For example, a study found that while it may appear that money wins elections, it’s really a winner that wins money.
But they dispute the commonly held assumption that the spending causes the win. Instead they point out that anticipated win – or possible win – will often attract the campaign money. When candidates obtain large amounts of money it is usually because they are seen to be the best candidate or the one mostly likely to win. Based on Levitt’s study of campaign spending by the same candidates against the same competitors over decades of US congressional elections, it was found that ‘the amount of money spent by the candidates hardly matters at all. A winning candidate can cut his spending in half and lose only 1% of the vote. Meanwhile, a losing candidate who doubles his spending can expect to shift the vote in his favor by only that same 1%’. The Freakonomics authors conclude that campaign spending has a very small impact on election outcomes, regardless of who does the spending.
To expect the media top act any better is, well, perhaps unfair.
It is a sign of how bad things are for Democrats that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s best shot at keeping her job come November is to lose no more than 38 seats in Congress.
Right! ‘Cause the worst thing that can happen to Democrats is that, you know, Pelosi loses her seat!
How ’bout…Ummm, things like:
- Ending wars
- Fixing immigration
- Gay Rights
Things that Democrats traditionally like!
But no, if the Democrats lose this fall, and they almost certainly will, Pelosi will lose her seat.