In my last post I argued that Jeb Bush only wishes money were as important in Presidential politics.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/02/jeb-bush-wishes-money-was-as-important.html
In a way this election has suggested the system works better than Bernie tells us.
After all:
"Jeb Bush’s defeat and Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders’s rise show that money doesn’t buy elections. It helps, but it’s far from enough."
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/02/jeb-bush-wishes-money-was-as-important.html
In a way this election has suggested the system works better than Bernie tells us.
After all:
"Jeb Bush’s defeat and Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders’s rise show that money doesn’t buy elections. It helps, but it’s far from enough."
Meanwhile Bernie has bragged about the millions of dollars he's raised in small money donations. Though his claim to have no super PAC isn't accurate.
Now a tweet by Karen Tumulty gives us more gist for the mill:
"Clinton folks doing math on FEC reports: Their COH is 33m. Bernie is 14. That means Sanders lost despite outspending her 35-21m last month."
https://twitter.com/ktumulty/status/701237301481967616
In other words, money isn't everything though it helps. The lesson for money in 2016 will be very interesting. It has shown that super PACs aren't as powerful as advertised and that you can go pretty far while spending very little money. Indeed, the candidate that has gotten the furthest while spending no money has not been Bernie but Donald Trump.
Now a tweet by Karen Tumulty gives us more gist for the mill:
"Clinton folks doing math on FEC reports: Their COH is 33m. Bernie is 14. That means Sanders lost despite outspending her 35-21m last month."
https://twitter.com/ktumulty/status/701237301481967616
In other words, money isn't everything though it helps. The lesson for money in 2016 will be very interesting. It has shown that super PACs aren't as powerful as advertised and that you can go pretty far while spending very little money. Indeed, the candidate that has gotten the furthest while spending no money has not been Bernie but Donald Trump.
Jason continues his posts on the plausibility of BS economics:
ReplyDeletehttp://informationtransfereconomics.blogspot.com/2016/02/implausible-plausibility.html?m=1
JW Mason defends his analysis in Jason's comments.
DeleteThere are certainly limits to how much spending lots of money by itself can help you but I'm not sure I would say any of this "disproves" Bernies message about the creeping, well not even creeping anymore, affects of money and power and its role in the deterioration of living conditions for the average working class American. I think if you look at state level races, the Kochs etc are getting quite a bang for their buck but national level races are a little harder.
ReplyDeleteAll you say is only true though if people can get out and vote and we know how that basic right is being threatened in some blatant and other insidious ways.
Some of these guys just have way more money than sense and this is what is driving some GOPers nuts Im sure. To still have likely republican voters spending money on the campaigns of Carson, Fiorina etc as recently as 3 weeks ago was just idiotic. And if you look at the types of ads they put out in many cases, they are just cringeworthy. Im not crying a tear for the GOP, this is what happens when you open the gates as they have, but Im not sure any of this really supports the premise of your argument. This IS the system and its not really working.
We are spending way more time and money on electing people who will then do nothing except start working to get reelected again in about a year