Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat
Its a bit silly to argue that the candidate who spends the most money will always win, that has never been the case.
|
BZZT. Wrong. It is, in fact, usually the case. What's silly is to build an "he who spends the most will
always win" strawman. No one ever said that.
Quote:
In congressional races in 2010, the candidate who spent the most won 85 percent of the House races and 83 percent of the Senate races, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
The center found that in 2008, the biggest spenders won 93 percent of House races and 86 percent of Senate races. In 2006, the top spenders won 94 percent of House races and 73 percent of Senate races. And in 2004, 98 percent of House seats went to candidates who spent the most, as did 88 percent of Senate seats.
The most recent figures, from the 2008 election cycle, show that 80 percent of state legislative candidates with the monetary advantage won their contests. In 2006, it was 83 percent; in 2004, it was 84 percent; and in 2002, it was 82 percent. (The group's figures for 2010 are due to be released in the next month or so.)
|
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ys-94-percent/
To ignore the chilling effect that money has in politics is to ignore reality.