A recent one? Because the biggest flaw in all this that I see is is that the book and study were made before the recent reprehensible supreme court decision that made the tea party rise possible. PACs are not the only game in town now.
Since you find the decision reprehensible can you please explain to me why a documentary criticizing Hillary Clinton isn’t protected by the First Amendment.
Similarly, since you support the banning of Hillary: The Movie, do you also feel that the FEC would have been justified in banning* Fahrenheit 911.*
If not, please explain why you think the FEC was write to ban* Hillary: The Movie* but not* Fahrenheit 911*.
Beyond that, you didn’t point out any flaws in Levitt’s paper.
Can you please do so in addition to explaining your support for the banning of Hillary: The Movie and your presumed support for the banning of Fahrenheit 911 in 2004.
I didn’t mean to embarrass you by bringing up the fact that you supported the banning of films.
Anyway, there’s nothing wrong with supporting book-burning.
Be honest about supporting the banning of movies and books you don’t like.
In the long run, people will have vastly more respect for you.
Actually, you just posted a link you didn’t make any arguments.
That said, I do apologize for assuming that you were capable of on your own formulating arguments explaining why the studies were flawed.
I didn’t realize that you believed in merely linking to other people’s work.
I sincerely apologize for assuming you were an original thinker capable of putting forth a compelling argument of your own as opposed to merely linking to others.
From now on you have my word that I will not overestimate your ability to form an argument or your willingness to put forth your own opinion as opposed to hiding behind that of someone else.
That said, I am interested to hear from someone who supports the banning of movies they don’t like so if you wouldn’t mind would you please explain your reasoning behind supporting laws allowing the government to ban both Hillary: The Movie and Fahrenheit 911.
And please, if it’s not too much to ask, please post your own arguments rather than linking to someone else’s arguments.
Translation: You do not bother to check the evidence ever, it is easier for you to personally attract the poster, so I will ignore your sorry attempt at thinking that is fine and dandy to ignore pertinent information that should modify what you attempt to pass as “educated” opinion.
As I pointed before, I do distrust people that rely mostly on books to expand on their old papers. Levitt is indeed ignoring recent developments and positive feedback loops.
“Have you stopped beating your wife?” questions are rather worthless except to expose the questioner as one more interested in cheap tricks than actual discussion.
In this case, they are so far beyond even a straw man position as to be a truly dishonest ploy.
Knock it off.
Further, there are far too many personal attacks in the following post.
Stick to the actual discussion and leave the personal comments for The BBQ Pit.
The data I have seen (including the Leavitt and a few others) indicates that increased spending does very little for well-known candidates. That is, a million extra bucks spent by Obama isn’t really going to move the needle very much in 2012.
However, additional money makes a very large difference when you look at little-known candidates getting their name recognition up.
Or, a more concise way to put it is - money won’t make them like you, but it can make them know you. Which is pretty much a required first step for getting elected.
I think it’s important to differentiate between self-funded campaigns (which tend to do poorly) and ones that spend a lot from donations (where at a minimum getting lots of people to give you money indicates some level of strong support).
I’m sorry but what you are saying is highly illogical.
GIGO claimed that the Citizens United decision was “reprehensible”.
The decision was all about whether or not McCain-Feingold was constitutional and whether the government could ban a documentary criticizing a political candidate during an election season.
Specifically, the case was regarding whether or not Citizens United could distribute a documentary critizing Hillary Clinton during the Democratic primaries.
Now if someone declares a decision overturning McCain-Feingold and overturning the FEC’s temporary banning of a movie then presumably it’s not illogical to believe the person feels that McCain-Feingold was a good law and supports the government’s temporary banning of Hillary: The Movie.
Based on your logic if someone makes a reference to “the reprehensible Roe v. Wade decision” then it would be wrong for me to ask them why they think the government should have the power to ban abortions and that such a question was “a strawman” if not “far from a strawman” and tantamount to asking him “have you stopped beating your wife.”
Sorry, but if someone attacks a Supreme Court ruling on whether or not the government can ban a movie then I see nothing wrong with asking them why they think the government has the right to ban a movie.
Now if you think that’s not only a strawman but “far from a strawman” please explain your reasoning.
The findings do not show that money has no effect just that it has a small effect. In politics getting 49.9995% of the vote in a two person rate gets you the same result as getting 0% of the vote. Therefore politicians raise and spend huge amounts of money to get those final 1 or 2 percentage points.
Stop trying to put words in the mouths of others that they never said, by removing the rest you are attempting to make say something to the person and not the opinion, what I said was:
“so I will ignore your sorry attempt at thinking that is fine and dandy to ignore pertinent information that should modify what you attempt to pass as “educated” opinion.”
So yes, I do concentrate on your opinion, what I do see is what Jas09 and others said, there are several items missed on that research by Levitt, ignoring the march of time and the pertinent research based criticism against Levitt is not a good idea.
I would maintain that in saying money cannot buy elections, Terr is making an extraordinary claim. After all, money has historically been used to buy votes, and elections are made of votes. And the constant whoring that politicians on both side of the aisle do for campaign money indicates that they feel that money is essential to running a winning campaign – and who would know better?
Now, if you are making an extraordinary claim, extraordinary proof is required.
The fact that, as cited above, other social scientists have found results that either do not support or directly contradict the OP’s cite means that his extraordinary claim does not have extraordinary proof, and hence can be safely ignored until such time as actual extraordinary proof exists.
I don’t know if money can buy large election but they can certainly buy some primaries and local elections. And even in larger elections there is a price of admission. If you can’t raise a certain amount of money by certain deadlines, your candidacy is in peril.
No, that’s bribery, a different matter altogether. Asserting that campaign dollars beyond a certain threshold sway elections materially is no less an extraordinary claim than the counter. What leads you to conclude that campaign dollars sway elections, other than “everybody knows it”?
Sure, but that’s for a presidential election. It doesn’t really apply for a State Senate seat, or even a US House seat. I think in those races, particularly as a challenger with low name recognition, money has a sizable impact.
And I appreciate the comment above about how much a presidential or US Senate candidate would be willing to pay for 1-2% of the vote. That is not inconsequential.
