How do you "buy" an election?

[Wacky Quacky]

Been hearing a lot of this floating around since the failed Walker recall. So, let's discuss it.

How exactly does someone "buy" an election? Which is it:

1) Are they paying people to vote a certain way?

2) Are they paying the vote counters to count a certain way?

3) Are they paying for a bunch of advertisements?

If you think the answer is number 1 or 2 then that's a pretty big claim and would need some serious evidence to prove. If you think the answer is number 3 then isn't that more of an indication of the american people being easily led idiots? Mass advertisements are only as effective as we allow them to be. It's not a problem with people spending money for commercials, it's a problem with americans being easily distracted by shiny objects and catch phrases.

Again, the true blame lies with what you see in the mirror. The american people are the zero sum of the country's problems.

 

[candycorn]

We get the government we deserve. So it's #3 of the three choices. You over simplify the issue however. Millions are spent on advertising that doesn't work arguably every day. Movies that are well funded bomb all the time.

What I think you're discounting is the effectiveness of negative campaigning. You're not lured toward something as much as you're pushed away from something else.

This is why the two parties put out pig slop for the American public to consume in two troughs only. The only they they agree on is keeping only the two troughs available. It's much harder to push you away from two sides of a triangle than away from a single side, you see. If you put three guys on the stage, you may find someone in the middle you like better than the extremes.

 

[HUGGY]

We get the government we deserve. So it's #3 of the three choices. You over simplify the issue however. Millions are spent on advertising that doesn't work arguably every day. Movies that are well funded bomb all the time.

What I think you're discounting is the effectiveness of negative campaigning. You're not lured toward something as much as you're pushed away from something else.

This is why the two parties put out pig slop for the American public to consume in two troughs only. The only they they agree on is keeping only the two troughs available. It's much harder to push you away from two sides of a triangle than away from a single side, you see. If you put three guys on the stage, you may find someone in the middle you like better than the extremes.

It's more complicated than that. Not everyone gets to buy advertising time. If your ads are too controversial and could hurt the media outlet it doesn't matter how much money you have.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

We get the government we deserve. So it's #3 of the three choices. You over simplify the issue however. Millions are spent on advertising that doesn't work arguably every day. Movies that are well funded bomb all the time.

What I think you're discounting is the effectiveness of negative campaigning. You're not lured toward something as much as you're pushed away from something else.

This is why the two parties put out pig slop for the American public to consume in two troughs only. The only they they agree on is keeping only the two troughs available. It's much harder to push you away from two sides of a triangle than away from a single side, you see. If you put three guys on the stage, you may find someone in the middle you like better than the extremes.

Whether being pushed or pulled, if your opinion is swayed by a 1 minute commercial then you're an idiot.

 

[Peach]

We get the government we deserve. So it's #3 of the three choices. You over simplify the issue however. Millions are spent on advertising that doesn't work arguably every day. Movies that are well funded bomb all the time.

What I think you're discounting is the effectiveness of negative campaigning. You're not lured toward something as much as you're pushed away from something else.

This is why the two parties put out pig slop for the American public to consume in two troughs only. The only they they agree on is keeping only the two troughs available. It's much harder to push you away from two sides of a triangle than away from a single side, you see. If you put three guys on the stage, you may find someone in the middle you like better than the extremes.

Agreed. Name recognition does matter, but negative ads work wonders. See DAISY, WILLIE HORTON. Note, I listed LBJ's slam at Goldwater first, I did not see it until years later, but Daisy is known as a classic negative attack ad.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Been hearing a lot of this floating around since the failed Walker recall. So, let's discuss it.

How exactly does someone "buy" an election? Which is it:

1) Are they paying people to vote a certain way?

2) Are they paying the vote counters to count a certain way?

3) Are they paying for a bunch of advertisements?

If you think the answer is number 1 or 2 then that's a pretty big claim and would need some serious evidence to prove. If you think the answer is number 3 then isn't that more of an indication of the american people being easily led idiots? Mass advertisements are only as effective as we allow them to be. It's not a problem with people spending money for commercials, it's a problem with americans being easily distracted by shiny objects and catch phrases.

Again, the true blame lies with what you see in the mirror. The american people are the zero sum of the country's problems.

1. In his sworn testimony before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, whistleblower Christopher Coates — who then headed the Voting Rights division — testified to a “deep-seated opposition to the equal enforcement of the” law “for the protection of white voters.” J. Christian Adams agreed that the department indicated it would not prosecute cases against a minority defendant on behalf of a white plaintiff. Coates remembered Julie Fernandes, Obama’s Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, telling DoJ employees “the Obama administration was only interested in bringing…cases that would provide political equality for racial and language minority voters.” Julie Fernandes | Impeach Obama Campaign

2. United States v. Ike Brown Brown was the head of the Democratic Party in Noxubee County, a majority black county. The party ran the Democratic primaries, which served as de facto general elections, and Brown made no secret about his desire to see every government office in the county held by a black officeholder. “You ain’t dealing with Mississippi law, this is Ike Brown’s law,” was his motto. Brown organized teams of notary publics to roam the county collecting absentee ballots, the notaries regularly cast the ballots themselves instead of the voters.

a. During one election, teams of federal observers counted hundreds of verified examples of illegal assistance. Brown lawlessly disqualified white candidates from running for office. Ike Brown institutionalized racial lawlessness, and brazenly victimized white voters during the 2003 and 2007 elections. And yet, many in the Voting Section never wanted the Department even to investigate the matter.

b. Hostility pervaded the Voting Section…Some said that unless whites were victims of historic discrimination, they shouldn’t be protected….Because whites were better off than blacks in Mississippi, no lawsuit should be allowed to protect whites, they argued.

c. Before the trial, article after article appeared in the New York Times and other newspapers critical of the decision to bring the Ike Brown case. ABC News presented it as a classic man-bites-dog story. Even National Public Radio traveled to Noxubee to do a story suspicious of the Bush administration’s decision to sue Ike Brown. The benefit of hindsight makes the national media effort to demean the case, and the hostility from the civil rights community, look laughable and petty. We won the case, and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision in two historic opinions.
Pajamas Media » PJM Exclusive: Unequal Law Enforcement Reigns at Obama’s DOJ (UPDATED: Adams Discusses this Article on Fox News) exclusive/4/
__________________

 

[g5000]

How exactly does someone "buy" an election?

I can think of several ways to spend money to "buy" an election.

First, advertising, as you indicated in #3. However, radio and TV air time are a finite supply. When you reach saturation, then you just drive the price of that time up, which leads to diminishing returns.



Second, "get out the vote". Pay thousands of minions to go to public gatherings which attract your kind of people. If you are a mouth breathing neocon, you send your army to evangelical churches and those stadium prayer-fests they have. If you are a bleeding heart liberal, send your stooges to homeless shelters and food kitchens and labor union rallies.

Get the troops to register the rubes right there on the premises. You are saving those souls all the time of having to go to City Hall to register.

The more of "our kind of people" you register than the bad guys register of theirs, the better results you achieve on Election Day.



Third, "I say it here, it comes out there!" Buy lists of email addresses of people in your demographic. Send them mass distributions of easily copied and pasted messages to incessantly parrot on the internet. Don't worry about accuracy. The dirtier and dumber, the better. Come up with easily repeated catch phrases. "Food Stamp President". "War on Women". Remember, thanks to the efforst of your predecessors, the electorate has the intellectual bandwidth of a bumper sticker these days. They are waiting, slack jawed, for your input, so Keep It Simple, Stupid.



Fourth, movies. So you have crammed the airwaves witih as much drek as the laws of physics allow. But this is the age of the Internet, baby. There is a whole Universe of eyeballs out there which don't watch TV now. They are on YouTube. They are linking and "liking" with their twitchy little fingers.

You have the big bucks now. Yuu can drop big coin making really slick films with high production values. Then all you have to do is post them on the net, and they will spread like a virus overnight!

Your propaganda movie will be halfway around the world before your opponent gets his pants on.



And that is just off the top of my head.

 

[Rozman]

We get the government we deserve. So it's #3 of the three choices. You over simplify the issue however. Millions are spent on advertising that doesn't work arguably every day. Movies that are well funded bomb all the time.

What I think you're discounting is the effectiveness of negative campaigning. You're not lured toward something as much as you're pushed away from something else.

This is why the two parties put out pig slop for the American public to consume in two troughs only. The only they they agree on is keeping only the two troughs available. It's much harder to push you away from two sides of a triangle than away from a single side, you see. If you put three guys on the stage, you may find someone in the middle you like better than the extremes.

Whether being pushed or pulled, if your opinion is swayed by a 1 minute commercial then you're an idiot.

The best/worst ad that was a total lie was run recently by Alan Grayson a Democrat.
It was an outright lie and to this day Ed Schultz shows nothing but love and admiration for Alan Grayson.

You might remember it..

Had to do with his opponents interpretation of a Bible passage...

The Republican candidate clearly said this was one passage that he DID NOT believe in.

It was something like "submit to me" like the guys wife.

Grayson and his people edited the attack ad to say that the GOP opponent believed that his wife should "submit to me"...

And this guy Grayson has announced he is gonna run again for Congress....

 

[Buford]

The left will use any excuse they can dream up rather than admit they have been turned away by the American people. Can't admit that when you claim to represent the common man.

Here's a good laugh. Insanity, the Fifth Stage of Grief | Power Line

 

[California Girl]

I'm waiting for the November 2012 US Presidential Election to come up on e-bay. I'm fuckin' bidding for that!

 

[occupied]

Is this the new excuse for the high pressure money hose in politics? It's not that effective? If it didn't work there would not be dump-truck loads of cash going out the door at campaigns and PACs. It works only too well if only as an obstacle for regular, decent people to run for office, only sell outs get their foot in the door.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Seriously. The ads work. They especially work on a populace that is not well educated, has to work long hours, is struggling to make ends meet and thus cannot spare the time nor effort needed to fully study the issues.

Lets be honest. Which party's policies tend to increase that demographic?

 

[occupied]

Seriously. The ads work. They especially work on a populace that is not well educated, has to work long hours, is struggling to make ends meet and thus cannot spare the time nor effort needed to fully study the issues.

Lets be honest. Which party's policies tend to increase that demographic?

Yes, scare tactics and smears work wonders on the fearful. They are already working on the October surprise and with this kind of cash it ought to be a doozy.

 

[California Girl]

Seriously. The ads work. They especially work on a populace that is not well educated, has to work long hours, is struggling to make ends meet and thus cannot spare the time nor effort needed to fully study the issues.

Lets be honest. Which party's policies tend to increase that demographic?

Democrats.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Wrong. Try again!

 

[Luddly Neddite]

More than $76 MILLION DOLLARS to Mitt in May.

How is that NOT buying votes?

Seriously. This is not working people deciding how much they can spare and sending him a few bucks. Most of us have no idea how much seventy six million dollars is but that's how much kochs and other Bug Money gave him in just one month.

At that rate, Democracy has no chance. And, THAT is the whole point.

The R has been doing everything they can to make sure they win this election and being legal isn't important to them. Voter suppression means the days of "one vote, one person" are long gone.

My question is - Why aren't the Republicans and the rw's demanding an honest election and an end to SuperPacs? Why is it only the Dems who want it honest and democratic?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Seriously. The ads work. They especially work on a populace that is not well educated, has to work long hours, is struggling to make ends meet and thus cannot spare the time nor effort needed to fully study the issues.

Lets be honest. Which party's policies tend to increase that demographic?

Hmmm, well they DO watch fux and they DO tend to believe what they want to believe rather than look for more than one source. They believe lil Glenny Beck is a real journalist and they just Uh=DORE Ted (poopy pants the poacher) Nugent. And, they'll happily throw their daughters and wives over in favor of lushbo's homophobic, woman hating speaking in tongues.

Yep, that would be rw's.

 

[Leweman]

It has everything to do with hindsight ... if you spent more money (though less than claimed) AND you are conservative as a candidate THEN you "bought" an election. How hard is that man? Get with the times, loser!

 

[California Girl]

More than $76 MILLION DOLLARS to Mitt in May.

How is that NOT buying votes?

Seriously. This is not working people deciding how much they can spare and sending him a few bucks. Most of us have no idea how much seventy six million dollars is but that's how much kochs and other Bug Money gave him in just one month.

At that rate, Democracy has no chance. And, THAT is the whole point.

The R has been doing everything they can to make sure they win this election and being legal isn't important to them. Voter suppression means the days of "one vote, one person" are long gone.

My question is - Why aren't the Republicans and the rw's demanding an honest election and an end to SuperPacs? Why is it only the Dems who want it honest and democratic?

Meh, democracy died in WI.

 

[blackhawk]

This whole buying the election thing is a bit overrated Meg Whitman spent 142 million and lost Linda McMahon spent 47 million and lost Carly Fiorina spent 5 1/2 million and also lost. While having the big bucks does help it guarantees nothing unless you have a message that people believe in.