Jeb spent $2845 per vote in Iowa | Hacker News Reader

Jeb spent $2845 per vote in Iowa

braid.io

40 pointsshihn34 comments

They took the dollars that each candidate spent on advertising and divided it by the number of votes they received. They only highlighted the total dollars spent ($14.9M) and total votes received (5,235) by Jeb Bush, but didn't bring up the totals of any of the other candidates. For all we know, he could have spent the least amount of money. It's impossible to tell without the other candidates' totals. If I paid my friend $10 to vote for me, then I'd be spending $10/vote which all of a sudden sounds pretty good. Although, if I spent $5k to convince that same friend then all of a sudden my efficiency has dropped below Jeb's.

EDIT: Was easy enough to find those other numbers. http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/and-the-total-amount-spent-campai...

Total Iowa ad spending so far:

  Team Bush: $14.9 million (all from the Right to Rise Super PAC)
  Team Rubio: $11.8 million ($4.6 million from campaign, $4.7 million from Super PAC, $2.5million from 501c4
  Team Clinton: $9.4 million (all but $50K from campaign)
  Team Sanders: $7.4 million (all from campaign)
  Team Cruz: $6.0 million ($2.2 million from campaign, rest from outside groups)
  Team Trump: $3.3 million (all from campaign)
  Team Carson: $3.5 million ($3.2 million from campaign, $300K from Super PAC)
  Team Jindal: $3.3 million
  Team Huckabee: $2 million (all from Super PAC)
  Team Paul: $1.1 million
  Team Walker: $1 million
  Team Perry: $814,000
  Team O’Malley: $219,000 (all from Super PAC)
  Team Santorum: $3,000 (all from campaign)

The bottom of the page has a link for the source with all the absolute number: https://morningconsult.com/briefs/campaigns-brief-how-to-wat...

Could someone elaborate on the reasons for his lack of popularity? Is it because of his Brother/Father's track record?

Sorry for my ignorance, I don't live in the U.S so I'm just an observer.

Probably because he's too moderate. There are more extreme candidates that people gravitate to.

People are understandably wary of having a de facto monarchy (this hurts Hillary Clinton as well).

Also, W was not very popular by the end of his second term.

Besides that, Jeb is not super charismatic, and is at odds with the base on immigration.

> Besides that, Jeb is not super charismatic

His brother was not particularly charismatic either, but he's a former 2-term president and also a former 2-term Texas governor.

Uhhrrr was perhaps being polite, he's much less charismatic than his brother.

In person, W was apparently very charismatic. I remember seeing an Atlantic article and an article by one of his ghostwriters which spoke to this, but I can't find them quickly. "Journeys With George" shows some of it, though: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEzTn1khVAM .

Somewhat, but we are only talking about Republican voters here. The problem with Jeb is he got slammed with Common Core (a big no-no with Republican rank-and-file) and his dumb attack on Rubio. He is not really regarded as a conservative and really doesn't know how to energize voters. It doesn't really help that many of his backers are regarded as "establishment" and that is really ticking off the local voters since they seem to squander every opportunity given. You can see some of this split in the opinions about Fox News and the, hell with it, Trump voters.

His child on the other hand will probably do very well when he runs for national office as he has the charisma his father lacks.

One thing about watching this stuff from the outside, understand the media is primarily coastal-based and their opinion of either President Bush probably is not reflective of the voters in Iowa. Look at a county election map of the US for some insight. I would also say Nate Silver is doing a pretty good job of it again.

He also quite explicitly said we need Latin American immigrants because we natives aren't as entrepreneurial as they are, a very bad position for this election, and something the base has been in frank revolt about since his brother's big 2006 push.

And, yeah, he was the anointed establishment candidate, raised 103 million for his super PAC in the first half of 2015, none of those play well in this election.

He's much more hapless than his brother on the campaign trail, as noted by others we've had enough of the Bush family, etc. etc.

His brother was a master at the campaign trail (and his wife did very well herself). I know people don't like his policies or him personally, but people should understand how good he was meeting people and doing the campaigning. Its very much like Republicans who don't get President Clinton.

Hmmm, I'm not sure, I was rather distracted in the 2 presidential campaigns his brother ran, but I don't think those they were masterful. My impression is that he himself is maybe merely good and not at all "hapless" ... and that aspect of politics doesn't do much for me. Heck, the first presidential candidate I rooted for was Nixon ^_^! (When I was 7, but still did so 4 year later when he ran against McGovern.)

I'm more talking the charisma route - watch him work a crowd. Jeb does not have that. Actually, watching Bush and Clinton work a crowd is pretty interesting since they appear together a lot over the last couple of years.

I remember Ford/Carter and I didn't really like Carter since he was sad all the time (I was 6). I did get to see Ross Perot's speech in Fargo, ND for the 1992 campaign. I was amazed at the lack of visible security and his stage presence given how he sounded in interviews.

> His brother was a master at the campaign trail

Really! Master at what? Endless supply of comedic material...

More than one factor must have contributed to his lack of popularity, despite his pedigree.

But one that I know for sure contributed, is he's not conservative enough in the eyes of the Republican base. In other words, he's viewed as being closer to liberals or "too soft" on a range of issues, including but not limited to immigration, willingness to use American military power abroad, and not religious enough.

It has also been said that "Bush fatigue" contributed, but I think if he had been spitting conservative fire from day 1, he'd had been the right candidate for the extreme right of the Republican base.

So is half of America that religious and conservative to actually approve people like Ted Cruz, Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina?

> So is half of America that religious and conservative to actually approve people like Ted Cruz, Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina?

More than half of the Republican Party is. You don't need support of half of America to be a major party nominee (or even win the election, for that you just need more support than the other major party nominee -- ignoring the distorting effects of the electoral college system, which can actually let you win without even that, if your support has the right geographic distribution.)

Combined with the fact that less than 62% of legally registered voters voted in the 2012 (Presidential) election, well under half the population.

Yes, although Dr. Carson suffers from the same religious prejudice issue (he's SDA) that Mr. Romney (Mormon) suffered from.

Once you step outside the boundaries of the major cities, you'll be shocked at the type of opinions Americans hold.

I suspect you may be on to something...

His father, George H. W. Bush, was known for prosecuting a fairly "successful" war--the 1990-1991 Gulf War--that ostensibly lasted about 5 months...essentially "ejecting the Iraqi army from Kuwait"--the stated goal... his domestic record was viewed as "less than stellar"...

Americans pay attention to things like that and seem to relish a victory...listen to the response to Whitney Houston singing the National Anthem at the 1991 Super Bowl:

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&e... (This is worth a listen even if you're only interested in the question itself...it's the best rendering I'm aware of at any time in U.S. history.)

The audience's response hints at the "prevailing" national mood at that time...

His brother, George W. Bush, served 2 terms with mixed results...some counted him as one of the least-talented (intellectually) Presidents the U.S. has ever seated...here you can factor in the controversial 2003 invasion of Iraq itself, and the mishandling of a response to Hurricane Katrina, especially in the city of New Orleans...

I'll stop here; the tale is long and complicated...those are just major highlights...

Jeb Bush is likely quite capable of exceeding expectations, but some say he lacks charisma, charm...there's probably some reluctance to elect another Bush because of journalists and historian's evaluations of the presidencies of his father and brother...

Having said all that, he might be the best qualified "moderate" candidate the Republicans could field in this election...time will tell...he appears to be out of the running for a nomination...

That's the popular media and pop-culture narrative, but it just wasn't true. Read firsthand accounts from non-media policy experts who were there, for example... http://keithhennessey.com/2013/04/24/smarter/

Similarly, Eisenhower and Reagan were portrayed as a dottering grandfatherly types disinterested in policy during their tenure, but honest historians later gave them their due.

That's precisely why I used the word "some"...

The questioner asked about his brother's track record, specifically the potentially negative aspects of that record...public perception, even if shaped or influenced, remains that...truth often doesn't enter into it, just as you correctly allude...thanks for your response...

The real story here seems to be Trump's impressive showing, having both the most votes per $ AND the most votes per day spent there.

Dude, just drop out already.

I wish someone would do this with the Walker *recall (not impeachment) advertising dollars, from several years ago. I think it was somewhere around a magnitude more than the challenger.

Recall, you're thinking recall, not impeachment.

And Walker's fight was viewed as one for the Right for the whole country, I, for example, sent him $200 for that, did my part to validate the recall petitioner signatures on a web site they set up (didn't find any bad ones), etc.

Rather a different thing than a normal election. Oh, and Walker won.

Fixed.

And yeah, he only won 52% to 46% (w/ 4% margin of error), despite spending 7x.

* Walker Spending Dollars: $30.5 million

* Barret Spending Dollars: $4 million

* Walker cost per vote: $23.10

* Barret cost per vote: $3.49

Thanks for interfering with another state's recall, I guess. You fell for their schtick that the entire country was threatened, when in reality it was just WI public sector workers losing their universal rights.

The same universal "rights" FDR thought it was unconscionable for them to have? Wasn't until JFK at the national level, and as I recall Wisconsin a few years before, that this ripoff of taxpayers started, public sector unions negotiating with politicians for the mutual benefit.

I, for one, want that replicated in my state, so we don't go bankrupt like Illinois and California are frequently close to, so establishing that a governor and ruling party could do this without losing in the polls was essential, my state is very much threatened.

The same Universal Rights as declared by the United Nations.

I don't really care about whatever fallacious reasoning you've come up with to appease your cognitive bias. It's pretty obvious your critical thinking is impaired if you think setting a state budget has anything to do with collective bargaining. Or that the people whom you paid $200 to take rights away from are even a threat. Good job.

Another example of money having little power in elections.

I'm not sure that's in any way demonstrated here. If Bush didn't have quite a bit of money he wouldn't even be on the ballot for the vote he lost. We've got ample evidence that money is extremely powerful in elections.

It would be more accurate to say the money, while still a necessary condition for competing, is not a sufficient condition for winning. You have to have...well, a personality, too.

You mean, except for Marco Rubio who was the 3rd largest spend per vote, and a total spend of 11.8 million to Bush's 14.9 [1], and likely placed 3rd at least partially because of his ad spend. Bush is ultimately just not well liked by the new Republican base, and yes, no amount of money will change that. But among the candidates that resonate with that base, money has power.

[1] http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/and-the-total-amount-spent-campai...

If you factor in the TV time spent covering the individual campaigns, which is the broadcasters betting their money, I'm not so sure money had little influence. I wonder if anyone has compiled the coverage times of each campaign.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com