|
|
|
|
|
|
by Kamq
1188 days ago
|
|
|
> In the US, elections are largery determined by who could spent the most money. They really aren't. The vast majority of elections are determined by the partisan make-up of the district in question. For the most part, you seem to have inverted causation. It looks like more popular candidates attract more money, not that candidates with more money end up being more popular. There's a (semi-)decent write-up here: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/money-and-elections-a-c... |
|
|
Though I'm very opposed in general to the idea that causation is one sided here.
I can easily see it as a cycle. Popular candidates get more money, can buy more attention which makes them more popular, get more money, buy even more attention, and so on.
There's also the gnarly topic of money and the big media which is involved at every step here as well.
It's an extremely complicated topic with many moving parts interacting in all sorts of interesting ways.