5th line wingnutt Posted January 30, 2012 Report Posted January 30, 2012 I'd ask how you did but you certainly could answer however you cared and I'd have no way of knowing the accuracy of your answer. Do you disagree with my assertion that the two major parties use the ability to raise campaign funds as a significant part of thier criteria when selecting candidates? Significant yes, determining no.
FogBat Posted January 31, 2012 Report Posted January 31, 2012 I'm up for a good dose of Lex Rex right about now... :)
Weave Posted January 31, 2012 Report Posted January 31, 2012 Significant yes, determining no. OK, we are going to get into a game of semantics here I guess. I can't think of one single factor that is a bigger determiner of who a major party fields than the ability to raise money. Assuming of course that most potential candidates (in a given party) are more-or-less similar in idealogy, the ability to bring money to the election campaign becomes the largest separator of the candidates. And that is what I base my assertion that your comment, "The idea that money in politics rules is mostly wrong" is inaccurate. I'm not saying "he with the most money wins". I am saying, "given when all other things are similar, he with the most money will be picked to be the party candidate".
5th line wingnutt Posted January 31, 2012 Report Posted January 31, 2012 OK, we are going to get into a game of semantics here I guess. I can't think of one single factor that is a bigger determiner of who a major party fields than the ability to raise money. Assuming of course that most potential candidates (in a given party) are more-or-less similar in idealogy, the ability to bring money to the election campaign becomes the largest separator of the candidates. And that is what I base my assertion that your comment, "The idea that money in politics rules is mostly wrong" is inaccurate. I'm not saying "he with the most money wins". I am saying, "given when all other things are similar, he with the most money will be picked to be the party candidate". Up thread you said "every time".
Weave Posted January 31, 2012 Report Posted January 31, 2012 Up thread you said "every time". Context please. Remember your original assertion that I was responding to "The idea that money in politics rules is mostly wrong". Yes, every time you vote in a general election you are voting for a candidate who was picked in great part because of their ability to raise money.
5th line wingnutt Posted January 31, 2012 Report Posted January 31, 2012 OK, we are going to get into a game of semantics here I guess. I can't think of one single factor that is a bigger determiner of who a major party fields than the ability to raise money. Assuming of course that most potential candidates (in a given party) are more-or-less similar in idealogy, the ability to bring money to the election campaign becomes the largest separator of the candidates. And that is what I base my assertion that your comment, "The idea that money in politics rules is mostly wrong" is inaccurate. I'm not saying "he with the most money wins". I am saying, "given when all other things are similar, he with the most money will be picked to be the party candidate". The candidate with the most money is usually the most popular in his party. Is this bad? If so, why? Context please. Remember your original assertion that I was responding to "The idea that money in politics rules is mostly wrong". Yes, every time you vote in a general election you are voting for a candidate who was picked in great part because of their ability to raise money. And you said "every time".
Weave Posted January 31, 2012 Report Posted January 31, 2012 The candidate with the most money is usually the most popular in his party. Is this bad? If so, why? Not true. Most popular does not equal most money. Funny thing is, spending money does increase a candidate's popularity though. Hmmmmm......... And you said "every time". I did. And you are ignoring or not understanding the context in which I said it. Every time you vote, you are voting for a candidate that was chosen in great part by their ability to raise money. I've said it 3 times now. I'm not sure what else I can add to clarify it.
5th line wingnutt Posted January 31, 2012 Report Posted January 31, 2012 Not true. Most popular does not equal most money. Funny thing is, spending money does increase a candidate's popularity though. Hmmmmm......... Did not say always, said usually. I did. And you are ignoring or not understanding the context in which I said it. Every time you vote, you are voting for a candidate that was chosen in great part by their ability to raise money. I've said it 3 times now. I'm not sure what else I can add to clarify it. I get what you are saying, I disagree. Do you have any evidence for your assertion?
Weave Posted January 31, 2012 Report Posted January 31, 2012 I get what you are saying, I disagree. Do you have any evidence for your assertion? Anecdotal evidence, yes. I witness it every election cycle. And I mentioned Romney upthread as an example too. He wasn't/isn't the most popular among the Republicans that typically vote in primaries (ie.. diehard Republicans, core conservatives). He is roundly poo poo'ed by the wing of the party that is motivated by primary voting. But he is in the lead. Why? Not becuase he is popular. It is because of his ability to raise money. Raising money = getting his name out to the public and motivating voters to choose him. He is likely to be our next Republican presidential candidate, and it won't be because he is who the party faithful preferred. It is because he was the most capable of raising the funds necessary to maintain a media presence that swayed voters. In the end, you will be choosing between a sitting President and the guy who was most capable of raising money. Four years ago it was the Dem who was most capable of raising money vs. the Repub who was most capable of raising money.
5th line wingnutt Posted January 31, 2012 Report Posted January 31, 2012 Anecdotal evidence, yes. I witness it every election cycle. And I mentioned Romney upthread as an example too. He wasn't/isn't the most popular among the Republicans that typically vote in primaries (ie.. diehard Republicans, core conservatives). He is roundly poo poo'ed by the wing of the party that is motivated by primary voting. But he is in the lead. Why? Not becuase he is popular. It is because of his ability to raise money. Raising money = getting his name out to the public and motivating voters to choose him. He is likely to be our next Republican presidential candidate, and it won't be because he is who the party faithful preferred. It is because he was the most capable of raising the funds necessary to maintain a media presence that swayed voters. In the end, you will be choosing between a sitting President and the guy who was most capable of raising money. Four years ago it was the Dem who was most capable of raising money vs. the Repub who was most capable of raising money. Anecdotal evidence does not count, it boils down to "because I say so". Is there an actual study you can point to? I think popularity, especially in the primaries, and money raising ability have a pretty strong correlation coefficient. And why is the ability to raise money bad?
Weave Posted January 31, 2012 Report Posted January 31, 2012 Anecdotal evidence does not count, it boils down to "because I say so". Is there an actual study you can point to? I think popularity, especially in the primaries, and money raising ability have a pretty strong correlation coefficient. And why is the ability to raise money bad? I also think that popularity and raising money are strongly related. But the chicken and egg thing does go both ways. ie. money buys popularity at a similar level to popularity gathering money. And the ability to raise money isn't bad in and of itself. It depends on the strings attached to that money. The problem lies in the influence that the money buys. We have become a country that is run by corporate interests, not public interests. When we vote, we are voting for which industries get attention, which corporations gain influence.. And right now which industries are getting represented isn't something out in front of the public when they cast a ballot. As for studies on money and voting. I am sure they are out there. I may even spend some time looking tonight. But by the same token, you are free to find the studies that refute my assertion. I'm always willing to reconsider my opinion. :) I can throw "because you say so" right back at you otherwise. Oh, and see folks... it *IS* possible to have a civil debate about politics. :nana:
5th line wingnutt Posted January 31, 2012 Report Posted January 31, 2012 I also think that popularity and raising money are strongly related. But the chicken and egg thing does go both ways. ie. money buys popularity at a similar level to popularity gathering money. And the ability to raise money isn't bad in and of itself. It depends on the strings attached to that money. The problem lies in the influence that the money buys. We have become a country that is run by corporate interests, not public interests. When we vote, we are voting for which industries get attention, which corporations gain influence.. And right now which industries are getting represented isn't something out in front of the public when they cast a ballot. As for studies on money and voting. I am sure they are out there. I may even spend some time looking tonight. But by the same token, you are free to find the studies that refute my assertion. I'm always willing to reconsider my opinion. :) I can throw "because you say so" right back at you otherwise. Oh, and see folks... it *IS* possible to have a civil debate about politics. :nana: I also like civil discourse. Thank you for not descending into name calling, (you dipsh*t). :P I have studied these matters. Some studies show that candidates garner support from constituents that agree with them. This makes a lot of sense to me. I have given money to candidates whose stated platform I agree with. I never thought I was buying anything, or anyone. People giving money to candidates they agree with does not seem to be anything to worry about. If a candidate gets a bazillion dollars from someone you disapprove of, well hey, vote for the other guy. What if your candidate gets a bazillion dollars from someone questionable? Would you vote against him? I agree that "because you say so" works both ways. You made an assertion and I am questioning it. It is your assertion and the burden of proof is on you. For the record: I ran for state senate in NC in 2002. The election results are on the internet.
fan2456 Posted January 31, 2012 Report Posted January 31, 2012 I also think that popularity and raising money are strongly related. But the chicken and egg thing does go both ways. ie. money buys popularity at a similar level to popularity gathering money. And the ability to raise money isn't bad in and of itself. It depends on the strings attached to that money. The problem lies in the influence that the money buys. We have become a country that is run by corporate interests, not public interests. When we vote, we are voting for which industries get attention, which corporations gain influence.. And right now which industries are getting represented isn't something out in front of the public when they cast a ballot. As for studies on money and voting. I am sure they are out there. I may even spend some time looking tonight. But by the same token, you are free to find the studies that refute my assertion. I'm always willing to reconsider my opinion. :) I can throw "because you say so" right back at you otherwise. Oh, and see folks... it *IS* possible to have a civil debate about politics. :nana: Okay, I follow your premise when it comes to money and am a very firm believer that to find the story, "follow the money trail.". But, why is it always corporate?. What about unions, professional organizations etc. They buy inluence like crazy, and aren't corporations. Does the UAW or the AMA (American Medical Association), or CSEA buy influence? Of course they do! Now is a union or association member the public, or a corporation? If you're not a "corporation" is the ability to buy influence okay? I'm fine with the idea that money shouldn't buy influence, but it must pertain to all. Your opinion?
TrueBlueGED Posted January 31, 2012 Report Posted January 31, 2012 I have studied these matters. Some studies show that candidates garner support from constituents that agree with them. This makes a lot of sense to me. I have given money to candidates whose stated platform I agree with. I never thought I was buying anything, or anyone. People giving money to candidates they agree with does not seem to be anything to worry about. If a candidate gets a bazillion dollars from someone you disapprove of, well hey, vote for the other guy. What if your candidate gets a bazillion dollars from someone questionable? Would you vote against him? The kind of people that you're talking about are an extremely small portion of the electorate. Most people don't donate money to a candidate, and most people certainly have no idea who donates to campaigns and thus it has nothing to do with vote choice. Even if people were aware of who donated to whom, it still wouldn't matter, because you could go through every candidates list of donors and pick out plenty of unsavory figures.
radiomike Posted January 31, 2012 Report Posted January 31, 2012 I sympathize with your thought here but reality is most folks just don't have the time and energy to involve themselves enough to become informed and resort to voting according to the party they most closely relate to. I'm pretty sure one of our newer members expressed it much more eloquently than I could. I don't remember which thread it was in but his post went something like; typical middle class worker goes to work early in AM, comes home around 5, drives kids to extracurricular activity, eats dinner, helps kids with homework, has an hour or two to unwind before hitting the sack. Add in house work and other commitments and the idea that the typical middle class worker has the time to get informed about most major issues just isn't realistic. Party line voting results. It isn't about absolute money winning. It is about fundraising ability determining who your choices are. Your choices are ALWAYS the ones that are able to raise vast amounts of money. It's really a matter of priorities. Plenty of parents are actively involved in politics, I can name 2 sets of parents on my street alone who are constantly door knocking and handing out fliers. It's tough to take most people seriously when they complain about politicians when they do little to actually understand what it is they are complaining about.
5th line wingnutt Posted January 31, 2012 Report Posted January 31, 2012 The kind of people that you're talking about are an extremely small portion of the electorate. Most people don't donate money to a candidate, and most people certainly have no idea who donates to campaigns and thus it has nothing to do with vote choice. Even if people were aware of who donated to whom, it still wouldn't matter, because you could go through every candidates list of donors and pick out plenty of unsavory figures. Yes. Rational ignorance. But the info is on the internet for those who care.
TrueBlueGED Posted January 31, 2012 Report Posted January 31, 2012 It's really a matter of priorities. Plenty of parents are actively involved in politics, I can name 2 sets of parents on my street alone who are constantly door knocking and handing out fliers. It's tough to take most people seriously when they complain about politicians when they do little to actually understand what it is they are complaining about. How do you define plenty? I'm too lazy to look up the exact number, but I believe it's between 5-10% of voters who take an active role in a campaign.
Eleven Posted January 31, 2012 Report Posted January 31, 2012 Anyone who doubts what weave is saying, or who needs explanation: look what happened in the 2000 republican primary.
5th line wingnutt Posted January 31, 2012 Report Posted January 31, 2012 Anyone who doubts what weave is saying, or who needs explanation: look what happened in the 2000 republican primary. OK, what happened?
fan2456 Posted January 31, 2012 Report Posted January 31, 2012 As for studies on money and voting. I am sure they are out there. I may even spend some time looking tonight. But by the same token, you are free to find the studies that refute my assertion. I'm always willing to reconsider my opinion. :) I can throw "because you say so" right back at you otherwise As a guy who has to evaluate studies all the time, if you choose to cite any, please let us know who paid for them. It does matter when determining the validity.
TrueBlueGED Posted January 31, 2012 Report Posted January 31, 2012 Anyone who doubts what weave is saying, or who needs explanation: look what happened in the 2000 republican primary. Are you saying Bush and McCain were equal, and the determining factor was Bush's campaign fundraising?
fan2456 Posted January 31, 2012 Report Posted January 31, 2012 Anyone who doubts what weave is saying, or who needs explanation: look what happened in the 2000 republican primary. Yea like wingnutt, what did happen? I'll guess your guy didn't win? And I am not trying to be contentious.
Weave Posted January 31, 2012 Report Posted January 31, 2012 Okay, I follow your premise when it comes to money and am a very firm believer that to find the story, "follow the money trail.". But, why is it always corporate?. What about unions, professional organizations etc. They buy inluence like crazy, and aren't corporations. Does the UAW or the AMA (American Medical Association), or CSEA buy influence? Of course they do! Now is a union or association member the public, or a corporation? If you're not a "corporation" is the ability to buy influence okay? I'm fine with the idea that money shouldn't buy influence, but it must pertain to all. Your opinion? I use corporate as a blanket term. Unions, professional organizations, religious organizations all take advantage of this. I don't like any of it. I know the Supreme Court ruled that for campaign finance purposes corporations have the same rights as individuals. I hate what that decision is doing to politics. Look at the huge influx of SuperPAC money Newt just recieved as an example.
Weave Posted January 31, 2012 Report Posted January 31, 2012 I also like civil discourse. Thank you for not descending into name calling, (you dipsh*t). :P I have studied these matters. Some studies show that candidates garner support from constituents that agree with them. This makes a lot of sense to me. I have given money to candidates whose stated platform I agree with. I never thought I was buying anything, or anyone. People giving money to candidates they agree with does not seem to be anything to worry about. If a candidate gets a bazillion dollars from someone you disapprove of, well hey, vote for the other guy. What if your candidate gets a bazillion dollars from someone questionable? Would you vote against him? I agree that "because you say so" works both ways. You made an assertion and I am questioning it. It is your assertion and the burden of proof is on you. For the record: I ran for state senate in NC in 2002. The election results are on the internet. No, the burden is on you !!!! Neener, neener, neener !!! I don't really have "a candidate". I gave up my blue/red status a long time ago. My vote goes to the individual I most trust to represent me. And I realize no one candidate is going to be a perfect representative of my wishes so it is a compromise. What organizations have purchased influence is a consideration for me. It is not the only one. I doubt I'd ever find a candidate whose campaign doners I agree with totally.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.