First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Post Reply Republicans outpacing Democrats in fundraising for 2017
23042 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 7/17/17

qwueri wrote:

I wonder at what point dumping money into a campaign starts yielding diminishing returns.


I think this race may either have that or be damn close to it: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/20/us/politics/georgia-6th-most-expensive-house-election.html

55 million dollars spent on a position that pays $175,000. Huge amounts of outside state interference.
Posted 7/17/17
This reminds me of when Obama flew into Los Angeles such a big deal was made all over the news and then those ugly street closures
haha.. then you find out it was to raise money if i recall correctly- it was Barbra Streisand home to raise money$ and i'm like
i don't give a shit just keep our streets open was all i was thinking.
37964 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 7/17/17 , edited 7/17/17

Rujikin wrote:

I think this race may either have that or be damn close to it: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/20/us/politics/georgia-6th-most-expensive-house-election.html

55 million dollars spent on a position that pays $175,000. Huge amounts of outside state interference.


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/21/us/politics/21donate.html

Here's another example, though in this case the spending was beyond the point of diminishing returns because it was the incumbent's race to lose and there wasn't any serious opposition to begin with. The point of all the opulent partying, the traveling, the peppering mailers everywhere possible, was to build up an enormous donor base for a presidential run. And when the time came Clinton threw gobs of cash at getting elected President twice to no avail.

Honestly, this is pretty much the perfect cautionary tale for this topic whoever the "winner" of the money race happens to be at the time. Being a fundraising powerhouse is a guarantee of nothing if people aren't convinced you're looking out for their best interests. Nothing, not even being a national celebrity with deep pockets, deeper ties to well-heeled donor networks, and the unwavering support of a major political party promises you victory.

The Democratic Party has watched its brand decay horrifically precisely because it has forgotten this and tried instead to grab up as much cash as it can. People aren't convinced it's looking out for them anymore, that its Representatives and Senators at the state and federal level actually care. That's why there's so much talk about reforming the party from the inside or establishing a new one. And seeing that Democratic candidates are having a harder time winning because of this negative perception of the party, and further because this negative perception has resulted in calls for reforms that would disadvantage donors, the money is flowing toward the GOP now.
Posted 7/17/17

Rujikin wrote:


qwueri wrote:

I wonder at what point dumping money into a campaign starts yielding diminishing returns.


I think this race may either have that or be damn close to it: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/20/us/politics/georgia-6th-most-expensive-house-election.html

55 million dollars spent on a position that pays $175,000. Huge amounts of outside state interference.


Do some searching on the ROI for lobbying ;)

That's why....Citizens United.

Now for extra credit, class....can someone explain to me how corporations are people? I'm trying to think of some good incentive for the correct answer, hehe
28646 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 7/17/17 , edited 7/17/17

BlueOni wrote:


Rujikin wrote:

I think this race may either have that or be damn close to it: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/20/us/politics/georgia-6th-most-expensive-house-election.html

55 million dollars spent on a position that pays $175,000. Huge amounts of outside state interference.


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/21/us/politics/21donate.html

Here's another example, though in this case the spending was beyond the point of diminishing returns because it was the incumbent's race to lose and there wasn't any serious opposition to begin with. The point of all the opulent partying, the traveling, the peppering mailers everywhere possible, was to build up an enormous donor base for a presidential run. And when the time came Clinton threw gobs of cash at getting elected President twice to no avail.

Honestly, this is pretty much the perfect cautionary tale for this topic whoever the "winner" of the money race happens to be at the time. Being a fundraising powerhouse is a guarantee of nothing if people aren't convinced you're looking out for their best interests. Nothing, not even being a national celebrity with deep pockets, deeper ties to well-heeled donor networks, and the unwavering support of a major political party promises you victory.

The Democratic Party has watched its brand decay horrifically precisely because it has forgotten this and tried instead to grab up as much cash as it can. People aren't convinced it's looking out for them anymore, that its Representatives and Senators at the state and federal level actually care. That's why there's so much talk about reforming the party from the inside or establishing a new one. And seeing that Democratic candidates are having a harder time winning because of this negative perception of the party, and further because this negative perception has resulted in calls for reforms that would disadvantage donors, the money is flowing toward the GOP now.


With NYC, DC, Hollywood and Silicon Valley being fertile ground for liberal ideology you would think money would not be hard to come by. But maybe the halls of power are put off by the recent losses and lack of unity beyond "resist".

Those hubs have influence beyond anything Trump and co. could ever hope to achieve but it may be like what you seem to be hinting at. Their is a competition for the soul of the Democratic Party. I don't expect The Green Party's numbers to see a huge jump. But if Bernie decided to make his own party he would have half of the Democratic Party and half the independents right from the jump.
23042 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 7/17/17 , edited 7/17/17

BlueOni wrote:


Rujikin wrote:

I think this race may either have that or be damn close to it: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/20/us/politics/georgia-6th-most-expensive-house-election.html

55 million dollars spent on a position that pays $175,000. Huge amounts of outside state interference.


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/21/us/politics/21donate.html

Here's another example, though in this case the spending was beyond the point of diminishing returns because it was the incumbent's race to lose and there wasn't any serious opposition to begin with. The point of all the opulent partying, the traveling, the peppering mailers everywhere possible, was to build up an enormous donor base for a presidential run. And when the time came Clinton threw gobs of cash at getting elected President twice to no avail.

Honestly, this is pretty much the perfect cautionary tale for this topic whoever the "winner" of the money race happens to be at the time. Being a fundraising powerhouse is a guarantee of nothing if people aren't convinced you're looking out for their best interests. Nothing, not even being a national celebrity with deep pockets, deeper ties to well-heeled donor networks, and the unwavering support of a major political party promises you victory.

The Democratic Party has watched its brand decay horrifically precisely because it has forgotten this and tried instead to grab up as much cash as it can. People aren't convinced it's looking out for them anymore, that its Representatives and Senators at the state and federal level actually care. That's why there's so much talk about reforming the party from the inside or establishing a new one. And seeing that Democratic candidates are having a harder time winning because of this negative perception of the party, and further because this negative perception has resulted in calls for reforms that would disadvantage donors, the money is flowing toward the GOP now.



Damn. Hillary sure knows how to blow through money. She was blowing through it it before it was cool. Yeah having the most money anymore doesn't help too much anymore thanks to the internet. A simple tweet can be worth more than a hundred thousand advertising dollars.

Has it decayed? I grew up thinking the Dems were saviors of the working man and Republicans were evil rich men trying to oppress the working man. I found out this wasn't true and so I eventually seen the Dems for what they were. I know I changed but I am not sure the Dems have changed as I was just uninformed when I was a Democrat.


jolietjoe wrote:


Rujikin wrote:


qwueri wrote:

I wonder at what point dumping money into a campaign starts yielding diminishing returns.


I think this race may either have that or be damn close to it: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/20/us/politics/georgia-6th-most-expensive-house-election.html

55 million dollars spent on a position that pays $175,000. Huge amounts of outside state interference.


Do some searching on the ROI for lobbying ;)

That's why....Citizens United.

Now for extra credit, class....can someone explain to me how corporations are people? I'm trying to think of some good incentive for the correct answer, hehe


Because bullshit thats why. Corporations are machines who's sole purpose is the generation of wealth for it's owners. Even business classes teach that. Sadly most politicians are as far from business as possible and just stay in the magical lawyer side of things.
270 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/17/17 , edited 7/17/17
You seriously think this is news? Republicans have always been pulling in more money than Democrats- why do you think they even fought so hard to legalize PACs in the first place?
23042 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 7/17/17

AnimeATLA wrote:

You seriously think this is news? Republicans have always been pulling in more money than Democrats- why do you think they even fought so hard to legalize PACs in the first place?


Ask Blomberg: https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising/

Oh and George Soros lost 1 Billion during the election.
28646 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 7/17/17

Rujikin wrote:


AnimeATLA wrote:

You seriously think this is news? Republicans have always been pulling in more money than Democrats- why do you think they even fought so hard to legalize PACs in the first place?


Ask Blomberg: https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising/

Oh and George Soros lost 1 Billion during the election.


Oh shit.

That's nothing to him though. But still, to be a fly on the wall of his dungeon on Nov. 8
23042 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 7/17/17

runec wrote:


MysticGon wrote:
The Rock is a heartthrob though. People will be tuning in to see the female anchors sliding off their chairs. They'll be forgiven for that.


He is a slab of throbbing manbeef, yes.

The people have spoken though. They want celebrity/novelty over experience/qualifications. They want drama over policy. They want to be told that the people they disagree with are evil and only oppose them because of how good and righteous they are.

I'm not going to put any faith in cable news being the side that stands ups first in this equation.


"Exerience" has gotten us 20 trillion in debt, our justice system is a mess, our tax system is a mess, and we will go bankrupt at this rate. Maybe they have experience but that experience isn't in governing or representing the people properly, might be in bribery and corruption.

I'd take a chance at venturing into the unknown rather than going down a path of sure doom.
runec 
38982 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/18/17

Rujikin wrote:
"Exerience" has gotten us 20 trillion in debt, our justice system is a mess, our tax system is a mess, and we will go bankrupt at this rate. Maybe they have experience but that experience isn't in governing or representing the people properly, might be in bribery and corruption.

I'd take a chance at venturing into the unknown rather than going down a path of sure doom.


You have to at least know how shit works. You can't play catch up the day after your inauguration. I mean yes, there's experience in the sense of career/family politicians in the Good Ol' Club with either party. But, as you say, that's not experience with actually governing. That's experience with greasing the system for your own benefit. It's kind of a fucked up spiral to be honest.

Shitty people keep making new, shittier rules, which keeps non-shitty people from wanting ( or even being able to afford ) to enter politics for the sake of the actually making a difference. Shitty rules can't be overturned because unlike the presidency, the shit infested rat hovel that is Congress is not subjected to pesky things like term limits. Then Congress benefits from the fact that the average person off the street doesn't know or doesn't pay enough attention to all the shit they're up to in order to realize where its coming from. So they blame the President or whichever party isn't their "team".
58046 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M
Offline
Posted 7/18/17

Rujikin wrote:


"Exerience" has gotten us 20 trillion in debt, our justice system is a mess, our tax system is a mess, and we will go bankrupt at this rate. Maybe they have experience but that experience isn't in governing or representing the people properly, might be in bribery and corruption.

I'd take a chance at venturing into the unknown rather than going down a path of sure doom.


Kinda the feel of half the country. the polls after the election said similar things. Not a lot of people trust Trump. But he was a hell of a lot better than marching down the slow road another 8 years. "Even if he's shit, let's try an outsider."
Posted 7/18/17

Rujikin wrote:
"Experience" has gotten us 20 trillion in debt, our justice system is a mess, our tax system is a mess, and we will go bankrupt at this rate. Maybe they have experience but that experience isn't in governing or representing the people properly, might be in bribery and corruption.

I'd take a chance at venturing into the unknown rather than going down a path of sure doom.


I wouldn't exactly contribute all of these things to someone who's experienced. This was prone to happen with some of the things that happened between Clinton and Bush Jr's terms. Obama wasn't heaven-sent (like some would like to believe) but he did fairly well considering the circumstances that he was dealing with. The issues with Obama are the same issues that plague Trump - there's too great of a divide between political parties to really make anything constructive. "Obamacare" came to fruition because Republicans were okay with the Demorats shooting themselves in the foot (they could have avoided it if they really wanted to, but why not have a weapon in their pocket to get re-elected and then try to get rid of it - except, it turns out that it's harder to get rid of it at this point than they thought it'd be).

As for Trump or The Rock or Kid Rock or Madonna or whoever else that may decide to run for POTUS in the next 4-8 years: it's not really about taking a chance on the "unknown". To me, there wasn't anything unknown about Trump. His talking points came from known sources, his numbers came from known Internet sites/trolls/image boards, and his policies were basically an echo of the modern libertarian values (with a heavy lean on the right in social views to make sure he could still pull that Republican label off). He's inexperienced and has no clue what he's doing at POTUS. He's trying, but he's not doing as well as he had hoped. It was predictable. If anyone but Hilary was running, he probably would have lost (because let's face it, Clinton was probably the worst person that the Democrats could have thrown into the mix - but they were banking on that "first <x> POTUS" (first African-American POTUS followed by first Female POTUS) thing).

In the end, Trump isn't immune to the bribery or corruption. He's always been the elbow-rubbing kind of guy. "You do a favor for me, I do one for you." This has lead him down several scenarios riddled with both bribery and corruption; just not as a government official. Money is money, and Trump loves the money as long as it goes into his bank account. He didn't go after the position of POTUS for nothing, nor for "the people". But in all fairness, I believe it would be difficult to get to that position without some hobnobbing and elbow rubbing. So my assessment of Trump is no different than any other POTUS (at least when it comes to the corruption/bribery angle). Had to dab in a little bit of both to get to sit in that seat.
Posted 7/19/17

Rujikin wrote:


Because bullshit thats why. Corporations are machines who's sole purpose is the generation of wealth for it's owners. Even business classes teach that. Sadly most politicians are as far from business as possible and just stay in the magical lawyer side of things.


Ah yes this was the thread.

Of course its bullshit, that wasnt the question. What is the legally coherent explanation for this? Of course its meant to just flood the political landscape with currency and generate more currency for the "owners" - but there IS actually a legally coherent explanation for why this is.

Its ugly, and that's the only other clue I'm offering
37964 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 7/21/17 , edited 7/21/17

MysticGon wrote:

With NYC, DC, Hollywood and Silicon Valley being fertile ground for liberal ideology you would think money would not be hard to come by. But maybe the halls of power are put off by the recent losses and lack of unity beyond "resist".

Those hubs have influence beyond anything Trump and co. could ever hope to achieve but it may be like what you seem to be hinting at. Their is a competition for the soul of the Democratic Party. I don't expect The Green Party's numbers to see a huge jump. But if Bernie decided to make his own party he would have half of the Democratic Party and half the independents right from the jump.


Before we continue, what do you mean by "liberal ideology"?


Rujikin wrote:

Damn. Hillary sure knows how to blow through money. She was blowing through it it before it was cool. Yeah having the most money anymore doesn't help too much anymore thanks to the internet. A simple tweet can be worth more than a hundred thousand advertising dollars.

Has it decayed? I grew up thinking the Dems were saviors of the working man and Republicans were evil rich men trying to oppress the working man. I found out this wasn't true and so I eventually seen the Dems for what they were. I know I changed but I am not sure the Dems have changed as I was just uninformed when I was a Democrat.


There was a time where a sitting Democratic President, popular enough with the general population to win effortlessly, threatened to break rank with his own party over the influence of moneyed interests upon its policy making decisions (Franklin Roosevelt). There was a time when a sitting Democratic President declared, without shame or hesitation, that offering a hollow copy of the rival party's candidates would not yield lasting victory (Truman). There was a time when rank-and-file Democrats on the ground were the people fighting for labour unions, and for desegregation, and for an end to international military conflicts, forcing sitting Democratic Presidents to call in the Army to fight against hardline racist governors to allow black students into schools, and for Presidential candidates of either major party affiliation to moderate their approach to war (the "hippie movement"), and for bankers, and insurers, and financial advisors to think twice before attempting to defraud their customers ("Occupy" and the Sanders "political revolution", still in progress).

All of that changed when the Democrats tried to emulate the success of the "Reagan Revolution" by essentially trying to compete with the Republican Party for the "pro-business party" moniker and for fundraising superiority, two fights they could never, ever win and that would, in the long game, undermine the very things that made them viable and worthwhile to begin with.

We now witness the final consequences of their error. They are desperately trying to latch on to the last thing that would've saved them, red scaring and McCarthyism. Trouble is, young people today have seen the products of social democracy and are not afraid of the concepts of Socialism and Communism, having grown up in a world where the USSR wasn't an existential threat.

The longer the Democrats cling to outdated political models and insist that he/she who has the most money, wins, the worse they'll do. Unfortunately, the people at the very tip top of the party are too stupid, too old and set in their (opulent) ways, to ever understand that. Their time will come, though. They'll be replaced, whether because they've died of old age (God, it's like the Democrats are being led by goddamned vampires at this point) or they'll be primaried out. I care not which.

As one of their favourite propagandists loves to say: "Watch this space."
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.