This video just exacerbates the point that spending a ton of money does not guarantee winning results. Trump spent a fraction of the amount from his competitors. Granted he got free media attention 24/7. I think that emotions win out over money in my opinion.
I really like Kenny's point. Spending a lot of money does not guarantee results. It all comes down to personality and likability among the voters. Super PACS are a way to make those who are wealthy seem like they are influencing politics or a scam to the donors to make someone on the campaign richer. One of the reasons the Koch brothers don't support Trump is because he refuses to take their money which means they cannot get a hold in his campaign. It would be very interesting if super PACs didn't exist. People's influence over politics would be smaller.
I agree with Kenny that this video just shows that spending a lot of money doesn't necessarily guarantee anything. While in some cases such as the Koch brothers and their dark money it can have influence, many times it does not. I really liked this video because I never really thought about what happened to the losing super PACs, and now I wonder why people continue to push so much money to candidates they support only to see them flame out and lose.
I see your point Bharath but when you consider what they have to gain if their candidate wins, I can see why they still try. Plus, these people are usually rich enough that they can afford to donate in this manner. And while money certainly is a huge factor, it certainly isn't everything. The candidate still has to appeal to the voters at the end of the day.
This video was hilarious. I think that everyone is right when they say that money does not guarantee an election. However, I think the money is much more influential in elections for a seat on Congress, where disparities in certain candidates' funding can have a much larger impact. Presidential elections are much more publicized, so while money is important, it is not as powerful.
This video just exacerbates the point that spending a ton of money does not guarantee winning results. Trump spent a fraction of the amount from his competitors. Granted he got free media attention 24/7. I think that emotions win out over money in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteI really like Kenny's point. Spending a lot of money does not guarantee results. It all comes down to personality and likability among the voters. Super PACS are a way to make those who are wealthy seem like they are influencing politics or a scam to the donors to make someone on the campaign richer. One of the reasons the Koch brothers don't support Trump is because he refuses to take their money which means they cannot get a hold in his campaign. It would be very interesting if super PACs didn't exist. People's influence over politics would be smaller.
DeleteI agree with Kenny that this video just shows that spending a lot of money doesn't necessarily guarantee anything. While in some cases such as the Koch brothers and their dark money it can have influence, many times it does not. I really liked this video because I never really thought about what happened to the losing super PACs, and now I wonder why people continue to push so much money to candidates they support only to see them flame out and lose.
ReplyDeleteI see your point Bharath but when you consider what they have to gain if their candidate wins, I can see why they still try. Plus, these people are usually rich enough that they can afford to donate in this manner. And while money certainly is a huge factor, it certainly isn't everything. The candidate still has to appeal to the voters at the end of the day.
DeleteThis video was hilarious. I think that everyone is right when they say that money does not guarantee an election. However, I think the money is much more influential in elections for a seat on Congress, where disparities in certain candidates' funding can have a much larger impact. Presidential elections are much more publicized, so while money is important, it is not as powerful.
ReplyDelete