Rush Limbaugh STILL is a big, fat idiot

[Undertoad]

I think a lot of it is considered to be name recognition.

The name that got elected, people have heard of that name; but the challenger, not so much.

[Undertoad]

Despite almost always winning their elections, incumbents by and far raise more money than challengers. Incumbents raise more than candidates for open seats.

https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/incumbs.php

[xoxoxoBruce]

Granted, but except the few who are indicted for misappropriation, don't they use these war chests to get reelected? Money = votes.

[Undertoad]

And if you click on "breakdown by party" you see that Democrats raised over twice as much money per candidate for their Challenger and Open Seat opponents.

It didn't work; question remains; is money effective in getting votes?

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

... question remains; is money effective in getting votes?

Yes, when spent purchasing support from a Russian President.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

And if you click on "breakdown by party" you see that Democrats raised over twice as much money per candidate for their Challenger and Open Seat opponents.

It didn't work; question remains; is money effective in getting votes?

Money is effective. Gerrymandering is more effective.

[Undertoad]

If anyone thinks that money is effective at getting more votes please post evidence, and not just guesses or suspicions.

I've posted my evidence that it doesn't. Over time we can figure this out.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

If anyone thinks that money is effective at getting more votes please post evidence, and not just guesses or suspicions.

Money is a tool - like a hammer. The world's most expensive hammer is useless if used to beat the wood - and not the nail.

[monster]

Originally Posted by tw

Money is a tool - like a hammer. The world's most expensive hammer is useless if used to beat the wood - and not the nail.

amen
awomen
this.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by tw

Money is a tool - like a hammer. The world's most expensive hammer is useless if used to beat the wood - and not the nail.

Originally Posted by monster

amen
awomen
this.

Oh my yes, I agree with monster, that's a good one tw.
It doesn't solve the puzzle of money and this election, but it's certainly a powerful metaphor.

[tw]

Beat wood is a metaphor for what?

[Undertoad]

My evidence is that Hillary outspent Trump 2 to 1 with no measurable effect on the outcome, and Democratic challengers and open seat candidates outspent Republicans by more than 2 to 1 with no measurable effect on the outcome.

Could just be a 2016 thing, I welcome more evidence.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Oops, my bad. Sorry.
Yes, 2016 had a lot of things going on we didn't, or at least hadn't noticed, before. One was the intense social media and email campaigns against Obama and anyone connected to him, more than just usual damning the Democrats in general.

Another thing I noticed was the push by the Koch & company at governorships and state legislatures. It could be that I'm just more informed than in the past.

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

My evidence is that Hillary outspent Trump 2 to 1 with no measurable effect on the outcome, and Democratic challengers and open seat candidates outspent Republicans by more than 2 to 1 with no measurable effect on the outcome.

Could just be a 2016 thing, I welcome more evidence.

We have no real way of saying what the outcome of that election would have been had those amounts of money not been spent. To what extent massive spending by one side may have served to ameliorate a drop in support

All we have are statistical curves and election on election polling and voting data and if there's anything we all should have learned by now it's that polling and voting patterns are not nearly good enough predictors of major political shifts.

It wasn't as if Trump won by a landslide, sweeping up both the electoral college vote and the popular vote. Maybe the Democrats should take from this that they could have spent that bit more and maybe tipped the election in their favour.

Maybe the Republicans can consider what a close shave they had by not spending as much.

I don't think that's the message they should take but it's as rationale as next message.

[sexobon]

That was a gross oversimplification. Apparently you just didn't think it was worth your time to elaborate. You shortchanged us.

Money is a medium of exchange.