Skip to main content
9 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Aug 4, 2015 at 10:20 vote accept gerrit
Dec 18, 2012 at 19:28 comment added user4012 @JNK - Raising funds is a skill (of a campaign, or a candidate). That money doesn't just magically appear out of thin air, and usually dries up for bad candidates *cough* McCain *cough* in general elections
Dec 18, 2012 at 19:13 comment added JNK There's a serious logical fallacy here. In a PRIMARY all the candidates are competing for the same money pool - republican or democratic donors. In the general election there's little internal competition, the republican donors will give money to the republican candidate and vice versa. The billion dollars spent wasn't contributions to the individual candidates, a lot of that was party money as well.
Dec 18, 2012 at 16:03 comment added gerrit If you're talking about US presidential elections, indeed. Probably as well for congress and for senators. The situation is different for e.g. parliamentary elections in European countries, where proportional representation can get grassroots political parties into parliament where they then have a platform without needing money to get access to media.
Dec 18, 2012 at 15:52 comment added user4012 @gerrit - I would be hard pressed to find a candidate who won a general election without raising big dough. It's not right or wrong, it just is :)
Dec 18, 2012 at 15:49 comment added gerrit Right, that's actually quite pragmatic and independent on the moral judgement if it's right that the ability to raise funds is a necessary requirement to win elections. I'll wait a bit before accepting to give others a chance to answer.
Dec 18, 2012 at 15:46 vote accept gerrit
Dec 18, 2012 at 15:46
Dec 18, 2012 at 15:42 comment added user4012 </the_architect>
Dec 18, 2012 at 15:42 history answered user4012 CC BY-SA 3.0