Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Willravel · 11-01-2010, 04:46 PM

I don't despise Meg Whitman. I don't trust her first off because of the IPO scandal, but more so because of the dishonest campaign she's run. She's lied about Brown on crime, the school system, pollution, and of course jobs. FactCheck has repeatedly nailed her and for good reason.

Regarding campaign money, you're welcome to think that it's not important, but the facts speak for themselves. According to this study which tracks the impact of money on open seat races in the House from 1990 to 2004, "election outcomes are highly sensitive to the major-party candidates' campaign spending ratios, and increases in spending ratios are shown to translate into non-trivial increases the candidate''s probability of winning, a result that holds for both Republicans and Democrats." I'm looking for more studies, but I think the consistent results seen there do speak in volumes about the weight of money on elections.

11-01-2010, 04:46 PM	#15 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I don't despise Meg Whitman. I don't trust her first off because of the IPO scandal, but more so because of the dishonest campaign she's run. She's lied about Brown on crime, the school system, pollution, and of course jobs. FactCheck has repeatedly nailed her and for good reason. Regarding campaign money, you're welcome to think that it's not important, but the facts speak for themselves. According to this study which tracks the impact of money on open seat races in the House from 1990 to 2004, "election outcomes are highly sensitive to the major-party candidates' campaign spending ratios, and increases in spending ratios are shown to translate into non-trivial increases the candidate''s probability of winning, a result that holds for both Republicans and Democrats." I'm looking for more studies, but I think the consistent results seen there do speak in volumes about the weight of money on elections.