|
Al Nipper posted:Some small business owner took away my wife for prima noctae and my yard is full of toxic pig poo poo. I will never stop lammoing. red states suffer from more employment though...
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 21:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 04:52 |
|
|
I come from a country where this poo poo is illegal for obvious reasons, so please explain something to me. I understand what superpacs are (thanks to House of Cards  )), but what do these politicians actually spend the money on? Bribes? Or do you have 24/7/365 party commercials on TV? Considering the vast increase of donations due to superpacs that must be really, really annoying. Donations must have increased 10-fold at least since superpacs came around, that pays for a lot of commercials I'd imagine.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
Lollerich posted:I come from a country where this poo poo is illegal for obvious reasons, so please explain something to me. at least one poo poo spigot had some super pac buy poo poo loads of copies of his lovely book, so i guess they spend it on themselves.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 22:03
|
|
|
Outlaw campaign ads the penalty is death bang problem solved Lollerich posted:Or do you have 24/7/365 party commercials on TV? It's pretty close in certain key seasons
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
Lollerich posted:I come from a country where this poo poo is illegal for obvious reasons, so please explain something to me. Nothing, as the politician themselves can't touch the money. That's why Jon Stewart renamed Steven Colbert's super PAC to "The Definitely Not Coordinating With Stephen Colbert Super PAC" to really drive home that point.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 22:16
|
|
|
Jeffrey posted:$1 billion is a very small amount of money compared to the US GDP, given the stakes of large elections, if it actually had a large role to play you'd expect a large multiple of that. If Apple could spend $3 billion to buy legislative action they would do it in a heartbeat, the opportunity is simply not there. See also http://cori.missouri.edu/pages/seminars/AES_JEP_2003.pdf quote:the opportunity is simply not there quote:2003
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 22:19
|
|
|
Jeffrey posted:Right, correlation is not causation. It seems similarly reasonable that people with money would rather give it to the candidate who is going to win, since it's completely worthless in the hands of the guy who is going to lose. You have to prove that money changed the outcome of the election, not just that the winner had it. Looking at that, they are almost all incumbents, it's very easy for a donor to guess that the incumbent is going to win and donate to them in hopes of currying favor. And that's why incumbents have a 2.3 million to .9 million advantage, but winners have a 23 million to 1.1 million advantage. CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION LOL hurr durr i dont know anything about statistics or confidence levels or margins of error or common sense. Are you literally trying to argue that advertising does not work? Because that is what your argument boils down to. If advertising does not, in fact work, then a whole lot of people have been wasting a whole lot of money for a really long time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 22:25
|
|
|
When was the last time you saw a political ad that was not full of lies or feel-good bullshit that sounds nice but doesn't actually mean anything And somehow they still fuckin' work This country, I swear
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 22:29
|
|
|
Regardless of finance laws, there's only so much influence money has. If there were huge opportunities to buy policy, way more companies would take advantage of it, and way more than 1 billion would be spent per election cycle on it. Legislation can create and destroy industries overnight, it has huge sweeping effects on the nation, but for no reason at all, money spent trying to influence it still only amounts to 0.00033% of our GDP? If there were more votes to buy, they would be, because companies have WAY more than that to gain. The simplest explanation is that legislation is simply not for sale like that, and campaign contributions have huge diminishing returns. Figuring out why money is given at all is a more interesting question than whether or not money buys policy directly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 22:31
|
|
|
Momplestiltskin posted:And that's why incumbents have a 2.3 million to .9 million advantage, but winners have a 23 million to 1.1 million advantage. CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION LOL hurr durr i dont know anything about statistics or confidence levels or margins of error or common sense. Are you literally trying to argue that advertising does not work? Because that is what your argument boils down to. If advertising does not, in fact work, then a whole lot of people have been wasting a whole lot of money for a really long time. No, I'm arguing that you largely cannot trade money for policy. Yes, advertising works, yes, the first $100,000 sure is important and a candidate who has that will beat one who has $100. But no, uncapped campaign contributions don't suddenly make elections for sale, and the data certainly doesn't show that. Again, it seems like "common sense" that the causation goes the other way, being a winning candidate makes you get donations and not the other way around. Eric Cantor's 4 million sure didn't help against his opponent who spent 120k, elections just don't work like that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 22:34
|
|
|
quote:If there were huge opportunities to buy policy, way more companies would take advantage of it lol if you don't think this is exactly what companies have been doing since reagan deregulation (hint it happens with lobbying not with voting which is why voters are really and truly hosed and have no voice)
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 22:34
|
|
|
nomadologique posted:lol if you don't think this is exactly what companies have been doing since reagan deregulation (hint it happens with lobbying not with voting which is why voters are really and truly hosed and have no voice) the number quoted in the post above was 1 billion in outside spending for an entire election season - that's tiny. Yes, they try, sometimes maybe succeed, but if it were at all predictably effective that number would be 100x if not more, since there's way way more money on the line than 1 billion in a given legislative cycle.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
Momplestiltskin posted:And that's why incumbents have a 2.3 million to .9 million advantage, but winners have a 23 million to 1.1 million advantage. CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION LOL hurr durr i dont know anything about statistics or confidence levels or margins of error or common sense. Are you literally trying to argue that advertising does not work? Because that is what your argument boils down to. If advertising does not, in fact work, then a whole lot of people have been wasting a whole lot of money for a really long time. it's basically cargo-cult logic on display whenever one of these yahoos chimes in with "correlation isn't causation!!!" in the presence of a clear causative explanation
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 22:41
|
|
|
oh phew for a minute there I thought that like 80% of our politicians were controlled by moneyed interests or something load off my mind, I tell ya what
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 22:41
|
|
|
heh guys when you compare election spending to the biggest GDP in the world it's pretty much nothing
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
Hazo posted:heh guys when you compare election spending to the biggest GDP in the world it's pretty much nothing when its talking about control over a body that controls the biggest pool of tax revenue in the world, yep, it is
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
Jeffrey posted:the number quoted in the post above was 1 billion in outside spending for an entire election season - that's tiny. Yes, they try, sometimes maybe succeed, but if it were at all predictably effective that number would be 100x if not more, since there's way way more money on the line than 1 billion in a given legislative cycle. So you're argument is that is a billion can you get you a 91% success rate, why not spend 100 billion to try and get closer to 100%? http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/returnoninvestment.asp
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
Cyks posted:So you're argument is that is a billion can you get you a 91% success rate, why not spend 100 billion to try and get closer to 100%? No, I think the 91% is completely non-sequitor, and nothing in there implies that if the numbers were switched, the outcomes would be. I think the candidates getting more money and winning are largely both tied to them being incumbents or clear winners in polling. I'm talking about money spent as a percentage of the output of the legislature, in which there huge amounts of money to throw around. Did you read the paper? I know thats a lot to ask in gbs but its only like 30 pages. Jeffrey of YOSPOS fucked around with this message at 22:50 on Jul 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 22:47
|
|
|
Jeffrey posted:when its talking about control over a body that controls the biggest pool of tax revenue in the world, yep, it is
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 22:56
|
|
|
Here's another paper, when candidates both spend ~250k, each additional 100k buys ~0.3% of the vote - not exactly buying an election there. It isolates the incumbent/challenger effect by looking at races where the same two candidates run against each other multiple times. http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/LevittUsingRepeatChallengers1994.pdf
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 22:56
|
|
|
lol @ the guy whose only evidence comes from 2 papers, one from 2003 and one from 1994, both of which are before the issue this thread is about even happened.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 23:02
|
|
|
my corporate think tank says
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 23:04
|
|
|
Momplestiltskin posted:lol @ the guy whose only evidence comes from 2 papers, one from 2003 and one from 1994, both of which are before the issue this thread is about even happened. ahh yes before 2010 things were completely different and no one considered the influence of money in politics - if additional dollars didn't buy policy/votes then, they still don't now when the value of each marginal dollar is even lower. the numbers have gone up but obviously there are no tens of billions flowing in like the doomsday crowd claimed
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 23:05
|
|
|
Jeffrey posted:when its talking about control over a body that controls the biggest pool of tax revenue in the world, yep, it is haha, what is wrong with your brain, do you have prions or something, lol
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 23:06
|
|
|
Jeffrey posted:ahh yes before 2010 things were completely different and no one considered the influence of money in politics - if additional dollars didn't buy policy/votes then, they still don't now when the value of each marginal dollar is even lower. the numbers have gone up but obviously there are no tens of billions flowing in like the doomsday crowd claimed those papers were based on the realities of the times they were written- it's a bit naive to assume that these papers, studying elections with way less money being put into them, automatically apply to more current elections that now can have way more money put into them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
if you assume the market is perfect and rational therefore qed
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 23:16
|
|
|
Jeffrey posted:I think the candidates getting more money and winning are largely both tied to them being incumbents or clear winners in polling.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 23:17
|
|
|
Cubone posted:this argument is predicated on a premise that rules it out. that's kind of cool. Nope - at any point when a donor is deciding on a candidate to donate to, there is a leading candidate. Predicting "the incumbent is going to win" most of the time and "the incumbent really hosed this one already, going to donate to the momentum challenger" when that applies seems sufficient. My point is the inflow of money doesn't likely cause the winning - the winning causes the inflow of money, and injecting money doesn't usually change anything.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 23:24
|
|
|
Jeffrey posted:Nope - at any point when a donor is deciding on a candidate to donate to, there is a leading candidate. Predicting "the incumbent is going to win" most of the time and "the incumbent really hosed this one already, going to donate to the momentum challenger" when that applies seems sufficient. My point is the inflow of money doesn't likely cause the winning - the winning causes the inflow of money, and injecting money doesn't usually change anything. how do you think a leading candidate is created? its usually the guy who is fundraising the most money you moron. you think a dude who isnt 100% pro corporation is going to get any significant funding? do you think a guy who can outspend his opponent 10 to 1 doesnt have an advantage? how mentally retarded are you?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
'Golden Rule: The Investment Theory of Party Competition and the Logic of Money-Driven Political Systems' by Thomas Ferguson is a good book. Especially if you feel like having an informed view on the topic at hand. read it here
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 23:36
|
|
- hi
|
If donors wanted to spend money on the winners, they'd wait until after the campaign you dumbshit
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 23:43
|
|
|
no for real you might have invented a new kind of logical fallacy I can't even think of another example or how to write it out with logical operators it's like a implies b or c if c, then q if q, not a a and q, therefore c it's freaking wild and out man I'm seeing eternity
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
Ocean Book posted:'Golden Rule: The Investment Theory of Party Competition and the Logic of Money-Driven Political Systems' by Thomas Ferguson is a good book. Especially if you feel like having an informed view on the topic at hand. lol idiot i already made up my mind on this so why would i want to read about it, then i might change my mind and current me would be wrong. gently caress that
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 23:52
|
|
|
Jeffrey posted:the number quoted in the post above was 1 billion in outside spending for an entire election season - that's tiny. Yes, they try, sometimes maybe succeed, but if it were at all predictably effective that number would be 100x if not more, since there's way way more money on the line than 1 billion in a given legislative cycle. you are not seeing the money spent by corporations on lobbying for legislation nomadologique fucked around with this message at 00:22 on Jul 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 00:17
|
|
|
Cyks posted:Nothing, as the politician themselves can't touch the money. That's why Jon Stewart renamed Steven Colbert's super PAC to "The Definitely Not Coordinating With Stephen Colbert Super PAC" to really drive home that point.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 00:22
|
|
|
Lollerich posted:So what is the point then? Even if one candidate get's 1 Billion and the other gets "only" 600 Million, how is all that money relevant if they can't spend it. I'm confused now. My post was mostly sarcasm. The article I copied that from continues with "[Stewart] issued a statement assuring the public, "Stephen and I have in no way have worked out a series of morse-code blinks to convey information with each other on our respective shows."" If you're not quite familiar with them, they are comedic news hosts who could be considered best friends. Which is exactly what real politicians do, put really good friends in charge of their super PAC. But yeah, it's used for TV spots, paid endorsements, conventions, ect. In "battle" states on broadcast television you'll see two/three political commercials per break. Sometimes conflicting commercials for opposite parties right after one another. Not just a super PAC issue either, like gov. Rick Scott who, to avoid a conflict of interest by charging millions to the government through drug tests at facilities he owned, sold his share of the company to his wife. Cyks fucked around with this message at 00:53 on Jul 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 00:51
|
|
|
Giving money to political leaders has literally no effect, that's why I do it because I hate my money
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 00:53
|
|
|
Maoist Pussy posted:Giving money to political leaders has literally no effect, that's why I do it because I hate my money
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 00:57
|
|
|
Maoist Pussy posted:Giving money to political leaders has literally no effect, that's why I do it because I hate my money -a person who dedicated his entire life to accumulating money
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 00:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 04:52 |
|
|
Momplestiltskin posted:And that's why incumbents have a 2.3 million to .9 million advantage, but winners have a 23 million to 1.1 million advantage. CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION LOL hurr durr i dont know anything about statistics or confidence levels or margins of error or common sense. Are you literally trying to argue that advertising does not work? Because that is what your argument boils down to. If advertising does not, in fact work, then a whole lot of people have been wasting a whole lot of money for a really long time. Advertising money has been shown to be wasted a large majority of the time. It's a pretty widely held belief in Economics.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 03:40
|
|