Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
Why? A bum of the street would do better considering how Giulani had his strongest showing this week and 15% at that.CaptainChewbacca wrote:Anyone think Giuliani could get tacked onto a McCain ticket if he's throwing his support in before Super Tuesday?
Money doesn't win elections. It's hard to believe, as that's what the conventional wisdom says, and the winning candidate tends to be among the top in terms of money raised. But let us consider, people usually give campaign donations to the candidate they want to win. Furthermore, the candidate who wins is the one with the most votes (more or less). So money is not necessarily a cause of popularity so much as an indicator of popularity.Guardsman Bass wrote:Tens of millions, at least. He's burned through at least $55 million of the $62 million campaign funds that he reportedly raised, although to be fair, not all of that was on Florida (he wasted a good $2-3 million in New Hampshire before running away). If his campaign finances for 2007 still get released on January 31 along with everybody else in the race in spite of his dropping out, then we'll know for sure.Noble Ire wrote:I expected Giuliani's plastering of the state to yield more results, in spite of his distance from the headlines. I can only imagine how much money he poured into TV ads and the like in Florida.
But in a close race, money can make the difference. The entire world's politics have been influenced over the last 7 years by less than a percentage point in a US election.Adrian Laguna wrote:This has been shown by comparing multiple races with the same candidates. When other factors are controlled for, money has a very small effect on the outcome. Winning candidates can cut their spending in half and only lose a single percentage point, meanwhile the losing candidates can double their spending and only gain a single percentage point. Essentially, no amount of money can make an unlikeable candidate into a likeable one.
And yes I can cite a source for the above, just not right now.
No. Giuliani is a poison troll. The NYT ran a profile on him not long ago which basically just laid out what a huge asshole he is. As mayor of New York he loved to use the full power of his office and more, bending the rules in relentless pursuit of vengeance on anybody who opposed him, no matter how minor the slight. This included having a police spokeswoman illegally release a man's criminal record to the press and falsely accuse him of sodomy, because the man had complained about an NYPD red-light sting.CaptainChewbacca wrote:Anyone think Giuliani could get tacked onto a McCain ticket if he's throwing his support in before Super Tuesday?
Ah yes, "no amount of money can make an unlikeable candidate into a likeable one" was a bit of an overstatment. In really close elections, money can be, as you say, a deciding factor. Though the election you refer to was decided less by money and more by a perfect storm of bad luck.Darth Wong wrote:But in a close race, money can make the difference. The entire world's politics have been influenced over the last 7 years by less than a percentage point in a US election.
Oh, I know money can't, by itself, win an election (although a strong disparity in cash can give an advantage in a close race). The failed candidacies of Steve Forbes and Phil Gramm for the nomination are evidence of that.Adrian Laguna wrote:Money doesn't win elections. It's hard to believe, as that's what the conventional wisdom says, and the winning candidate tends to be among the top in terms of money raised. But let us consider, people usually give campaign donations to the candidate they want to win. Furthermore, the candidate who wins is the one with the most votes (more or less). So money is not necessarily a cause of popularity so much as an indicator of popularity.Guardsman Bass wrote:Tens of millions, at least. He's burned through at least $55 million of the $62 million campaign funds that he reportedly raised, although to be fair, not all of that was on Florida (he wasted a good $2-3 million in New Hampshire before running away). If his campaign finances for 2007 still get released on January 31 along with everybody else in the race in spite of his dropping out, then we'll know for sure.Noble Ire wrote:I expected Giuliani's plastering of the state to yield more results, in spite of his distance from the headlines. I can only imagine how much money he poured into TV ads and the like in Florida.
Something like the above was in the book Road to the White House 2008 by Stephen Wayne. It was where he pointed out that while money doesn't win elections, it does generally give an advantage in very close races (i.e., when Hubert Humphrey was running against Richard Nixon, he probably would have done better had the disparity in money not been so severe).This has been shown by comparing multiple races with the same candidates. When other factors are controlled for, money has a very small effect on the outcome. Winning candidates can cut their spending in half and only lose a single percentage point, meanwhile the losing candidates can double their spending and only gain a single percentage point. Essentially, no amount of money can make an unlikeable candidate into a likeable one.
And yes I can cite a source for the above, just not right now.
