> Most money offered gets to be president.
But even that doesn't work. In 2016 for the US presidency, Hillary Clinton's campaign had $790M USD versus Donald Trump's $408M USD.
She had double the money 'to buy the presidency' and she still lost.
But even that doesn't work. In 2016 for the US presidency, Hillary Clinton's campaign had $790M USD versus Donald Trump's $408M USD.
She had double the money 'to buy the presidency' and she still lost.
Right now Russian companies are only alleged to have spent a few million dollars, so it's not clear that the investigation will show any material impact on the spending ratios.
[0] http://www.businessinsider.com/carter-page-trump-russia-igor... [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-rosneft-privatisat...
Paying for campaign staff, ad buys, etc. with dark money isn't a new thing. I don't see why that'd be out of the realm of possibility for the Trump campaign when "normal" campaigns get caught spending dark money.
Trump didn't magically get votes that Romney didn't. Instead, the data shows that Hillary didn't get black voters to turnout in the numbers that Obama did. She got them to turnout in the numbers that John Kerry did, and subsequently lost. Is this because she's white, and a significant minority of black people who voted for Obama simply choose not to participate when a non-black candidate is nominated by the Democrats? Nobody has the guts to ask that question.
We on the left need to get off of the "Trump stole the election with Russia's help" narrative, and get on the "Hillary doubled Trump's spending, had 5 times as much campaign staff, and according to Donna Brazille hijacked the DNC and the primaries, and still lost" narrative. We have two corrupt political parties in this country, not one. And both sides act like the other party is the only one.
It was even worse than that (for HRC and the Dems). Did she even visit Wisconsin during the campaign?
Also there are reports that Trump received a higher fraction of the black vote than Romney got.
It also shows voter suppression by Republicans hurt Democratic turnout in critical states (Wisconsin).
Roughly half of Americans voted for Trump, to insinuate that they are all bigots is to insult half of the country. Obviously most of the bigots voted for Trump, but they are still a very small minority. To win the next election Democrats need to convince Trump voters to switch sides by demonstrating that they care about middle America, which is 95% of what Trump's campaign was.
There was approximately 61.4% adult voter turnout. Not only that, trump LOST the popular vote with only 46.1% of the ballots.
What this comes out to is that roughly 30% of eligible voting adults supported Trump. This is _nowhere near_ "roughly half of Americans".
(I'd add the additional factor that only ~130[EDIT: 250] million of the ~323 million US population is even eligible to vote. I don't mean this in terms of "Oh secretly all infants liked Hillary" but that it seems disingenuous to portray the numbers as an overwhelming popular mandate in the way you're suggesting. The data is simply not that comprehensive.)
EDIT: As newlyretired correctly pointed out I conflated the total eligible # (250m) with total voted # (130m) That being said, I still stand by the crux of my post.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_St...
True Trump only had 46%, but Hillary only had 48%. If the entire US population was only 100 people all lined up on opposite sides of one room you'd have a hard time telling them apart by their numbers alone.
My point was more like this: A lot of people voted for Trump. Incumbents typically have an easier time getting re-elected than their challengers. If Democrats want to stop a second Trump term they need to get voters on their side. Pidgeonholing the entire right side of the American political spectrum as redneck bigots is a surefire
That all depends on how the Mueller investigation will end. Chances are Trump will not be able to get on a ballot by then.
I disagree that is what the narrative is. I agree, though, that it's not likely any significant number of people (if any) switched votes.
To me, the narrative is that Russia was, and is, sowing discord into politics. They are just trying to incite more civil strife and divide us more. And that is what seems to be working.
The recently publicized ads, for example, all just reinforce right and left-leaning stereotypes. They don't try to get anyone sitting on the fence.
Source: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/20/14061660/w...
strawman.
Some other theories about why black turnout was low this election:
Voter suppression: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/10/voter-suppressio...
Russian-funded fake social media activism specifically targeted at black people: https://www.npr.org/2017/10/20/559113232/russian-operatives-...
https://thinkprogress.org/black-matters-us-site-90625b18f262...
Also, how does black targeted propaganda and state-wide "voter suppression" laws explain that HRC lost big on the black vote relative to 2012, but Republicans came out equal or perhaps even better in the black vote, despite the media screaming constantly that Trump is racist.
This stuff is really, really not conducive to good discussion.
> Also, how does black targeted propaganda and state-wide "voter suppression" laws explain that HRC lost big on the black vote relative to 2012, but Republicans came out equal or perhaps even better in the black vote
A few things here:
* Can you cite a source that says Republicans did better in the black vote relative to 2012?
* Since the starting proportions were so skewed, you would expect lower black turnout to disproportionately impact Democrats (due to simple compositional effects).
* The propaganda was specifically anti-Hillary (not anti-voting), so you would expect it to disproportionately impact Democrats.
Do you think it is an unfair statement? Perhaps I should have said "despite the media frequently asserting that Trump is racist".
> * Can you cite a source that says Republicans did better in the black vote relative to 2012?
I compared the 2016 and 2012 CNN exit polls for this: http://www.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls and http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president/
I know exit polls aren't perfect but the samples are large here and I don't see any reason to expect some kind of pro-Trump or anti-Romney bias in these.
What exactly is the Russian propaganda you're talking about? I've only read about them promoting both sides of contentious issues like BLM
Both narratives are virtually impossible to prove or disprove, which makes them perfect fodder for the wishful thinking of the liberal think tanks.
I find them to be highly insulting to the working class whites and blacks that they pertain to.
It is the height of condescension when comparatively wealthy people ascribe a high level of gullibility to people groups who they likely don't associate with. It's patronizing and dehumanizing, and honestly, smug.
Everyone is susceptible to propaganda and information warfare. Rich and poor, black and white, urban and rural.
Critically examining the way false information is spread via social media is not insulting or classist.
If you think that the fervor with which this is being done isn't being pursued due to a narrative that it caused Trump to win, you're being very naive.
I also resent the fact that you are insinuating I CALLED black people poor and helpless. I didn't. I simply characterized a belief that I believe many pushing the Russian meddling are running with: That these campaigns were not only run (of course they were) but that they were persuasive enough to have had an effect on the outcome of the election.
You aren't wrong about all classes being susceptible to propaganda. I've been shocked by how many well-off people I work and socialize with (fellow left thinking people) have begun to resemble the right-wing people I witnessed for years jumping to conclusions about the fake-scandal that was Benghazi. Rational people who latch onto rumors as facts.
Steve Bannon = White Supremacist (he's not, just an asshole) Donald Trump being blackmailed by Kremlin with tapes of him with hookers (zero evidence) Russians hacked voting machines in key states (zero evidence) Russian ads on social media influenced voting outcomes (zero evidence)
I want to point out that none of these are things that sway people's existing opinions. They are all just confirming their existing biases.
Anyone have a good source for an estimate of how much corporations and individuals spent on political advertising last election cycle?
In addition, we can look at state-level races to get more data on the effect of campaign spending. It turns out that, after a certain point[0], campaign spending does not correlate very well with campaign success, and in self-funded candidates in particular actually tend to underperform: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/sometimes-money-cant-bu...
[0] ie, obviously your gubernatorial campaign won't get very far if you only have $1000, total. But the difference between $40MM (what Brown spent in his 2010 campaign for governor) and $200MM (what Meg Whitman spent in that same race) is a lot less than people think.
He made them alot of money in clicks, and that's what journalism is about.
Ultimate responsibility maybe lies somewhere else, but there's plenty of blame to go around and they emphatically deserve some of it.
They still haven't. Whenever I tune into CNN, all they ever talk about is Trump. I watch NBC instead.
Found a quick link from google.
http://www.businessinsider.com/apples-biggest-marketing-secr...
To go beyond that you'd have to go back to Johnson vs Goldwater, which was before I was even born.
That those swing voters themselves are a mixed bunch is not relevant, all that expense went to influence just a very small fraction of the state population.