Forum Post: 94% of Candidates with the Most $$$ Win....But Why?
Posted 12 years ago on June 5, 2012, 7:31 p.m. EST by hchc
(3297)
from Tampa, FL
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
The reason that the majority of those with the most money win is they can buy more tv spots. And the people go as the tv tells them to.
Its a very sad reality in America. If a message is pumped across the tv enough, it will become true in the consumer's mind.
The people are too dumb to realize that tv spots are the results of bribes, and the more you see, the less likely that candidate will represent you if elected.
The people go as the tv goes. They cannot think for themselves very well anymore.
Wisconsin just proved again, doesnt matter what the person says/does, the TV runs the minds of Americans.
still not convinced at the legitimacy of the election
I am. The TV runs the show, doesnt matter what the candidate says/did/wants...
People only vote for the TV, and will vote for the one with more air time.
I watch very little TV so do many others
Its time for a campaign to get Americans to quit watching TV. The tube is way past its time, and is just a waste of time at this point.
my computer tube still works fine
If your rational worked...then 100% of the voters in this country who watched television would vote for the same person-the one who had the most TV spots.
Please show me one state or national election where that has happened.
Actually the generalized statement--taking Alexander Dumas's adage seriously--is correct: the candidate that spends the most usually wins, a sad commentary.
I have no problem with the adage or idea. His point went a step further in saying that the candidate that has the most tv spots, is the candidate that most people vote for.
Since EVERY election shows a division of voters between at least two candidates, and only ONE of them could be the one that spent the most money, clearly a lot of people are voting for the person who did not spend the most money. And that means a lot of people aren't swayed by who has the most TV spots. Right?
is the candidate that receives the most contributions
Correct. I did say it was a generalized statement about who spends the most money, but there are always exceptions, which makes the generalization seem mostly true.
The rational stands, you are merely making an assumption that 100% of people get their news solely from the television. A small percentage of people wisely rely on other sources for information and are not as easily swayed by the hailstorm aimed at them.
No, hchc assumed that 100% of the people decide on the candidate they are going to vote for based on TV spots. I'm arguing against that logic. Seems like you are too.
He is drawing a correlation that a majority of people are easily influenced by the political advertisements they see on television. Hence, the 94% of elections that are won by the candidate who spends the most.
94% of the candidates with the most money win.
And the name of the game is to keep the idiot masses voting for one of two parts of the duopoly. Have to give them two choices, or they lose faith.