new | show | ask | jobs Github

johnea 2 hours ago

This is total bullshit.

Or maybe a statement of just how much the US population is uninformed/misinformed.

If the later is true, the US 'electorate' really is dumb as dirt...

▲

scoofy 2 hours ago | parent [-]

From 1994: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2138764

From 2024: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21582440241279659

Consistent results indicate that, yes, money tends to matter, but it's the source of that money that tends to be doing the heavy lifting.

▲

ohbleek an hour ago | parent [-]

“Study after study shows that money doesn't really effect the results of high-information elections“

Your earlier statement, in which you claim that “money doesn’t effect result” followed by a useless distinction of high or low info elections. You’re really trying to dance a fine line of nonsense here.

“ We find a positive and statistically significant relationship between campaign expenditure, campaign contributions and winning probability.”

From the same article you posted and the first academic journal result if you Google “studies on how money influences elections”.

	▲	scoofy an hour ago \| parent [-]
		>Our finding is in line with existing results in the literature regarding the US House elections that incumbent candidates gain less from spending, compared to their contender counterparts. This is due to diminishing returns that occur at a certain point, after which incumbent candidates can increase the winning probability only marginally (Green & Krasno, 1988). However, this finding is in contrast with other studies considering electoral systems in Brazil, Japan, or India, where spending effectiveness is equally applicable for both incumbents and contenders (Johnson, 2013; Lee, 2020; Samuels, 2001). So yea, sorry for providing two scholarly journal articles from two different political eras that support my thesis. I didn’t realize that this was a bad faith discussion. Now I know.