Why there are likely less than a million actual Trump supporters in the US.

[acbytesla]

I consider this a complete non-sequitur.

The idea that it is money that gets you elected has been proven wrong again and again.What matters is Ground Game, community outreach, lots of spokespersons to flood the media channels. And a candidate that comes across as "authentic".

But is IS true that Democrats and Republicans see it as their primary job to collect donations.

No offense, but nonsense.

Money isn't everything in getting elected. That is true. But money is mother's milk in politics. A ground game, community outreach and spokespersons all cost money. I worked for the Washington State Democratic party. More than half of what we did was raise money.

I don't see third party candidates being competitive. Especially third party candidates with little money. Sometimes some super rich guy tries and makes a dent. But they too usually fail for the reasons you mention. They don't have volunteer organizations. They are inexperienced. They make mistakes.

A charismatic candidate can definitely tilt any election. But I've seen them lose too.


.

 

[Random]

No offense, but nonsense.

Money isn't everything in getting elected. That is true. But money is mother's milk in politics. A ground game, community outreach and spokespersons all cost money. I worked for the Washington State Democratic party. More than half of what we did was raise money.

I don't see third party candidates being competitive. Especially third party candidates with little money. Sometimes some super rich guy tries and makes a dent. But they too usually fail for the reasons you mention. They don't have volunteer organizations. They are inexperienced. They make mistakes.

A charismatic candidate can definitely tilt any election. But I've seen them lose too.


.

Money isn't everything in getting elected, but it still serves as a very effective gatekeeper. Anyone can run for President as long as they have the approval of people who can fund their campaign...

 

[acbytesla]

Money isn't everything in getting elected, but it still serves as a very effective gatekeeper. Anyone can run for President as long as they have the approval of people who can fund their campaign...

Exactly.

Almost everything in a campaign is about raising awareness. Raising awareness with donors, raising awareness of volunteers, and most importantly, raising awareness of the electorate. Money can and does raise awareness.

A well funded campaign can pay for a professional campaign manager, polling and advertising. Not to mention an endless list of incidentals.

We spent a lot of time in the party looking for quality candidates. That is the most important ingredient. A crappy candidate can easily lose an election despite being well funded. But a quality candidate can and often do lose if they aren't well funded. That said, quality candidates usually attract funding.

A lot of this is chicken and egg.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

What I find fascinating is the desperate need of marketers and pollsters to split customers/voters into types.

They are always wrong insofar that no matter what groupings they choose, enough people in each group will be different enough that the scheme to reach them will fail, making the whole thing ineffective - except as a way to get money to marketers/ pollsters.

People don't like to be told what they want,they want to have someone they can tell what they want.
And that's annoying, which is why it's so hard to reach a company hotline or your member of Congress.

As we have seen, it doesn't require advertising if you can make the media come to you - the Trump rallies both make the media coming running and make the voters feel seen.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Let's put it another way: how much of the money politicians constantly beg for goes into Ground Game?

If candidates spend their money effectively and not according to profit maximizing they would have more electoral success.

Revealed Preference (and actual statements) suggest that getting donations has become the way to measure success, not actually reaching and convincing voters.

 

[acbytesla]

What I find fascinating is the desperate need of marketers and pollsters to split customers/voters into types.

They are always wrong insofar that no matter what groupings they choose, enough people in each group will be different enough that the scheme to reach them will fail, making the whole thing ineffective - except as a way to get money to marketers/ pollsters.

People don't like to be told what they want,they want to have someone they can tell what they want.
And that's annoying, which is why it's so hard to reach a company hotline or your member of Congress.

As we have seen, it doesn't require advertising if you can make the media come to you - the Trump rallies both make the media coming running and make the voters feel seen.

Let's put it another way: how much of the money politicians constantly beg for goes into Ground Game?

If candidates spend their money effectively and not according to profit maximizing they would have more electoral success.

Revealed Preference (and actual statements) suggest that getting donations has become the way to measure success, not actually reaching and convincing voters.

Nothing about elections can be boiled down to a simplistic formula. But that doesn't stop people from trying. It is both an art and a science. But it is a social science. One that can be measured, but its predictive capabilities are limited.

Trump's success is both unique and predictable. We've seen politicians just like him. Joe McCarthy is one who comes to mind. But there have been others.

Trump succeeds at promotion and almost nothing else. Money helps him draw attention but he gets more free promotion than any politician in history.

 

[Donal]

I consider this a complete non-sequitur.

The idea that it is money that gets you elected has been proven wrong again and again.

I wouldn't go that far. I think we've seen a point of diminishing returns and the need to reassess how money is spent.

What matters is Ground Game, community outreach, lots of spokespersons to flood the media channels. And a candidate that comes across as "authentic".

You need money for that stuff. Granted, you can't just firehose cash but money gets that stuff done.

But is IS true that Democrats and Republicans see it as their primary job to collect donations.

Stupid SCOTUS overturning Roe v Wade and forcing our elected leaders to actually address one of their biggest promises.