Hacker News Reader

Comment by delecti | Hacker News Reader

Trump is a big outlier though, in both the primaries and the general. More spending usually does correlate with success.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/11/does-mo...

View on HN

I agree, that might be how much actual money the campaign spent, but what about the foreign powers accused of influencing the election?

How about all of the free TV time from the grandstanding and sensational nature of the campaign?

I agree entirely, but the parent was purely talking about spending by the candidates' campaigns, so I responded in kind. Even if none of the suspected Russian meddling actually happened, Trump got an immense amount of free media coverage by being such a spectacle.

You think other side would have rejected free TV time?

May be she did. She might have avoided unscripted exposure. That actually makes Trump's run that much more effective.

Why should we care about the correlation? It's apparent that an election isn't an auction.

For what it's worth, I did say "correlate", I think delecti is responding to that.

what an odd response. We care because it suggests very strongly that money is important in winning elections. What is your point here? That it doesn't guarantee success?

My point is 'how much can money matter when a 3x-10x spending advantage doesn't translate into victory'?

One part of me wonders if we see the correlation because candidates who are more likely to win get more money as sort of an 'advance' for favors? If I knew that my grocer was about to become a sheriff, I'd volunteer to pay $6 for a banana just to be sure we were on good terms. I think speeches work broadly the same way - banks pay politicians 400k to recite a 15 minute stump speech they've already delivered and both parties get to act like it was a legitimate transaction without any additional elements.

the only way I could test that hypothesis is by comparing the money a candidate raises verses their expected chance of victory. But I think I'm somewhat vindicated, candidates in races that are perceived as close seem to haul less than candidates in safe races. Pelosi raises a ton of money and I'm not sure all of it is given to beat the helpless Republican who runs against her. Now there are other factors at play but it's not coincidental that candidates who are the most appealing to the establishment seem to out-raise people who threaten the establishment.

I think the deeper problem is that the political class thinks they can compensate for an unappealing candidate with money.

>I think the deeper problem is that the political class thinks they can compensate for an unappealing candidate with money.

I love the fact that what they think isn't true, at least not always.

Thanks for clarifying, that makes much more sense. So you're basically asking a chicken-or-egg kind of question. Do candidates succeed because of money or do they get money because they are perceived to be likely to succeed?

Certainly there is evidence suggesting both..

Reply on news.ycombinator.com