If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Poughkeepsie Journal)   Mountains of money in politics are so self-evidently horrible that over 85 percent of self-financed congressional candidates lose, except for Saruman (R-Orthanc)   (poughkeepsiejournal.com) divider line 31
    More: Interesting, Erie County, mountains, Center for Responsive Politics, Catskills  
•       •       •

554 clicks; posted to Politics » on 18 Apr 2014 at 1:13 PM (21 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



31 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-04-18 12:34:10 PM
Yeah, but it wasn't the money, it was the Orc voter intimidation.
 
2014-04-18 12:58:47 PM
Most self-funded congressional candidates lose


Meh, it's like a self fulfilling prophecy. You need to be popular enough to win in order to get the money and you need the money in order to win.
 
2014-04-18 01:19:40 PM
Advertising works and it takes big bucks to flood the airwaves.
 
2014-04-18 01:21:35 PM
Subby's argument is sound but not valid
 
2014-04-18 01:22:20 PM
Well, yeah. It isn't JUST gigantic stacks of money that win elections. Big donors have other connections you can lean on and a large amount of small donations means you're likely to have a lot of people volunteer their time for your campaign.

no election is won by ads alone
 
2014-04-18 01:22:57 PM

Wellon Dowd: Subby's argument is sound but not valid


this.
 
2014-04-18 01:23:59 PM
You can win an election without the support of the national party but, you can almost never win re-election without the support of the national party.

parties are the problem (i'm hardly the first to say so)
 
2014-04-18 01:24:36 PM
The big money is not running for congress, The big money is buying congress and has no need to run.
 
2014-04-18 01:28:01 PM
I voted for him, and so did all the broodmates in by spawning pool.
 
2014-04-18 01:31:47 PM
Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos.
 
2014-04-18 01:32:32 PM
What?  You mean votes are what counts and if you have to rely upon self financing it means that you don't have the support of a significant number of people?  Well color me shocked.
 
2014-04-18 01:39:16 PM

sprgrss: What?  You mean votes are what counts and if you have to rely upon self financing it means that you don't have the support of a significant number of people?  Well color me shocked.


Nonsense.  I have been assured many times on Fark that money = votes.
 
2014-04-18 01:41:34 PM

BMFPitt: sprgrss: What?  You mean votes are what counts and if you have to rely upon self financing it means that you don't have the support of a significant number of people?  Well color me shocked.

Nonsense.  I have been assured many times on Fark that money = votes.


Yeah, no you haven't.
 
2014-04-18 01:42:32 PM

BMFPitt: sprgrss: What?  You mean votes are what counts and if you have to rely upon self financing it means that you don't have the support of a significant number of people?  Well color me shocked.

Nonsense.  I have been assured many times on Fark that money = freespeech = votes.



Transitive property of bullshiat?
 
2014-04-18 01:45:29 PM
 
2014-04-18 01:48:18 PM

Wellon Dowd: Subby's argument is sound but not valid


Subby seems to be implying that rich men can't buy themselves into office, but that's not the concern.  The concern is that rich men can buy OTHER people into office.  According to the article, most of the self-financers who won got more than half of their money from other donations.

If a senator gets a large portion of his financing from rich donors, those rich donors are the people he has to court in order to be re-elected.  If a rich person got into office solely by spending his own money, I think I would respect him--besides his constituents, the only person he is beholden to is himself.
 
2014-04-18 01:49:45 PM

BMFPitt: sprgrss: What?  You mean votes are what counts and if you have to rely upon self financing it means that you don't have the support of a significant number of people?  Well color me shocked.

Nonsense.  I have been assured many times on Fark that money = votes.


Some of the rich want each dollar of taxes you pay to equal one vote in elections.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/14/inves ting/tom-perkins-vote/
 
2014-04-18 01:50:38 PM
That's because there are only so many seats for them to buy vs. how many of them want to.
 
2014-04-18 01:55:30 PM
Subby doesn't have the money to get my up vote, but may deserve one...or some sort of participation metal.
 
2014-04-18 01:58:13 PM

thornhill: Except that the candidate who spends the most typically wins.


Farking THIS. Just because they had to dip into their own bank accounts to fund their campaigns doesn't mean they're completely self-supported. They're still beholden to their donors. Several of the examples cited in TFA barely paid a fraction of their campaign costs, even if it was a big financial burden for them. Cherry-picked statistic is cherry-picked.
 
2014-04-18 01:58:43 PM
It's because self funded candidates are often poor candidates.  I didn't see anything in the article that didn't ALSO say that the losers ran crappy campaigns, so it doesn't matter what the funding is, a crap campaign is a crap campaign.
 
2014-04-18 02:07:01 PM
What percentage of self-funded candidates are also third party whackjobs?
 
2014-04-18 02:30:02 PM
Shouldn't that be R-Mordor?  He's a senator, at least.
 
2014-04-18 02:34:30 PM
I'm pretty sure Saruman is Libertarian.
 
2014-04-18 02:39:01 PM

Evil High Priest: I'm pretty sure Saruman is Libertarian.


The highly visible white hand of the market agrees.
 
2014-04-18 02:59:39 PM
And probably 95% of all candidates lose. You can only have one winner. And if "Crazy Bob" blows his savings to get 0.1% of the vote, that's not an indictment if the system.
 
2014-04-18 03:09:13 PM
Yes, self-promoting people with an openly selfish political agenda (most self-funded politicians) tend to lose. That is why their millions are better spent electing several puppets who will mask their agenda until elected. That's why it's so good to allow gobs of money in politics - only a sucker is his own front man.
 
2014-04-18 04:04:54 PM
The fact that nobody will donate money to your campaign and you have to pay for it yourself just must might be because you have a repellent personality and/or agenda.
 
2014-04-18 05:41:18 PM
The problem isn't the self-financers, although they're a symptom of the issue (and a 15% chance of them winning is still too high.)  The problem is that the way campaigns work now, every candidate needs to fundraise, and most of them, in both parties, do so by begging oligarchs for their favor,  Once elected, they pass policies which favor their donors but are not in the interest of the general public - this is why there's so much corruption in Washington, and so little being done to help ordinary people.
 
2014-04-18 11:39:39 PM

Moonies. They're wacky.

 
2014-04-19 03:42:33 AM
Subby has a very short sighted view of the effect of money on politics.

The problem isn't necessarily just that you can buy elections, the problem is that the people who need the money to run a competitive campaign end up being beholden to the people who have the money.  The result is that the people with the money get to dictate policy directly to the politicians who are wheedling them for campaign funds, while the opinion of the common voter has almost ZERO effect on representatives policy decisions.

It's really just plain as day: "the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy."

The same paper also concludes that "economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy".

The article has a link to the actual study.  I don't really see how it can be any more clear than that.  And their data only went up to 2002!  It has gotten even worse since then.
 
Displayed 31 of 31 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report