If you want to assume that advertising doesn’t work, I can’t make you believe it.
But if you think that one man should be able to outfund a million normal donators you’re advocating that one man having a super-vote. If you want to live in a oligarchy, well, fine, but I suspect its because you aren’t visualizing how shitty it would be.
Of course it works!
That’s not the same thing as saying that money wins elections though. Perhaps the winner would have won anyway.
No I’m not. That’s profoundly ridiculous. The voters decide who wins elections. Period. Do you not understand that fact? People vote. Money doesn’t. Enormously simple concept to understand.
Nope.
You’re doing the correlation = causation thing.
I could claim that putting a rock on my head cures most headaches within 48 hours too. After all, pretty much all headaches were gone after 48 hours for every person who tried it!
The way you find out if a causation exists is a carefully designed scientific study.
Like this one: http://www.rochester.edu/college/psc/clarke/204/Levitt94.pdf
Just read the summary if you want.
But let’s make this clear again - it doesn’t matter if the guy with the most money wins.
The voters like the guy with the most money? That’s their choice.
They can vote for any reason they want. They choose. They are responsible for their choices. It is not your place, or the government’s place, to say that they made the wrong choice. That’s how democracy works.
So, this stuff doesn’t work, then? And all these guys, they are just throwing their money away? Billionaires, captains of industry, CEOs, they can’t read a spreadsheet? Don’t know anybody who can?
First of all, they don’t always know if the money is needed before an election happens. It’s not 100% predictable. They may add money that’s not needed, or money that’s not going to help, without knowing it.
Second, millions of dollars go into loser’s campaigns too, remember. Just because the person with more money wins doesn’t mean they’re all just trying to “buy” elections. If that were true, they’d only give to sure winners.
On the other hand - many want to give to sure winners. But that perpetuates the idea that money is what’s winning, when what really happened is that the guy was going to win anyway, and so more people gave him money.
Of course, since 2/3rds of campaign donations come from individuals, the popularity of a candidate among voters also leads to more donations, since supporters give money as well as voting for their favorite.
None of this matters though, since the voters have 100%, absolute power over who wins elections.
Oh, so they are just throwing their money away! Well, that explains New Coke and Lehman Brothers. These guys are dumb fucks!
Didn’t think so.
Advertising works, somewhat. Ads convince a few people, but not most. usually a few is all that are needed.
Of course, election ads are different because even if they get votes, they still don’t “work” if those votes aren’t enough to win the election. So the analogy ends there.
OK, so once we’ve stipulated that money via advertising has a nonzero effect, and presumably that larger amounts of money tend to have greater effect, doesn’t it logically follow that those who have more money also have more influence?
That must be why Obama’s campaign is trying to raise a billion dollars to buy his re-election. How’s that working out for him? Don’t the polls show that the two front runners are about even?
So you are able to see this shit for what it is, but the other voters (those who don’t already side with you) are too ignorant? And that’s not arrogant?
Are those the ONLY options?
Yes, lots of Californians do smoke. And there are a lot like me who have quit and still tired of seeing these tobacco taxes come up every couple of years. Maybe they actually agreed with the argument that was made. And maybe, just maybe, those who responded to the polls were folks who were gonna stay home on election day and not actually cast a vote.
Perhaps. So what?
Influence is not power.
The voters have power. They choose how to be influenced.
Yep, that’s the scariest/most arrogant part - they always say the OTHER voters are dolts. But never them, of course. Somehow they rose above it. Somehow they are impervious to the ads and the brainwashing. They’re special.
No, the arrogance is saying that they are (except YOU, of course - you’re special somehow). You sit on your thrown and declare that the voters are just too easily manipulated and need the government to step in an ban certain speech.
This is EXACTLY the kind of thinking that the First Amendment was adopted to protect us from. YOU are the person the founding fathers feared.
It’s none of your damn business how and why they are “affected” and how they make up their minds now to vote. You don’t get to declare that elections are going wrong because you don’t like how voters make their decisions.
You drop with arrogance.
Actually, the persons they most feared was each other. And Tom Paine. The Constitution is made even more wonderful when you realize it was put together by men who didn’t trust each other as far as Tom Jefferson could throw that little bitch Al Hamilton.
Well, okay.
AND people who think like Lobohan.
Perhaps more to the point, they had no intention of empowering the common people. What, did you think they were a bunch of radical revolutionaries?
You’re the one engaging in magical thinking. Allowing one billionaire to overwhelm the donations of millions of Americans is directly contrary to our values.
Everyone should have a voice. But one man shouldn’t be able to drown out the voices of millions.
But, if you’d rather live in the a delusional world where advertising mystically only reinforces people’s beliefs, go ahead. You have the right to believe nonsense.
You sure are in a big hurry to make some enemies. I’ve got some, you can have mine.
Are you referring to George Soros?