insight into your own psychology. The good news is that you will soon tire of this particular self-defeating behavior and move on to some other form of pathology, the bad news is that you will continue on this path until you die, blind to your own insecurities.
you will continue on this path until you die, blind to your own insecurities.
Es-yay, ou-yay ill-way.
Are you desperate enough to be cross-posting this little ditty of yours to multiple threads?
Wow.-way
Post a Comment