Pretty sure primary sending isn’t very helpful when it’s intended to change election results.

What’s helpful is donating to people who you already know are going to win so that they do you favors later on.

elgenie 35 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

That works mainly because the money comes with a heavily implied threat: don't vote the way we want and the money spigot stops, or even reroutes into the coffers of your opponent.

But if that all happens, including the opponent funding, and those opponents get routed, then the bluff's been called and the lobby's hand has been found wanting.

▲

itsdesmond 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The article suggests something like 90% of their spend was intended to change results. Can you help me understand your comment? I don’t get it.

▲

arijun 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

They are saying that was a bad strategy and not the usual one. I have no idea to what extent that’s true.

	▲	shimman 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It's the same strategy they used in 2024 to a great effect: if you are against the crypto industry we will attack you. Not support the other candidate, but just attack you. The intention is to not waste money on supporting candidates, but to attack those that challenge the crypto industry. It's a very unique strategy in US politics that has been deployed quite successfully at varying times (Bill Clinton, uber, airbnb). Now with the elites being so brazen about their opulence they're taking it to the extreme.

▲

3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

vasco 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

He means in politics you don't need to bet on the winning horse, you can just bribe him after he wins. Or bet on both.

▲

itsdesmond 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Sure but like… he’s just some fucking guy on a tech comment thread (as are we all). You don’t think the professional bribe guys know a thing or two about doing bribes? Nah. The people who won wouldn’t take their money. It had to be those losers.

This is not a story about people being bad at bribing, it’s a story about The people rejecting candidates who were open to taking those bribes. Not necessarily because they took crypto money, more because shit policy positions usually come in sets, and we’re not into it.

▲

daft_pink an hour ago | parent | next [-]

I mean that receiving election funding generally just correlates with winning and it doesn’t cause winning.

Everyone wants to write checks to the winner, because they think they will win. But writing checks to some random candidate doesn’t result in them suddenly winning.

▲

blitzar 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> The people rejecting candidates who were open to taking those bribes

The people voted for candidates who were openly taking bribes from other people.

> You don’t think the professional bribe guys know a thing or two about doing bribes?

Crypto bros know better and wont hire the professionals

▲

itsdesmond 3 hours ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

▲

shimman 3 hours ago | parent [-]

I understand the frustration but you realize how brazen the US is about bribes right? It's not a bribe unless you say "I'm giving you this money as a bribe." That's the legal standard SCOTUS has declared.

	▲	itsdesmond 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yeah, for sure. That’s why I vote for candidates that refuse PAC money from crypto and otherwise. This goof is lazily and without evidence asserting that there exists no good option. I dunno if they wanna just be smug or if they’re actively trying to dissuade participation, but I don’t need it either way.

▲

rfw300 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

On those terms, they also wasted a lot of cash. 90% of it went to candidates who lost (or opposing candidates who won).

▲

lern_too_spel an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Why would a candidate compromise their platform like that if they aren't going to lose without those donations and won't even lose if the money is spent against them?

▲

lotsofpulp 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I don't understand how a blanket statement like this can apply. In a voting district where one party is heavily favored, such that that party's primary election winner is basically going to win the general election (e.g. New York City), then primary spending seems like the only place to influence the election.

	▲	blitzar 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The aim is not to influence the election it is to own the person who wins the election. The less likely they are to win the cheaper it is, but higher the chances it is all for nothing.