What have we learned from this election? The political scientists who say that you can’t buy elections with money are right. Mainstream media lost it’s power.
The claim that money buys elections in its correct form is not totalitarian, but rather a claim about percentage. Moreover, two things that trigger exceptions are a) Name Recognition and b) Free coverage. This election had both. Presidential elections in general are most likely not to follow this rule quite as closely.
Also, consider the declining marginal value of campaign spending.
Even Trump spent a quarter of a billion dollars. That’s a lot of money that even he thought was useful. (His affiliates spent another quarter billion dollars, but they’re probably old-fashioned politicians with poor judgement about campaign spending.) I think that was comparable to the 2000 campaign. So if Trump is our judge of the value of money, maybe politicians are spending too much today, but maybe they weren’t just a few years ago.
Clinton spent half a billion dollars and her affiliates spent another half a billion. Much of this money was probably badly spent. And Clinton seems to have spent a lot of time raising money, while it may have been better for her to campaign. But she spent only twice as much money as Trump, or 4x if you count her affiliates and not his.
I definitely agree with your first paragraph. When a dude with a hat and a twitter account outmessages a zillion dollar operation something about how those zillion dollars are being spent is not quite right.
On the other hand, I’m not sure that the vacuum exists. It feels like the internet has brought people closer together, and a traditional middleman has been squeezed out. I’m not sure the space is still there for a new person to fill.
I don’t think that fast traveling blog articles equate to “people are closer together”. It’s very cheap to start new memes that are adopted by large amounts of people.
I’m saying that there isn’t a space between dudes and dudes they want to talk at. No power vacuum. Technology filled the gap. You can just tweet or facebook to all the people who follow you.
The fact that a new person can come to power tomorrow suggests that there’s a power vacuum. The status quo is not powerful to prevent new people from taking power.
What have we learned from this election? The political scientists who say that you can’t buy elections with money are right. Mainstream media lost it’s power.
There’s a power vacuum to be filled.
The claim that money buys elections in its correct form is not totalitarian, but rather a claim about percentage. Moreover, two things that trigger exceptions are a) Name Recognition and b) Free coverage. This election had both. Presidential elections in general are most likely not to follow this rule quite as closely.
Also, consider the declining marginal value of campaign spending.
Even Trump spent a quarter of a billion dollars. That’s a lot of money that even he thought was useful. (His affiliates spent another quarter billion dollars, but they’re probably old-fashioned politicians with poor judgement about campaign spending.) I think that was comparable to the 2000 campaign. So if Trump is our judge of the value of money, maybe politicians are spending too much today, but maybe they weren’t just a few years ago.
Clinton spent half a billion dollars and her affiliates spent another half a billion. Much of this money was probably badly spent. And Clinton seems to have spent a lot of time raising money, while it may have been better for her to campaign. But she spent only twice as much money as Trump, or 4x if you count her affiliates and not his.
I definitely agree with your first paragraph. When a dude with a hat and a twitter account outmessages a zillion dollar operation something about how those zillion dollars are being spent is not quite right.
On the other hand, I’m not sure that the vacuum exists. It feels like the internet has brought people closer together, and a traditional middleman has been squeezed out. I’m not sure the space is still there for a new person to fill.
The proper way to spend the money today is to buy the right people in the media, so they will manufacture spontaneous outrage against your opponents.
Some people have not updated yet, and are spending money the ways that used to work better in the past.
I don’t think that fast traveling blog articles equate to “people are closer together”. It’s very cheap to start new memes that are adopted by large amounts of people.
I feel like you are agreeing with me?
I’m saying that there isn’t a space between dudes and dudes they want to talk at. No power vacuum. Technology filled the gap. You can just tweet or facebook to all the people who follow you.
The fact that a new person can come to power tomorrow suggests that there’s a power vacuum. The status quo is not powerful to prevent new people from taking power.
Oh, I misunderstood you. I agree with what you actually meant.