On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 11:13 PM, Marv Gandall <marvgand2 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------------
>
>
-- -Nathan Tankus -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------