Thread: Money doesn't buy elections

Originally Posted by haymarket

As someone who works in the business of electoral politics, who crafts campaigns and all that goes with them, money is a very very important factor in determining the success of a campaign. The one who spends the most will not always win - that is true. But all things being equal in other areas - an advantage in money and a wise use of money to purchase what is necessary to reach voters, it vital and crucial. In rare occasions there are ways around it and there are ways to make due without the most money. But to pretend that money is not important and can make the difference is simply a denial of reality.

The study mentioned in my OP said that doubling the amount of money a candidate spends results in just a one percent increase in their total vote tally.

The key is when you say "But all things being equal in other areas..." Things are rarely equal in other areas, including - gee, should we include this? - the appeal of the candidate and his ideas.

Money is important, but not nearly as important as people think.

Originally Posted by misterman

The study mentioned in my OP said that doubling the amount of money a candidate spends results in just a one percent increase in their total vote tally.

The key is when you say "But all things being equal in other areas..." Things are rarely equal in other areas, including - gee, should we include this? - the appeal of the candidate and his ideas.

Money is important, but not nearly as important as people think.

Misterman - the level of campaigns I work on and advise on are State Rep, State Senator and local races. Much of my work is done in safe Democratic districts where the primary is the actual election. Rarely are these what most would recognize as "issues races". Instead, almost all the candidates agree on the basic issues and it comes down to selling the candidate as a person.

Let me put it this way about money..... if one candidate has money in a state rep race and the others do not.... he will win barring some huge name recognition factor like a local sports hero or that sort of thing. It takes money to print literature, get it mailed and distributed, purchase lawn signs, buy local radio time, and do the things necessary for a campaign. Even if you want to run it out of your house and save a grand on office expenses every month, it still eats up money.

In my business, we operate by one rule - what we call D & D - dollars and doors. You raise money to fund your campaign and you spend every available minute knocking on doors to meet voters. You average about one actual voter contact per three houses visited. At the ones where nobody answers, you leave your literature - and a note if you can do that. The candidate with no or little money simply passes up those two out of every three chances to get your name to the voter.

In the campaign I managed in 2010, we had a state rep district of 90,000 people. We identified 4,200 houses which contained the most likely primary voters. We paid nobody to work on the campaign. We spent about $35K and it all went into literature, mailing, lawn signs and campaign materials. We got a huge bang for our buck. We knocked on 10,400 doors over five months and met over 3,500 voters on their doorsteps. We believe we met three out of every four people who were going to vote in the primary. The ammunition we used was literature. Six different pieces of lit spread out over five months. That costs money.

We did a mass walk of the district over the last five days in which we leafleted some 16,000 homes in the highest priority precincts. The piece we used was a door hanger type piece filled with our endorsements including those of the three major local newspapers. Only in those last five days did we pay some teenagers to help with that and even then we were limited because we ran out of money.

In the end, despite our opponent having the endorsement and heavy support of the outgoing state rep, we won by two percentage points. We later found out we had outspent our second place finisher by about five grand.

Its all important: a good candidate with a great work ethic, a good team behind them, good ideas, a great strategic plan, endorsements, volunteers - and money. Without money its like trying to run the last ten miles of a marathon when you have been depleted of glycogen. That happened to the guy who finished third and was running neck and neck with us for the first three months but died come summertime when his money ran out and he could not get contributors as it then became a two person race.

Believe me - money is damn important.

Originally Posted by haymarket

Let me put it this way about money..... if one candidate has money in a state rep race and the others do not.... he will win barring some huge name recognition factor like a local sports hero or that sort of thing. It takes money to print literature, get it mailed and distributed, purchase lawn signs, buy local radio time, and do the things necessary for a campaign. Even if you want to run it out of your house and save a grand on office expenses every month, it still eats up money.

Sure.

But the question is whether it's having more money than the opponents that allowed him to win. In other words, would have have lost if money wasn't necessary to do all that stuff? Could you take a loser, inject money into the campaign, and make him win?

It's likely that the winners have more money because they're popular with voters, because they get the most donations as well as the most votes. The fact that there have been many rich people who used their personal fortunes instead of donations to try to buy seats, and lost, supports that point.

In my business, we operate by one rule - what we call D & D - dollars and doors. You raise money to fund your campaign and you spend every available minute knocking on doors to meet voters. You average about one actual voter contact per three houses visited. At the ones where nobody answers, you leave your literature - and a note if you can do that. The candidate with no or little money simply passes up those two out of every three chances to get your name to the voter.

Sure. You have to have some money. But suppose a candidate had twice as much money? Would that give him an edge? Maybe not. He'd have to hit just as many doors, and having money for more literature only helps a little, unless you're going to do another lit drop to the same doors a week later. It's not like you can say twice as much money equals twice as much success.

In the campaign I managed in 2010, we had a state rep district of 90,000 people. We identified 4,200 houses which contained the most likely primary voters. We paid nobody to work on the campaign. We spent about $35K and it all went into literature, mailing, lawn signs and campaign materials. We got a huge bang for our buck. We knocked on 10,400 doors over five months and met over 3,500 voters on their doorsteps. We believe we met three out of every four people who were going to vote in the primary. The ammunition we used was literature. Six different pieces of lit spread out over five months. That costs money.

Again, I'm not saying you don't need money to RUN. The question is whether having more money than your opponent is how you WIN.

Its all important: a good candidate with a great work ethic, a good team behind them, good ideas, a great strategic plan, endorsements, volunteers - and money.

Right. But not just money.

Believe me - money is damn important.

Of course. That wasn't the point. The point is that money isn't the only thing, and it's not money that is picking winners. Winners have the most money because they're appealing and because they're doing all that other stuff. Having more money may pick a winner in a close race where one candidate is short, like you said, but in most races, it's just one of several factors.

Found the paper referred to in the OP:

http://www.rochester.edu/college/psc...4/Levitt94.pdf

You need money to win an election, but since almost all candidates have ****loads of money, it's basically an even playing field once a ****load of money has been achieved.

Mister..... I think we are both pretty much on the same page.

Originally Posted by haymarket

Mister..... I think we are both pretty much on the same page.

That's a relief!

Originally Posted by Tucker Case

You need money to win an election, but since almost all candidates have ****loads of money, it's basically an even playing field once a ****load of money has been achieved.

No, not all candidates have ****loads of money.

Many who don't never become candidates in the first place because they think they can't win without it, so candidates with not much money are rare though. And many more try to raise it, but can't get enough to compete - which is exactly my point.

Originally Posted by misterman

Ignoring your extraneous crap, let me respond to your ideas:



That's how it works now. Only individuals, or PACs that get money from individuals, can give donations to candidates or parties. No foreigners allowed either.



I'll leave that one for others to comment on.



?



We do have full disclosure, but 12 hours? That's a little too much to ask for.



Again, exactly how it works now. The NRA can't give (though it can sponsor a PAC that collects voluntary donations from individuals and use that money to give) but it can spend whatever it wants on speech. And I fully support that too.



I don't think they can keep it now either. Most donate it to another campaign or party, or to charity.

Thanks for commenting, but you are mostly wrong on your facts....as I understand the system.

I'm a bit busy now but I would like to cover your points one at a time. I'll get back later today.

Again, thanks for taking the time to think about my ideas.

Originally Posted by a777pilot

Thanks for commenting, but you are mostly wrong on your facts....as I understand the system.

My facts are completely right, trust me. If you need me to explain, I'm happy to. Some of the confusion comes from the absolutely pathetic reporting by the media about the Citizen's United case.