The Sum Of All Campaign Evils

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

Pretty much just culminating in everything I hate about today's political campaigns...

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/20/us/politics/georgia-6th-most-expensive-house-election.html

There's some important graphs in the article, so the whole thing can't really be C&P'd, but the heart of the matter is... ~$55m has been spent on this special election. It is by far the most ever for a house election, the second highest ever being *$29.5m*.

The Democrat candidate doesn't even live in the district he's running for.

Campaign $ Raised:
Democrat- $23.6m
Republican- $4.5m

Only 14% of the campaign money the Democrat raised came from Georgia, with a ton of his money coming from California and Georgia. 56% of the Republican's came from Georgia.

(In 2016, the average % of in-state campaign donations for House elections was 82%.)

Outside $ Spent:
Democrat- $7.6m
Republican- $18.2m

$5m from the Democrat Campaign Committee, and $2.6m from other groups.
$6.2m from Congressional Leadership Fund, $6m from Republican Campaign Committee, and $6m from other groups.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

So basically you have a guy who doesn't live where he's running to represent, getting pumped full of donations from other states... going against a woman who's getting money pumped in from party groups (if you ever wonder why third party doesn't stand a chance) and outside groups.

Just the biggest battle of money in House campaign history, covered in the finger prints of tons of outsiders.

The worst.

[Dill]

(06-20-2017, 10:42 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Pretty much just culminating in everything I hate about today's political campaigns...

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/20/us/politics/georgia-6th-most-expensive-house-election.html

There's some important graphs in the article, so the whole thing can't really be C&P'd, but the heart of the matter is... ~$55m has been spent on this special election. It is by far the most ever for a house election, the second highest ever being *$29.5m*.

The Democrat candidate doesn't even live in the district he's running for.

Campaign $ Raised:
Democrat- $23.6m
Republican- $4.5m

Only 14% of the campaign money the Democrat raised came from Georgia, with a ton of his money coming from California and Georgia. 56% of the Republican's came from Georgia.

(In 2016, the average % of in-state campaign donations for House elections was 82%.)

Outside $ Spent:
Democrat- $7.6m
Republican- $18.2m

$5m from the Democrat Campaign Committee, and $2.6m from other groups.
$6.2m from Congressional Leadership Fund, $6m from Republican Campaign Committee, and $6m from other groups.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

So basically you have a guy who doesn't live where he's running to represent, getting pumped full of donations from other states... going against a woman who's getting money pumped in from party groups (if you ever wonder why third party doesn't stand a chance) and outside groups.

Just the biggest battle of money in House campaign history, covered in the finger prints of tons of outsiders.

The worst.

A very important campaign. I'd have contributed myself if I'd been in the game a bit earlier.

[GMDino]

He lives 1-1/2 miles away while his gf finishes med school.

He was born and raised there.

Other than that I fully agree that money is the biggest problem.

[Goalpost]

It's been called. Repubs win this.

[BmorePat87]

I'm not sure if the fact that these special elections were so close (single digit wins in districts the GOP won by 15-30% months ago) is a reflection of Trump or the fact that special election turnout is lower.

Republicans will say "a win's a win" and Democrats will say "it gives us hope for the close races in 2018", but the reality is nothing has changed yet and we don't have a picture of 2018 from 4 random elections.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

R: ~127,000 votes

D: ~114,000 votes

So the Republicans got/spent $22.7m on 127,000 votes. Or roughly $178 per vote.
The Democrats got/spent $31.2m on 114,000 votes. Or roughly $273 per vote.

F politics, man. We need to blow up a lot of these rules and make new ones, but the problem is the only people who can blow up the current status quo in elections are the people who are making millions and millions off of it. So good luck with that.

In the meantime, you're pretty much screwed if you're not one of the two main parties.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-20-2017, 11:51 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I'm not sure if the fact that these special elections were so close (single digit wins in districts the GOP won by 15-30% months ago) is a reflection of Trump or the fact that special election turnout is lower.

Republicans will say "a win's a win" and Democrats will say "it gives us hope for the close races in 2018", but the reality is nothing has changed yet and we don't have a picture of 2018 from 4 random elections.

Scott Brown flat out won in insanely Democratic Massachusetts in a similar situation.  This is a bad loss for the Dems, especially given the outside funding, and there is no spinning it otherwise.  My hope is that they pull their heads out of their asses and start calling out the insane rhetoric on their side right now.  We need to pull back towards the middle.  

[Nebuchadnezzar]

(06-20-2017, 11:51 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I'm not sure if the fact that these special elections were so close (single digit wins in districts the GOP won by 15-30% months ago) is a reflection of Trump or the fact that special election turnout is lower.

Republicans will say "a win's a win" and Democrats will say "it gives us hope for the close races in 2018", but the reality is nothing has changed yet and we don't have a picture of 2018 from 4 random elections.

I think Democrats are 0-5 in these special elections with the Republican also winning in South Carolina tonight.

The money coming in from all over the country doesn't bother me when it's a campaign for the House or Senate. Rep. and Sen. votes both impact the entire country. What bothers me is when money from anywhere except the state, county or city shows up in local government races. Money from California has no business paying for State Senate seats like what happened in Alaska a few elections back. I think it was a Republican getting money from all over the country for a State Senate seat, but I'm not sure.

[BmorePat87]

(06-20-2017, 11:57 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Scott Brown flat out won in insanely Democratic Massachusetts in a similar situation.  This is a bad loss for the Dems, especially given the outside funding, and there is no spinning it otherwise.  My hope is that they pull their heads out of their asses and start calling out the insane rhetoric on their side right now.  We need to pull back towards the middle.  

Scott Brown was also considered pretty moderate. Democrats went with a pretty liberal replacement in a very conservative district. Like you said, they should have gone to the middle. These swing voters want to be assured that they're taken care of. Apparently some of them saw that in the economic populism of Bernie (which I think ultimately was his appeal to blue dogs, populism not progressivism). Idk, I'm not a political analyst. I just think whichever party can convince the electorate in 2018 that they going to help their wallets the most will win. Half the country is still pissed gay people can marry. A socially progressive agenda isn't winning votes from them.

[BmorePat87]

(06-21-2017, 12:27 AM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: I think Democrats are 0-5 in these special elections with the Republican also winning in South Carolina tonight.

The money coming in from all over the country doesn't bother me when it's a campaign for the House or Senate. Rep. and Sen. votes both impact the entire country. What bothers me is when money from anywhere except the state, county or city shows up in local government races. Money from California has no business paying for State Senate seats like what happened in Alaska a few elections back. I think it was a Republican getting money from all over the country for a State Senate seat, but I'm not sure.

I keep seeing 0-5 but it's 1-4. The CA one was a Dem replacing a Dem. A republican didn't even qualify for the general.

There's two more. The Alabama senatorial election that Sessions went unopposed in and Chaffetz (sp?) seat he won by 50%. They'll go red.

In terms of status quo, it'll remain the same. 6 republican seats replaced by republicans and 1 democratic seat replaced by a democrat.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-21-2017, 12:29 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Scott Brown was also considered pretty moderate.

I don't know that I'd agree with this, but I get your point.  

Quote:Democrats went with a pretty liberal replacement in a very conservative district. Like you said, they should have gone to the middle.  These swing voters want to be assured that they're taken care of. 

Another direct reflection of the failure of the DNC.  Hopefully they learn the necessary lesson soon.

Quote:Apparently some of them saw that in the economic populism of Bernie (which I think ultimately was his appeal to blue dogs, populism not progressivism). Idk, I'm not a political analyst. I just think whichever party can convince the electorate in 2018 that they going to help their wallets the most will win. Half the country is still pissed gay people can marry. A socially progressive agenda isn't winning votes from them.

The Dems have doubled down on what lost them the GE in 2016.  Stop pandering to the Evergreen State SJW types, it turns moderates off in droves.  The radical left is in danger of subverting the Democratic party, they must resist this at all costs of risk becoming completely irrelevant.  

[Yojimbo]

Going to take a constitutional amendment to overturn Buckley v. Valeo. Only way money is being taken out of politics. Problem with that is the people that are needed to make that happen are the ones benefiting from this legalized bribery.

[Yojimbo]

(06-21-2017, 12:38 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't know that I'd agree with this, but I get your point.  



Another direct reflection of the failure of the DNC.  Hopefully they learn the necessary lesson soon.


The Dems have doubled down on what lost them the GE in 2016.  Stop pandering to the Evergreen State SJW types, it turns moderates off in droves.  The radical left is in danger of subverting the Democratic party, they must resist this at all costs of risk becoming completely irrelevant.  

Osoff ran as a moderate Dem and went after the white suburban moderate Republicans. Didn't run on single-payer, universal education, anti-war or $15 minimum wage.

His promise on healthcare was to make premiums more affordable. His promise on education was to make tuition more affordable. His promise on security was to drop more bombs in the Middle East. His promise on the economy was to lower corporate taxe rates. Guy sounds like a moderate republican to me.

It's true he doubled down on what lost Hilary Clinton the election.

[BmorePat87]

(06-21-2017, 12:38 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't know that I'd agree with this, but I get your point.  



Another direct reflection of the failure of the DNC.  Hopefully they learn the necessary lesson soon.


The Dems have doubled down on what lost them the GE in 2016.  Stop pandering to the Evergreen State SJW types, it turns moderates off in droves.  The radical left is in danger of subverting the Democratic party, they must resist this at all costs of risk becoming completely irrelevant.  

I originally going to phrase it as pandering to SJWs not social progressivism. Don't get me wrong, I won't vote for someone if they don't think the LGBT community should be protected under the law as others classes are, but that's also not an agenda you bring into the rust belt.

And to Ossoff's credit, reading up on him, he wasn't that progressive, he just got painted that way. Getting so much outside money didn't help. In hindsight, he should have probably rejected it and so much campaigning from the Democratic Party probably hurt him.

[BmorePat87]

I appreciate threads like this

[BmorePat87]

Found the source of "0-5". Republican memo that only counted races for seats held by Republicans and counted the GA own twice (claiming Ossoff not getting over 50% to prevent a run off was a loss)

[Dill]

(06-21-2017, 12:52 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I originally going to phrase it as pandering to SJWs not social progressivism. Don't get me wrong, I won't vote for someone if they don't think the LGBT community should be protected under the law as others classes are, but that's also not an agenda you bring into the rust belt.

And to Ossoff's credit, reading up on him, he wasn't that progressive, he just got painted that way. Getting so much outside money didn't help. In hindsight, he should have probably rejected it and so much campaigning from the Democratic Party probably hurt him.

It's the "painting" that's the problem in elections now.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-21-2017, 01:13 AM)Dill Wrote: It's the "painting" that's the problem in elections now.

Yes, not the inane politics.

[Dill]

(06-20-2017, 11:52 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: F politics, man. We need to blow up a lot of these rules and make new ones, but the problem is the only people who can blow up the current status quo in elections are the people who are making millions and millions off of it. So good luck with that.

In the meantime, you're pretty much screwed if you're not one of the two main parties.

This doesn't sound quite right to me, Leonard.

The people who can blow up the current status quo are "we the people." We have to elect a president who will appoint Supreme Court nominees who decide in favor of regulating campaign finance, not deregulating it.

We also have to elect senators and representatives who will support campaign finance reform.

If you are interested supporting a group lobbying for this reform, you might check out Wolf-pac.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUKbX9-XQG8. They are calling for a 28th Amendment to cancel the SCOTUS Citizens United ruling.

[Benton]

(06-20-2017, 11:52 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: R: ~127,000 votes

D: ~114,000 votes

So the Republicans got/spent $22.7m on 127,000 votes. Or roughly $178 per vote.
The Democrats got/spent $31.2m on 114,000 votes. Or roughly $273 per vote.

F politics, man. We need to blow up a lot of these rules and make new ones, but the problem is the only people who can blow up the current status quo in elections are the people who are making millions and millions off of it. So good luck with that.

In the meantime, you're pretty much screwed if you're not one of the two main parties.

I would disagree only in the fact that it's up to the people. 

People look back with rose colored glasses and keep voting for the same thing over and over expecting different results instead of supporting candidates who want to effect a change. If you want to change the system, run for office. Don't have the resources/desires/etc? Support someone who matches up with your ideals.