How much of a difference does big corporate lobbyist money make in winning elections?

[Hardkill]

The candidate who spends the most money usually wins elections. A lot of times when a certain candidate loses an election, some people will say it was because that candidate was outspent by their opponent with regard to how much they were able to finance their campaigns.?

So, if that's the case, then if progressive candidates had as much money to spend on their campaigns as the corporate democrats have for their own campaigns, then could progressives win a lot more elections? Or not necessarily?

Edited September 23, 2023 by Hardkill

[UnlovingGod]

Just now, Hardkill said:

The candidate who spends the most money usually wins elections. A lot of times when a certain candidate loses an election, some people will say it was because that candidate was outspent by their opponent with regard to how much they were able to finance their campaigns.?

So, if that's the case, then if progressive candidates had as much money to spend on their campaigns as the corporate democrats have for their own campaigns, then could progressives win a lot more elections? Or not necessarily?

If progressive candidates had as much money, they wouldn't be as progressive, when profit interests collide with progressive politics, that's when society changes. Emancipation of woman in the workforce, for example. Capitalism is an ever evolving system and it doesn't care of the good of anyone, either you ride the wave or not.

[Danioover9000]

@Hardkill

50 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

The candidate who spends the most money usually wins elections. A lot of times when a certain candidate loses an election, some people will say it was because that candidate was outspent by their opponent with regard to how much they were able to finance their campaigns.?

So, if that's the case, then if progressive candidates had as much money to spend on their campaigns as the corporate democrats have for their own campaigns, then could progressives win a lot more elections? Or not necessarily?

   Way more than just lobbying and throwing money into a political campaign. Other factors may include losing because of differences in values, cognition, morality, personality traits and types, ego development, life experiences and other lines of development, ideological differences, mishandling smear campaigns and propaganda, and many more factors.

[UnlovingGod]

Just now, Danioover9000 said:

@Hardkill

   Way more than just lobbying and throwing money into a political campaign. Other factors may include losing because of differences in values, cognition, morality, personality traits and types, ego development, life experiences and other lines of development, ideological differences, mishandling smear campaigns and propaganda, and many more factors.

Well sometimes an idiot like Trump with zero life experience gets the popular vote. Know the deep fantasies of the people and give them the illusion that you are their saviour. Even if you just say the right things by accident. What gets implemented is a whole other story, that may correlate, with what is being campaigned. And more counciouss people have higher degrees of fantasies. I wouldn't be surprised, that high level marketing guys and psychologist are involved in a political campaign. I mean the shenanigans that happens on social media are more often than not controlled by bots to distort the common fantasies of the population, I don't want to imagine, what happens, when AI becomes such a necessity as smartphones and the Internent. I mean the military spends millions into Hollywood, while China has also their influence on common Media, I may recall what happened to Blizzard and NBA in regards of Hong Kong. Everybody is seeking for their own good, that's politics and of course everything that can be used, will be used to win election, randomness will be eliminated as much as possible. And all of that needs a shit ton of money.

Edited September 23, 2023 by UnlovingGod

[Hardkill]

1 hour ago, Danioover9000 said:

@Hardkill

   Way more than just lobbying and throwing money into a political campaign. Other factors may include losing because of differences in values, cognition, morality, personality traits and types, ego development, life experiences and other lines of development, ideological differences, mishandling smear campaigns and propaganda, and many more factors.

 

3 minutes ago, UnlovingGod said:

Well sometimes an idiot like Trump with zero life experience gets the popular vote. Know the deep fantasies of the people and give them the illusion that you are their saviour. Even if you just say the right things by accident. What gets implemented is a whole other story, that may correlate, with what is being campaigned. And more counciouss people have higher degrees of fantasies.

So, then why don't politicians really need campaign donations from corporations and wealthy donors?

 

 

[UnlovingGod]

Just now, UnlovingGod said:

I wouldn't be surprised, that high level marketing guys and psychologist are involved in a political campaign. I mean the shenanigans that happens on social media are more often than not controlled by bots to distort the common fantasies of the population, I don't want to imagine, what happens, when AI becomes such a necessity as smartphones and the Internent. I mean the military spends millions into Hollywood, while China has also their influence on common Media, I may recall what happened to Blizzard and NBA in regards of Hong Kong. Everybody is seeking for their own good, that's politics and of course everything that can be used, will be used to win election, randomness will be eliminated as much as possible. And all of that needs a shit ton of money.

That's why