Do you think the Dem party should move more right, left or stay the same to win future elections?

Should Democrats move right, left, or stay the same?

  • They should move to the right

    Votes: 6 27.3%

  • They should move to the left

    Votes: 15 68.2%

  • They should keep doing exactly what they've been doing

    Votes: 1 4.5%
  • Total voters
    22
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
Look man, now you're just being obtuse. Are you seriously suggesting that major corporations and those who own them are collectively pouring billions of dollars into political campaigns out of simple altruism? Please tell me you're not this naive.

No, the officers of many of these corporations actually say they're investments- at least in private settings and unguarded moments.

They feel like they get their money back tenfold in terms of access and influence in legislation ranging from tax breaks and subsidies to preferential treatment.

Agricultural subsidies are an excellent example; the vast majority of Ag subsidy money goes to major corporations instead of individual farmers. How do you think that happened? By accident?! No! Cargill, ADM and many others got deeply involved, and one of the ways they gain inside access is by funding candidates who were most likely to be open to their point of view. After the election, those same politicians found themselves bound to listen to and support the agenda of their major contributors- or risk losing that funding to opposition candidates in the next election. Big Ag is anything but alone in pursuing these practices.

Finally, if they do well for their corporate masters, they get rewarded with fat 'consulting' contacts, often worth millions, when they retire from public life.

Every major industry plays the same game, to the point where it's considered a standard path to wealth by current and former politicians.

It works in reverse when it comes to regulatory agencies; the practice of hiring leaders from within the regulated industry has led to regulatory capture on a vast scale. Goldman Sachs CEO Hank Paulson, Timothy Geitner among others have been Treasury Secretary, and for some strange reason under their tenures Wall Street has benefited while middle America suffered.

The notion that all that money is somehow given without an expectation of return is laughably backwards.
Click to expand...
You didn't answer my question. Your entire argument above was sustained by stories but nothing that contained real evidence that red state progressives are brainwashed by big money propaganda.

A simpler argument can be made that they don't see Democrats advocating on their behalf and Republicans are.

As far as this point is concerned: Are you seriously suggesting that major corporations and those who own them are collectively pouring billions of dollars into political campaigns out of simple altruism? Please tell me you're not this naive.

Major corporations quite often contribute to both sides when the donation is visible. Why would they do that? I think it is because corporations see the donation as purchasing access to the politician later on. They don't care about the politician, just the laws that they want written or repealed.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/11/money-wins-white-house-and/
Just the first of many. Don't you Google for yourself?
Click to expand...
Absolutely, I do Google but you presume my reason for asking. I asked for the citation because I wanted to understand what information you are using to draw your conclusion. What you posted and what is shown in many other articles is very simple compilation of happenstance data. Here is a great graph from another article that bolsters your argument:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/11/does-more-campaign-money-actually-buy-more-votes-investigation/355154/




The horizontal axis shows the percentage more or less that the winning candidate spent. The vertical axis showing the point spread of the victory (e.g., a 60 percent to 40 percent win is a 20 percentage point spread).

With tons of scatter, still the trend indicates more spent means larger overall margin of victory. So, you seem to be correct. But not really. Happenstance data is contaminated with plenty of other variables that can influence the correlation. Such as, why did a candidate attract so much money? Maybe he was a better candidate and attracted more money? Or maybe the issues were very important to the electorate. Also, external factors, such as, the performance of the president at that time can affect congressional elections.

A better analysis of the effect of campaign spending was done in 1994.
Using Repeat Challengers to Estimate the Effect of Campaign Spending on the Outcome of House Elections
http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/LevittUsingRepeatChallengers1994.pdf

In this study, the author screened for elections where candidates ran against the same opposing candidate several times and compared spending vs outcome. The study was adequately sized to look for other factors and take them into account -- 633 elections between 1972 and 1990.

Conclusion: Once district-specific factors and quality of competing candidates are controlled for, the effect of election spending on outcomes, regardless of incumbency status is small but positive.

Bear in mind that you initiated this discussion because I said money doesn't BUY elections but influences them slightly and you said I was naive. I may be naive but I'm not wrong about this. Counter to your narrative, big money does not buy elections. In my opinion, what does buy elections is long term propaganda campaigns like the one against global warming intiative and the 25-year campaign against Hillary Clinton. Also, right wing radio is very effective in swaying public opinion over the long term. Large cash spending in short term elections has only a small effect. But it buys access and so the candidate gets the money anyway. Many times, both candidates get corporate contributions.

I found this article using Google, by the way. Unlike you, I read articles that both support and discredit an idea to help me decide. In this case, the better work was done to disprove your assertion that money buys elections.
 
Last edited:
twostrokenut

twostrokenut

Well-Known Member
tangerinegreen555 said:
Says the guy who buys whole life insurance policies for his kids and acts like that's a legitimate financial investment.

How's that silver doing down there in the crawl space? Up 3 cents today?
Click to expand...
I dont consider myself wealthy by any means.

Metals are way up from when I bought them so all good there, just keep advancing the inflation agenda like yall do, helps me out in that regard.

Tell me mustache, what would you say about someone who suggests the tax advantages of a median priced home are greater than the costs of financing said home?
 
tangerinegreen555

tangerinegreen555

Well-Known Member
twostrokenut said:
I dont consider myself wealthy by any means.

Metals are way up from when I bought them so all good there, just keep advancing the inflation agenda like yall do, helps me out in that regard.

Tell me mustache, what would you say about someone who suggests the tax advantages of a median priced home are greater than the costs of financing said home?
Click to expand...
Rebel financial expert, living in a trailer, sharpening knives to get by.

Stick to what you know, purple hater.
 
F

fdd2blk

Well-Known Member
twostrokenut said:
I dont consider myself wealthy by any means.

Metals are way up from when I bought them so all good there, just keep advancing the inflation agenda like yall do, helps me out in that regard.

Tell me mustache, what would you say about someone who suggests the tax advantages of a median priced home are greater than the costs of financing said home?
Click to expand...

"mustache" :lol: :clap:
 
twostrokenut

twostrokenut

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
i'll pay you 100,000 pennies if you can show me where i said that.
Click to expand...
A narcissist always thinks its about them.

ttystikk said:
Any attempt to insult or impugn @UncleBuck 's knowledge of the financial system from the perspective of the wealthy is laughable.
Click to expand...
UncleBuck said:
LOL

you will never achieve the wealth that my wife and i are currently worth.
Click to expand...
twostrokenut said:
Ah so your contention is that your perspective is from the wealthy? If you redefine wealth as debt then yes, good for you. No one who is wealthy has a $250k $1500/mo mortgage.
Click to expand...
ttystikk said:
This is flat wrong; few wealthy individuals would willingly walk away from all the tax advantages of the home mortgage deduction, no matter what their net worth.
Click to expand...
UncleBuck said:
not too many payments from getting rid of that pesky mortgage insurance.
Click to expand...
ttystikk said:
Millions of people realize gains in real estate by taking advantage of the fact that the interest on their mortgage is tax deductible. This effectively means they are borrowing the money for free, while watching the value of the property appreciate.
Click to expand...

Everyone go borrow some free money. LOL
 
Last edited:
F

fdd2blk

Well-Known Member
londonfog said:
you talk a lot of shit for a welfare recipient snitching felon.
Click to expand...

Yes, I do.

Why you been hiding so much lately. Wife tugging on your collar? Finally got caught in one of your lies? The only time you get to sneak online is when she's out "shopping" with Uncle Rudey?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top