How do you "buy" an election?

[konradv]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUd9Sx5Pumg]The Beatles:Golden Slumbers - YouTube[/ame]

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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.

How do you buy an election? You advertise more than your opponent. As long as the product you are offering isn't total crap compared to the competition, it will work every time,. Why the fuck do you think American corporations invests billions annually in advertising? Do you think they would do it if it didn't work? Do you not understand that translates just the same over to politics? Why do you think every single Presidential election winner for the past God knows how many terms has been the candidate who has outspent his opponent? Coincidence?

Everything's about marketing. That's a gimme. But in Presidential Races, the money raised is about even. Both Candidates can produce an unlimited amount of Campaign Ads. Producing a couple more Ads than your opponent, will not necessarily win an Election for you. You'll need more than numerous Campaign Ads.

(in MILLIONS of dollars)
2008;
Obama - 760
McCain - 358

I'm having trouble finding firm figures on previous campaigns, but if I recall correctly - Bush outspent Kerry by not very much, but he way outspent Gore (more like Obama/McCain). Clinton outspent Dole.

I think the incumbant has an advantage because they are de-facto advertising for themselves while in office. I'm not even talking about campaign stops - the mere fact they are in office reminds their supporters why they should vote for them. Bush got to be the one to lead us through 9/11 - not Kerry - and Obama got to be the one to have Bin Laden eliminated under his watch - not Romney. These events are in effect free advertising and it means the incumbant doesn't have to outspend his opponent by as much to assure victory. Even shitty incumbants have this kind of advantage.

I just turned 35 only only twice in my life time has the incumbent lost.

 

[flacaltenn]

Now that money is considered speech, I'm surprised the campaigns don't just have people handing out money at the polls to voters to vote their way.

But THEY DO! (hand out money to voters).. Common sense tells you that pandering to students, the elderly, the ex-military, the ex-cons, the C of Commerce, the Unions, the farmers, and all the other interest groups, spreads MORE BRIBE money than the measly $3 per voter that is spent during an election cycle.. Soros or Koch wouldn't even buy you lunch at Sonic.

The politicians WANT us to believe that election cycle money is the main problem. Because they don't want us seeing the BRIBERY that's going on for the years following the campaign.

 

[paulitician]

How do you buy an election? You advertise more than your opponent. As long as the product you are offering isn't total crap compared to the competition, it will work every time,. Why the fuck do you think American corporations invests billions annually in advertising? Do you think they would do it if it didn't work? Do you not understand that translates just the same over to politics? Why do you think every single Presidential election winner for the past God knows how many terms has been the candidate who has outspent his opponent? Coincidence?

Everything's about marketing. That's a gimme. But in Presidential Races, the money raised is about even. Both Candidates can produce an unlimited amount of Campaign Ads. Producing a couple more Ads than your opponent, will not necessarily win an Election for you. You'll need more than numerous Campaign Ads.

(in MILLIONS of dollars)
2008;
Obama - 760
McCain - 358

I'm having trouble finding firm figures on previous campaigns, but if I recall correctly - Bush outspent Kerry by not very much, but he way outspent Gore (more like Obama/McCain). Clinton outspent Dole.

I think the incumbant has an advantage because they are de-facto advertising for themselves while in office. I'm not even talking about campaign stops - the mere fact they are in office reminds their supporters why they should vote for them. Bush got to be the one to lead us through 9/11 - not Kerry - and Obama got to be the one to have Bin Laden eliminated under his watch - not Romney. These events are in effect free advertising and it means the incumbant doesn't have to outspend his opponent by as much to assure victory. Even shitty incumbants have this kind of advantage.

I just turned 35 only only twice in my life time has the incumbent lost.

Good points. Yeah, it takes much more than just Campagn Ads. What do they spend all that other cash on? I mean when it's all said and done, both Candidates will likely have run $Billion Campaigns.

 

[Avatar4321]

Probably with money somehow.

Ive never tried so I have no clue.

I dont plan on finding out.