world

Democrats pour money into long shot races

5 Comments
By Paul J Webber

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2018 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2018 GPlusMedia Inc.


5 Comments
Login to comment

Why money is important to win? Just say what you will do.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

GoodlucktoyouToday  10:51 am JST

Why money is important to win? Just say what you will do.

That is a very good question. (I don't know why someone down-voted you).

The answer is that the US electoral system is so fundamentally flawed, that the candidate who spends more is almost inevitably the one who wins, so the entire cycle is about fundraising. The system is broken and only seems to get worse as the years pass.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Ads, most of the money is spent in ads. People are mostly volunteers.

The real winner is the media.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The US allows funding from outside a district to support a candidate.

My house rep was determined last year in a special election. 1 seat. Over $50M total was spent for that single seat, the vast majority of the money came from outside the state. That should be illegal, IMHO. If a person cannot vote in the election, then they shouldn't be allowed to spend any money for any campaign or PAC activities related to that election.

The side effect of these limits would be that our representatives would pay attention to the people they represent, not some political fund from another state.

Politicians and media companies will never allow this - they want the money. We'd need to provide free TV/Radio time for every candidate to provide positive messages. No negative ads against others allowed. That would be in the public interest.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

The answer is that the US electoral system is so fundamentally flawed, that the candidate who spends more is almost inevitably the one who wins

Well not exactly. Hillary spent about 1/3 more than Trump and still lost. The extra hundreds of millions of dollars bought her a lonely walk in the woods. Incumbency is the biggest advantage. Other candidates win when there is a wave election- as we are set to see this November. If a candidate is within shouting distance a wave has a chance to get them over the top regardless of having less money than your opponent. If Sri Kulkarni is close enough by election day the money Narasimhan is putting up could have a marginal influence on the outcome. Sometimes that’s enough - sometimes it’s not.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites