Total Posts:6|Showing Posts:1-6
Jump to topic:

Did the Candidates who have more money win?

1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2014 3:21:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Actually it is pretty balanced. It seems that just because you spend more money doesn't guarantee you a win even though many people seem to think so. I'm not saying money doesn't help, but it doesn't mean you can win.

https://www.opensecrets.org...
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
Fly
Posts: 2,049
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2014 8:47:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
The answer to your thread's question is mixed and inconclusive, yes. But the question itself takes a very narrow and selective view of the influence of money in politics.

The election is not the first step in the campaign process-- not by a long shot. Money helps determine who wins the primary so that the person can go to the general election. In other words, the candidates that make it to the general election have already been bought (by money).

Also, money influences how they legislate once elected, and fundraising for reelection takes up a significant amount of their time that could otherwise be spent doing the people's work. Many legislators have already admitted this.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2014 12:34:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/9/2014 8:47:18 AM, Fly wrote:
The answer to your thread's question is mixed and inconclusive, yes. But the question itself takes a very narrow and selective view of the influence of money in politics.

The election is not the first step in the campaign process-- not by a long shot. Money helps determine who wins the primary so that the person can go to the general election. In other words, the candidates that make it to the general election have already been bought (by money).

Also, money influences how they legislate once elected, and fundraising for reelection takes up a significant amount of their time that could otherwise be spent doing the people's work. Many legislators have already admitted this.

The first problem here is that you assume one election can be bought, but the following election can't be... If money doesn't buy the second election, it probably won't buy the first either.

You neither sourced your first or second claim. I'm intrigued to see how the numbers really look. Find us sources that suggest that money buys primaries or bills, and we can debate then.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
Fly
Posts: 2,049
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2014 8:34:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/9/2014 12:34:06 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 11/9/2014 8:47:18 AM, Fly wrote:
The answer to your thread's question is mixed and inconclusive, yes. But the question itself takes a very narrow and selective view of the influence of money in politics.

The election is not the first step in the campaign process-- not by a long shot. Money helps determine who wins the primary so that the person can go to the general election. In other words, the candidates that make it to the general election have already been bought (by money).

Also, money influences how they legislate once elected, and fundraising for reelection takes up a significant amount of their time that could otherwise be spent doing the people's work. Many legislators have already admitted this.

The first problem here is that you assume one election can be bought, but the following election can't be... If money doesn't buy the second election, it probably won't buy the first either.

You neither sourced your first or second claim. I'm intrigued to see how the numbers really look. Find us sources that suggest that money buys primaries or bills, and we can debate then.

I'm afraid you are reading things into what I wrote. Nowhere did I say that the elections in question (the 2014 general election, to be precise) cannot be bought. I don't feel the need to rewrite what I actually did write, which is quoted in this post as well.

If one thinks about it, supporters must believe on some level that money influences the outcome; otherwise, they would not bother contributing their own money to their candidate(s) of choice. It is really just common sense on a certain level.

As for sources, sure. I would rather not waste my time finding information that you might discount easily, so would you tell me ahead of time what you would deem compelling evidence that money influences elections and the legislative process?
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 10:48:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
This is a topic that I believe is often misrepresented.
In the 8 house races in MN, the candidate who spend more money won each time.

However, if memory serves, there were three races that were within 10 points.
In one race, the difference was marginal, like $50K of $3 million.

In the other two races, the difference was substantial, about 30x and 15x more.
However, in both of these, the amount spend by the loser was insignicant.
One races was $80K vs. $3 million, and the other was $1.7 million vs. $130K, or similar numbers. That is a very small amount to run a campaign, and I am guessing those loser didn't have much of a chance of winning, even though it was within 10 points.
My work here is, finally, done.