and What Trump and Hillary Spent vs Every General Election Candidate Since 1960 - Metrocosm
Apparently Clinton outraised and outspent Trump by huge (yuge?) margins. About double. And that’s both in campaign funds and PAC funds.
So - is it one-off, or is the importance of money in politics waning? Or maybe past a certain threshold you get very much diminishing returns?
The money doesn’t need to be spent if you get a lot of free publicity from the press, which Trump did through both the novelty of his running at the beginning, and then the high level of somewhat insane antics from both him and his supporters throughout his campaign.
Like in a war she miss-spent her troops and sent them into the wrong cities and states.
Here is a chilling reason why Trump won, because the deplorable people wanted change:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2016/12/09/daily-202-trump-over-performed-the-most-in-counties-with-the-highest-drug-alcohol-and-suicide-mortality-rates/584a2a59e9b69b7e58e45f2e/?utm_term=.fe4cd87581e8
Trump over performed the most in counties with the highest drug, alcohol and suicide mortality rates
There were unconventional"antics" candidates before.
So is the money argument now - yes, money matters, but only against dull, regular-politician candidates? I mean, Jonathon Albert “The Impaler” Sharkey, as well as The Vermin Supreme and Roseanne Barr, Mike Gravel - plenty of antics, none of the traction.
I find it quite encouraging that a Presidential candidate that was outspent by 100% (or 50%, depending on which way you look) won. The less money actually influences politics the better.
And why did they think a person who spent his whole life thinking of, and working for, no one but himself would help them? Why did they believe him?
None of those others had his business history, or his willingness to say anything to seal a deal with no intention of fulfilling his end of the bargain-they just weren’t scummy enough to go the distance.
They didn’t believe Hillary. Many of the Bernie supporters refused to support the political party which stabbed Bernie in the back.
There weren’t enough Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s and Donna Brazile’s to flimflam enough of the voting public into believing that Hillary was the best candidate.
Obama campaigned for Hillary. While Obama could get Obama elected, Obama has a very poor history when it comes to helping other Democrats get elected.
Trump gave interviews. Lots of them. The media outlets loved that. Hillary gave a few press conferences, very few. Hillary passed up the chance to have everyday conversations with the press. “Conversations”, not issuing press releases and walking away.
People have been fooled by reverse causation. They see that the candidate with the most money wins and think it is because he had the most money that he won. The truth is that the best candidates raise the most money for the same reason they get the most votes, they are charismatic and persuasive. The research shows that money matters very little in elections but since losing by .1% has the same effect as losing by 50% most politicians try to raise as much as possible to get every little edge they can.
Nice “Hillary” deflection, but I’ve heard it used before and it still doesn’t answer why they believed him-a man without an altruistic bone in his body and a best-selling book on how to deal with rubes. Think you can turn the “Hillary! Hillary, Hillary!” filter off for two seconds and answer my question?
I don’t know … in fact I don’t know anyone that uses drugs other than my son and he was for Clinton.
I think your on to something there and Czarcasm said it too … Trump was on GMP almost every morning for awhile there … smiling and jawing, but after the election it’s just been tweet, tweet, look at me I am the POTUS.
Here’s a line of thinking I heard a lot - the “belief” was that the narcissistic billionaire without an altruistic bone in his body, by the nature of his narcissism and enormous vanity, would want to do absolutely the best job possible to make his presidency a successful one. Precisely because of the overarching narcissism and vanity. He would want to be remembered well.
Because those candidates weren’t very good at baiting the media into covering them. Trump was very good at generating controversies, the kind the media love to cover.
That happens a lot…in fiction.
I believe other candidates over the decades generated big controversies that were loved and covered by media (Gary Hart comes to mind). Those invariably doomed their campaigns.
So once again, the question - was Trump’s election a one-off, due to the absolutely unique nature/genius of the candidate? Or does it advance the notion that money is not that important in Presidential politics, and the qualities (not quality - qualities) of the candidate play a much more important role?
You don’t think that narcissism and vanity have driven previous Presidents to be successful, at least to some degree?
I think you’ll have to show me an example of someone of Trump’s ethical calibre suddenly turning altruistic after acquiring a lot of power. Got one?
What I said in no way implies altruism.
Then show me a solid example of what you are talking about.
Look at the last 10 or so Presidents. Which one was not narcissistic and vain? Maybe Carter - maybe. Bush the Senior, maybe. But others - definitely. Don’t you think those sides of their character played a role in their reaching Presidency and then trying to succeed?
The Presidency (politics in general, but Presidency in particular) naturally attracts the narcissists and the vain. So do some other areas of endeavor, such as show business. But then, politics is sometimes called show business for ugly people.