Smith And Wesson Forums banner

21 - 29 of 29 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,977 Posts
"
Nixon and Kennedy spent about the same. Kennedy won a decisive electoral victory 303/203
Goldwater spent twice as much as Johnson. Johnson won by an electoral landslide. 486/52
Reagan and Carter spent about the same. Reagan won by an electoral blowout. 489/49
Regan and Mondale spent about the same. Reagan won by an electoral clobbering. 525/13
Bush Sr and Clinton spent about the same. Clinton won by an electoral trouncing 370/168
Bush and Dukakis spent about the same. Bush won in an electoral smashing. 426/111
Bush spent quite a bit more than Gore. That race was decided by hanging chads.
Obama spent a stunning three times more than McCain but I think McCain would have lost no matter how much money he had.
Hillary spent nearly twice as much as Tump.

To be sure, money plays a big part in elections but I think the above illustrates that MONEY has been the number one determinant of who wins or loses isn't necessary the case.
Interesting. Where did you gwt your data on their spending?
Although you cite several races and say both candidates "spent about the same" of you look at this graph
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/56-years-of-presidential-campaign-spending-how-2016_b_5820bf9ce4b0334571e09fc1
You will see that in EVERY other race since 1964, the winner outspent the loser. Maybe not by much in some cases, but without exception, the candidate that spent the most, was the winner. Until 2016 that is.
Also, do you think the same can be said about non-presidential races?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,602 Posts
$300 million would pay about 65 families the US median income for a family of four, for their whole adult lives.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,232 Posts
Spending equates to advertising. Advertising is one aspect of marketing which has a goal of making consumers make a choice. It's not necessarily an informed choice.

Regardless of how much you spend promoting a useless product, it will likely fail in the marketplace. Some people will buy based on the promotional message, but eventually the true qualities of what you're pushing will overwhelm the image you created.

Politics adds character assassination of your competition to the mix. Regardless of where the special interest money comes from, or it's motivation (generally power and corruption of influence oriented in the USA), you can work to destroy your competition when it's politics.

All the money benefits the legacy media (who profit from delivering the message) and the special interests (that want to achieve their needs through political influence, and are willing to pay for it). None of this informs citizens.

When political advertising is delivered by legacy media through broadcasting, they are using an asset that belongs to the American people. It's the radio airwaves. This belongs to the people of the United States within our geography according to law (Communications Act of 1934), and that law requires the airwaves to be used in the public's "interest, welfare and necessity". I don't see how political advertising that doesn't inform us qualifies in any way.

The advertising contributes to the profits of broadcasters, the power of political candidates, and the corruption of influence expected and required by those paying the bills. None of this is in the "interest, welfare or necessity" of the American people.

There is a huge percentage of America's productivity and prosperity wasted every year in the name of politicians and under their control. The cost of running for office is literally insignificant in the larger scheme of things.

The danger is that now, America is depending upon and exists on credit, and much of that debt is now held by those outside the United States. They are an elite that literally owns much of America. Humans compete for power and control. It's in our animal nature. We're an aggressive animal. It's why we're the top predator worldwide, thanks to our minds and the technology we've conceived.

The day we can no longer pay back the interest and capitol represented by our huge debts will be the day we realize that America is no longer ours. It's the ultimate silent coup.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,355 Posts
"
Interesting. Where did you gwt your data on their spending?
Although you cite several races and say both candidates "spent about the same" of you look at this graph
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/56-years-of-presidential-campaign-spending-how-2016_b_5820bf9ce4b0334571e09fc1
You will see that in EVERY other race since 1964, the winner outspent the loser. Maybe not by much in some cases, but without exception, the candidate that spent the most, was the winner. Until 2016 that is.
Also, do you think the same can be said about non-presidential races?
The link and charts you provided are fine. It explains what I have been saying. And the idea that one candidate spent a few percent more than another certainly doesn't explain the election result blowouts as I earlier listed. It's more about the candidate. Mondale/Reagan screams that truth.

A better candidate might attract more money... so there's that to debate as well, but the idea that candidates can buy races isn't something that I buy into as a rule.

Every race since 1964? Not even those charts show that. Ford outspent Carter by a small amount. Ford lost. That was 76. Reagan and Mondale spent the same. Blowout 1984. And look at Bush outspending Gore by a significant amount. Gore got more votes and the race was decided by hanging chads and the Supreme Court.

Non-presidential races...

How about the widely watched 2018 Beto/Cruz US Senate race? Beto raised a stunning $70 million from left-wing kooks. Cruz raised a total of $33 million. Cruz won.

Or in the past... Michael Huffington thought he could buy a US Senate seat away from Diane Feinstein. Huffington spent more than in any non-presidential election in US history. Huffington lost.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,355 Posts
I think mrerick makes some good points. I also think the notion of 'money buys elections' is popular because it feeds into the victimhood narrative. Upon dropping out of the democrat nomination process, Kamala made herself the victim. ‘I’m not a billionaire. I can’t fund my own campaign’

See... it's not that she's a lousy candidate that democrats rejected and wouldn't contribute to her failed campaign, it's because she not a billionaire. Just waiting for the 'back female' victim of racism and sexism other shoe to drop.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,008 Posts
$300 million would pay about 65 families the US median income for a family of four, for their whole adult lives.
And how many folks are being employed when these candidates spend this money? Campaign staffers, bumper sticker/banner printers, tv stations and newspaper folks, billboard companies, folks who rent facilities and equipment for public appearances. There are a WHOLE lot of folks earning a living from this process, even if it is temporary for a year or two.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChattanoogaPhil

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,355 Posts
And how many folks are being employed when these candidates spend this money? Campaign staffers, bumper sticker/banner printers, tv stations and newspaper folks, billboard companies, folks who rent facilities and equipment for public appearances. There are a WHOLE lot of folks earning a living from this process, even if it is temporary for a year or two.
Quite true.

Kinda like the complaints about folks spending "too much" money buying expensive boats. So government slaps a 10% luxury tax on them. Tax the rich to help others in need.. blah blah blah.

1991-

Washington -- Last year, some 220 workers built boats at Pearson Yachts Corp. in Portsmouth, R.I. This year, there are 50 workers left.

On Maryland's Eastern Shore, Harrison Yacht Sales in Graysonville has trimmed its 95 employees to eight.

Those job cuts are among an estimated 19,000 blue-collar marine jobs lost throughout the nation this year. The culprit, boat industry officials say: a 10-percent federal "luxury tax" that went into effect in January on new pleasure boats that cost more than $100,000.

Created to hit the blue-blazer crowd, the tax has instead slammed into the blue-collar worker like a summer squall, zTC according to boatyard owners and officials who track the 450,000-worker industry.

Sales of boats that cost more than $100,000 fell by 56 percent one month after the tax went into effect, according to the National Marine Manufacturers Association. Some boatyard owners, who report no sales this year, have been forced to lay off workers or declare bankruptcy.

That turmoil has sparked a reaction by members of Congress from coastal states such as Louisiana and Maryland, which have lost marine jobs. This week, at a Senate subcommittee hearing, legislators will begin the struggle to repeal the tax that has hurt people like Dave Harrison.


------

The luxury tax was soon repealed and signed by.... Bill Clinton citing job losses.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
campaign funds and funding

Quite true.

Kinda like the complaints about folks spending "too much" money buying expensive boats. So government slaps a 10% luxury tax on them. Tax the rich to help others in need.. blah blah blah.

1991-

Washington -- Last year, some 220 workers built boats at Pearson Yachts Corp. in Portsmouth, R.I. This year, there are 50 workers left.

On Maryland's Eastern Shore, Harrison Yacht Sales in Graysonville has trimmed its 95 employees to eight.

Those job cuts are among an estimated 19,000 blue-collar marine jobs lost throughout the nation this year. The culprit, boat industry officials say: a 10-percent federal "luxury tax" that went into effect in January on new pleasure boats that cost more than $100,000.

Created to hit the blue-blazer crowd, the tax has instead slammed into the blue-collar worker like a summer squall, zTC according to boatyard owners and officials who track the 450,000-worker industry.

Sales of boats that cost more than $100,000 fell by 56 percent one month after the tax went into effect, according to the National Marine Manufacturers Association. Some boatyard owners, who report no sales this year, have been forced to lay off workers or declare bankruptcy.

That turmoil has sparked a reaction by members of Congress from coastal states such as Louisiana and Maryland, which have lost marine jobs. This week, at a Senate subcommittee hearing, legislators will begin the struggle to repeal the tax that has hurt people like Dave Harrison.


------

The luxury tax was soon repealed and signed by.... Bill Clinton citing job losses.
My only repost on this subject is this, why in the world would anyone spend such an amount on a campaign that in its initial launch was a no brainer to begin with, I mean seriously, is retrospect did Kamala Harris actually think she stood a chance to be the POTUS, really, what kind of weed does she smoke, I don't mean to belittle her or slam her or disparage her in any way, my reference to weed is simply this first thing to come to mind, most of the line up for the democratic nod for the actual privilege of being the nominee was a jest I think or at best a hoax put upon the American people for whatever reason , the biggest part of the lineup was never going to see the slightest chance of ever getting close to being the nominee for the entire democratic party in the United States of America, so why waste time and efforts and cash on those who never stood a chance of getting more than 10% of the people in the entire USA , it just seems like such a time consuming financially wasteful effort to no avail, WHY people WHY???
I May want to or desire to be the champion open wheel driver for 2020 but deep down I know at my age and skill level I don't stand a chance so why bother pretending I'm something I'm not nor ever will be????
I don't know her but I'm saddened for her, to dream it but never realizing in the real that there's simply no chance of her ever getting to the top of the mountain...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,008 Posts
My only repost on this subject is this, why in the world would anyone spend such an amount on a campaign that in its initial launch was a no brainer to begin with, I mean seriously, is retrospect did Kamala Harris actually think she stood a chance to be the POTUS, really, what kind of weed does she smoke, I don't mean to belittle her or slam her or disparage her in any way, my reference to weed is simply this first thing to come to mind, most of the line up for the democratic nod for the actual privilege of being the nominee was a jest I think or at best a hoax put upon the American people for whatever reason , the biggest part of the lineup was never going to see the slightest chance of ever getting close to being the nominee for the entire democratic party in the United States of America, so why waste time and efforts and cash on those who never stood a chance of getting more than 10% of the people in the entire USA , it just seems like such a time consuming financially wasteful effort to no avail, WHY people WHY???
I May want to or desire to be the champion open wheel driver for 2020 but deep down I know at my age and skill level I don't stand a chance so why bother pretending I'm something I'm not nor ever will be????
I don't know her but I'm saddened for her, to dream it but never realizing in the real that there's simply no chance of her ever getting to the top of the mountain...
Because she got exposure for possible future boost in a job like an Ambassador, Judge, Rep or Sen candidate....and then there's that leftover campaign money...........
 
21 - 29 of 29 Posts
Top