Are we that dumb or am I that naive?

@gewcew23 (8011)
United States
October 11, 2010 3:09pm CST
There has been a lot of attention towards who much money has been or is going to be spent this election. The grandeur of the amount of money being spent in this election is a direct correlation with the recent Supreme Court decision that made it legal for corporations, unions and other special interest groups to run ads endorsing candidate. By doing this these groups have ability to give unlimited amounts of money to a campaign. Yet is that really something to get all worked up over? I have never based my vote on an ad campaign in my life. Before I started writing this discussion I thought about everyone I have voted for in my life and cannot remember ever being persuade to vote for someone over someone else because of an ad. Now this is were I might be naive may most people do decide who to vote for based on the 30 second ad campaign. If that is the case then we have a lot of dumb voter is this nation. I guess to sum up my discussion just because someone runs more ads than the other guy by out spending him or her does not mean that candidate has to win. You can always vote for the other person. The Internet is full of information about the candidates running for election, use it. As I said if you think I am naive let me know.
3 people like this
3 responses
@djbtol (5497)
• United States
11 Oct 10
I tend to agree with you. They are wasting most of their campaign dollars on me. I constantly get emails from candidates and they all try to convince me that their campaign success depends on me sending money now! If you look at campaigns on a macro scale though, I think the money does make a difference. If there are two candidates and one has a war chest significantly larger than the other, the one with the bucks will usually win. That is a general observation and I do not know if other people will agreee. And I am saying it is not a good thing? Elections should not be decided by money or tv time. One might also want to judge on whether it is a good to spend so much money on campaigns. My first thought is no - what a waste. But on the other hand, it is not my decision to make. If you want to give a million dollars to your favorite candidate, and they want to hire media people to get their message out, then fine, this is America and such freedom is good. You can spend 10 million trying to get my vote, and I still can choose you or the other guy. The important balancing factor to the massive campaigns is what you mentioned - we have all the information available to make the best choice, even if we are not in the money. Sorry, I did not answer the question about dumb or naive. Maybe someone else will.
@gewcew23 (8011)
• United States
12 Oct 10
While it is true that the more money a candidate spends better chance the candidate will win I guess I just don't understand why.
1 person likes this
@speakeasy (4215)
• United States
11 Oct 10
I hate to say it; but, if you actually look at the amount of money spent by each candidate; the one who spends the most does usually end up winning. There are exceptions to every rule. But, politicians who spend less usually don't win. It is not that you are dumb; though, you may be a little naive. The problem is that as a whole, the people are gullible and vote according to what they hear on the radio and the television. Very few of them actually research their candidates. That is why George Bush was elected for a second term and it is why we now have OBama in the White House. Personally, I think that for every campaign dollar spent, an equal amount should go towards paying off the deficit. We would be out of debt in no time!
@gewcew23 (8011)
• United States
12 Oct 10
I am not denying that I am naive on the subject I guess I just wish that the amount of money a candidate has to spend would not matter.
@djbtol (5497)
• United States
12 Oct 10
I like your idea about doing matching debt payments. That would certainly help, since we no the candidates will be spending every dollar they can get their hands on.
@speakeasy (4215)
• United States
12 Oct 10
Let's face it - if 50% of every dollar collected for political campaigns went to the city, county, state, or federal deficit - it would not take very long and the deficits would be dropping and disappearing - all without having to raise taxes! If any of them started showing an actual surplus - that money could then be spent on education, healthcare, road, and water improvements, etc,; all at no additonal cost to the taxpayers. And, the candidates or groups collecting the money would still have plenty of money to get their names and ideas out to the public. As a matter of fact, I think the actual amount of contributions would increase.
@Taskr36 (13923)
• United States
12 Oct 10
Money helps, but it doesn't guarantee a win by any stretch of the imagination. Anyone who thinks otherwise should simply look at Alvin Greene. The guy barely had enough money to get on the ballot and yet he mopped the floor with his well funded opponent in the primaries. With the tea parties this year has seen a number of well funded incumbents lose primary battles to people with little to no political experience. I agree that with the internet and the current political climate we actually do have better informed voters than we have in the past. I will say though, that those smear campaigns do work sometimes. If they didn't, candidates wouldn't spend so much money on them. Granted, they have backfired for some. Alan Grayson comparing his opponent to the Taliban with a doctored video has had the opposite effect on that race since people know it's a lie.