> On Aug 12, 2016, at 7:52 PM, nathan tankus <somekindofheterodox at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This is a general relationship that is very tight for congressional races but those are different things from presidential elections. Ferguson would be the first to tell you that there is a) much more variability in general elections given how few there are b) there does seem to be a ceiling effect for money in general elections. In other words, you need money to run a good campaign but at a certain level more money doesn't mean you can guarantee yourself the election. Trump in particular has been a god at free advertisement. His strategy would probably not be workable at a smaller level.
Interesting observation, but in this round Clinton has a huge spending advantage, and all of the free advertising Trump has been getting has a negative effect. Unlike the primaries, it now reaches beyond and alienates rather than attracts those outside the Republican base. Plus, the ruling class now perceives him as a threat and has united solidly against him. Absent any dramatic development such as a major terrorist attack or renewed financial crisis, the rule should apply.
>
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 10:48 PM, Marv Gandall <marvgand2 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Forget the polls and follow the money:
>
> “Not only in 2012, but in every election for which the data exists (from 1980 to 2012)…the link is clear: when the Democrats spend more than Republicans, their candidates win. When Republicans spend more than Democrats, they win.”
>
> https://www.ineteconomics.org/ideas-papers/blog/stark-new-evidence-on-how-money-shapes-americas-elections
>
> If the pattern holds, Clinton is a shoo-in. Apart from their more extensive network of field staff, the Democrats have planned $100 million in TV advertising over the next several months compared to a paltry $1 million so far booked by the Trump campaign:
>
> http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/team-clinton-poised-98-million-ad-blitz-n621741).
>
> However, the ordinary patterns are being upset as political instability mounts, and maybe the “Bradley effect” will be sufficient for Trump to overcome his polling and spending deficits. I doubt it, but that’s the concern expressed here:
>
> https://www.thenation.com/article/are-hillary-clintons-strong-poll-numbers-misleading/
>
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Progressive Economics" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pen-l+unsubscribe at mail.csuchico.edu.
> To post to this group, send email to pen-l at mail.csuchico.edu.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/a/mail.csuchico.edu/group/pen-l/.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/mail.csuchico.edu/d/msgid/pen-l/6708E9E5-7DC1-4E8F-B346-48DFEB82318E%40gmail.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/a/mail.csuchico.edu/d/optout.
>
>
>
> --
> -Nathan Tankus
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------