Skip to main content

View Diary: PPP: Sanford gains on Colbert-Busch (101 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  a meta electoral discussion . . . (6+ / 0-)

    For years now, I have been pointing out that in the vast majority of US political races, the person who raises the most money, wins (about 90% of the time).

    It has been a matter of some debate over whether this is cause or effect----do candidates win because they have more money, or do they get more money because they are more popular and therefore more likely to win.

    It's races like this, with such sudden shifts in numbers (caused apparently by a sudden influx of outside funding) that offer data points to help us answer that question. Sanford has not suddenly become more popular; he has not drastically changed any position on anything; there would seem to be no logical explanation for his sudden upsurge in the polls except one--he suddenly got a lot of new money. And since most of that new money is from out of state sources who cannot even vote for him (and don't show up in the polls), it is decidedly not the case that the money itself comes from a sudden upsurge in popularity.  It is clear that the money itself produced the upsurge--the upsurge did not produce the money.

    Reinforcing the view that it's the money that wins popularity and votes, not the other way around--and that electoral popularity can indeed be purchased with enough money.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site