"The cryptocurrency industry super PACs dumped $14.2 million into the Illinois primaries. 90% of that – $12.8 million – was wasted, in that it went to opposing Democratic candidates who won their primaries"

I read that as them having mistakenly sent the cryptos to the "opposing candidate"

▲

Quinner 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The quote is the wrong way of looking at this. The typical rate of successful primary challenges is only 3%. If you take that to 10% its an enormous success, incumbents will say "if I oppose crypto then I triple my odds of losing in a primary, better not do that."

▲

DFHippie 4 hours ago | parent [-]

It's not quite like that, though. 90% of their funding supported candidates that lost or opposed candidates that won -- they opposed the winning outcome. They supported the winning outcome with the remaining 10% of their funds, but here they pushed on the side of the contest which was already a lock anyway. So it isn't clear that any of the money they spent achieved anything.

	▲	IshKebab 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		What? Are you trying to say their spending had no effect because their spending had no effect?

▲

KellyCriterion 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

..could be a built-in feature of the matter?

:-D