Pangloss Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 Taking a cue from George Will's new column posted just half an hour ago, I ran down this interesting article from OpenSecrets (Web site of the Center for Responsive Politics): http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/10/us-election-will-cost-53-billi.html The 2008 election for president and Congress is not only one of the most closely watched U.S. elections in years; it's also the most expensive in history. The nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics estimates that more than $5.3 billion will go toward financing the federal contests upcoming on Nov. 4. Note that that's including all the primaries as well as Congressional races. But their total for the presidential races, including primaries is about $2.4 billion, which is about double the 2004 amount and triple the 2000 amount. Yow. According to George Will, though, that's about a billion less than Americans will spend this year on potato chips. Hmm. I guess that does put things into perspective a bit, but potato chips don't rent half an hour of prime time television on every network in order to tell us how to vote. What do you all think? A sign of the times? Too much money being spent on political campaigns? Too little? Are more regulations in order, or fewer? My personal opinion is undecided, but I'm leaning towards fewer -- let people spend what they want. Will's column, btw, is at the link below but a subscription may be required. They usually archive them after a few days and then you can get in without a signup. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/29/AR2008102903199.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 it's a shameful sign of the times, but you can't regulate morality. Remember this is money people donated, for the most part. I'd say public funds usage should be limited (or maybe even eliminated) but if people want to donate to a political candidate, we shouldn't stop them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted October 30, 2008 Author Share Posted October 30, 2008 I believe Will also made the point that 639,000 people who donated to Obama in September were first-time donors. (That's off the top of my head, as it's not letting me past the gate again and I can't remember my password, lol.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainPanic Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 From my own experience at home (Netherlands), a democracy does not become more democratic when more money is spent on the elections. The adds usually have to get a message across in 30 seconds. This leads to a simplified explanation of the problem (which is good for populist politicians) and to a one-liner as solution. As it happens, that is exactly what is happening in the news and even in parliament too. The more info we get, the worse the quality. In the flood of information, only screaming and shouting works. - You can blame the media for this as well as the politicians. What people need is a better structure in the information that we get. In stead, we just get more of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 I wish some of the money would be spent on Spin to English translators so people would know what they're really voting for. For example: The Wetlands Defense Fund = set up by ranchers who want to defend their right to plow under the wetlands on their land if they want to. Don't vote for anything they vote for if you love ducks. Amendment X = despite the three double negatives in this amendment, it's basically just asking for things to remain the same with regard to X. Candidate Y was under investigation for fraud! = along with every other person who had anything to do with the person who is the target of the investigation, as part of normal SOP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saryctos Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 I wish some of the money would be spent on Spin to English translators so people would know what they're really voting for. For example: The Wetlands Defense Fund = set up by ranchers who want to defend their right to plow under the wetlands on their land if they want to. Don't vote for anything they vote for if you love ducks. Amendment X = despite the three double negatives in this amendment, it's basically just asking for things to remain the same with regard to X. Candidate Y was under investigation for fraud! = along with every other person who had anything to do with the person who is the target of the investigation, as part of normal SOP. My favorite is when ads say "so-and-so voted against helping children!" Then you look up the bill and it was something that everyone voted down because it had a silly rider or something like that. It pains me to think that so many ads are so transparent yet more than likely >50% of the people watching it don't realize what a waste of breath it really was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 From my own experience at home (Netherlands), a democracy does not become more democratic when more money is spent on the elections. The adds usually have to get a message across in 30 seconds. This leads to a simplified explanation of the problem (which is good for populist politicians) and to a one-liner as solution. Interestingly, Obama has SO much money that he's actually purchased half hour tv spots in which he (presumably) is going to explain at length why we should vote for him. No, I'm not joking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
npts2020 Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 Interestingly, Obama has SO much money that he's actually purchased half hour tv spots in which he (presumably) is going to explain at length why we should vote for him. No, I'm not joking. Yep. They even waited to start finishing game 5 of the world series in Philly till afterwards! Only about 15 minutes tho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big314mp Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 Interestingly, Obama has SO much money that he's actually purchased half hour tv spots in which he (presumably) is going to explain at length why we should vote for him. No, I'm not joking. And yet, they still keep asking me for money. At this point, the ads are just becoming annoying. The other night it was: Ad for local democrat Ad for local democrat Ad against state bill Ad against local democrat Ad for (same) state bill Ad for Obama All in one commercial break. It's just tiring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParanoiA Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 My favorite is when ads say "so-and-so voted against helping children!" Then you look up the bill and it was something that everyone voted down because it had a silly rider or something like that.It pains me to think that so many ads are so transparent yet more than likely >50% of the people watching it don't realize what a waste of breath it really was. Man oh man is this so true. These political ads just crack me up. They get some plain faced, serious picture and slow-zoom on it while they intro the dramatic creepy evil music, E minor with a twist, with some chick that sounds like she's whispering loudly, "Barack Obama" - with that special tone that sounds like an indictment before they even say anything further, "he wants to have tea parties with Iran and voted to murder our troops in Iraq", or some such crap. Then comes the harpsichord with bird song, inspirational christian music, and a McCain picture with a smile, shaking hands with happy adults and laughing with children, "John McCain won't reward Iran with dead soldiers" or some nonsense, "he loves our country and blah blah blah". Makes me want to puke. The lies and distortions by these jokers never ceases to amaze and insult me. So now I just laugh. The radio commercials are almost better, as they really get into the tone of the voice to sound dramatic and serious when they slam candidate A, and then get all light and fluffy when they build up their candidate B. How's it feel to be targeted and commercialized like a McDonald's ad campaign? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 Makes me feel sorry for the candidates, who feel the need to package themselves as the next best big mac. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 Actually, the McRib. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted October 30, 2008 Author Share Posted October 30, 2008 Phi and bascule, is it true you guys had 53 ballot initiatives to decide when you went to the polls in Colorado? That's what somebody told me but I thought surely they were exaggerating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Skeptic Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 I think that the candidates should participate in an internet discussion forum, and argue their positions there instead of on TV. And they should provide some references when needed. I think the discussion should be in a threaded format, so that they can talk about multiple aspects of each topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 Phi and bascule, is it true you guys had 53 ballot initiatives to decide when you went to the polls in Colorado? That's what somebody told me but I thought surely they were exaggerating.I think we had 53 things to vote on total, but only 14 ballot initiatives. Actually 19, but five are pointless because they filed them but later decided the outcomes in arbitration. One of our referendums is hopefully going to increase the signatures needed for some of these citizen initiated measures. We're way under the national average so we get things like "shall the state change the definition of 'person' in the Colorado Constitution to include any fertilized egg, embryo or fetus?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted November 1, 2008 Share Posted November 1, 2008 I think the figures reflect how much people are willing to pay for change... ...and I'm not just talking about Obama. Look at Ron Paul. He set several fundraising records. The liberals are sick of the neocons and the paleocons are sick of the neocons. And they're willing to put their money where their mouth is. I donated money to Obama, which is notable as it's the first time I've ever donated money to a mainstream presidential candidate (i.e. not 3rd party) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted November 1, 2008 Share Posted November 1, 2008 I think the figures reflect how much people are willing to pay for change... ...and I'm not just talking about Obama. Look at Ron Paul. He set several fundraising records. The liberals are sick of the neocons and the paleocons are sick of the neocons. And they're willing to put their money where their mouth is. I donated money to Obama, which is notable as it's the first time I've ever donated money to a mainstream presidential candidate (i.e. not 3rd party) Yup... meanwhile McCain, who probably realized he would have trouble raising funds, had to opt for public funding. Oddly enough, in this election cycle, that put him at a disadvantage, which seems to be the opposite of the reason public funds are allowed to be used in elections in the first place. I don't like Obama's policies, but I have to admire his abililty to attract money without, apparantly, trying very hard. He's attracting first time small donors for a reason. I think this ultimately a good trend in polics. The internet seems to be helping large grassroots campaigns raise more funds more quickly. (Not saying Obama is truly a grassroots effort, but he does have support on all levels). This will limit the power of billionaires to dominate politics, and McCain-Feingold laws be damned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted November 1, 2008 Share Posted November 1, 2008 And yet, they still keep asking me for money. At this point, the ads are just becoming annoying. The other night it was: Ad for local democrat Ad for local democrat Ad against state bill Ad against local democrat Ad for (same) state bill Ad for Obama All in one commercial break. It's just tiring. At least this part of the economy isn't in the tank. Now watch while the media business has a post-election crash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now