Democrats don’t run attack ads against the other primary candidates. Running as a primary candidate doesn’t require the amount of funding that a presidential election campaign requires. Unfortunately I don’t think Bernie would get any air time if he was just funded by grassroots donations.
Democrats don’t run attack ads against the other primary candidates.
Guess no one told Bloomberg that. Also, we’ve just come through the second election where Trump won despite spending far less than the Democrats. I’m sure the billionaire class would go hard against Sanders, but spending isn’t everything in campaigns anymore, especially against populists.
Russias invasion of Ukraine needed Trump to win. Their bot farms aren’t on the books. Billionaires were literally buying votes and that wasn’t counted as campaign spending. To claim Trump won because spending isn’t everything in campaigns anymore is to ignore how Trump won.
Foreign interference isn’t magic; Russian bots didn’t hand Trump the win, just like Iran hacking Vance didn’t hand him a loss. Elon Musk’s Super PAC seems to have been largely ineffective, just like Mark Cuban seems to have been ineffective for Harris. These reasons you’re giving for Trump’s victory aren’t based on evidence. These are excuses to avoid the conclusion that, despite spending way more than Trump, Harris’ campaign and message weren’t good enough to win.
These reasons you’re giving for Trump’s victory aren’t based on evidence.
They are based on the evidence that Trump won.
Elon Musk’s Super PAC seems to have been largely ineffective, just like Mark Cuban seems to have been ineffective for Harris.
You’re comparing Elons super PAC’s success (Trump won = Elons super PAC successful) to Mark Cuban, a single billionaire that supported Harris and was unsuccessful as measured by the evidence that Harris lost.
Billionaires don’t want to be taxed. Harris campaigned on taxing billionaires. Marc Cuban was an exception to that rule
Marc Cuban wasn’t enough to counter the work of all the other billionaires, whose efforts were not included in campaign spending.
This isn’t reality, this is contradictory nonsense based on vibes. Saying Musk Super PAC must have been effective because Trump won is like saying Trump’s golden sneakers must have been effective because Trump won. And by this exact logic, spending more must not have been effective, because Trump spent less and he won.
Super PACs supply funding for campaigns. Is that not reality?
Funding for a campaign = more resources for the campaign to accomplish more. Is that not reality?
Campaigning is done to increase votes for a candidate. Is that not reality?
Spending more doesn’t guarantee a win because not everything a campaign does to increase votes is equally effective or equal in cost. Is that not reality?
But spending less means less resources for the campaign which limits what the campaign is capable of. Is that not reality?
Trump selling sneakers was for his personal gain and unrelated to campaign funding.
I don’t know why any of that needs to be explained.
Democrats don’t run attack ads against the other primary candidates. Running as a primary candidate doesn’t require the amount of funding that a presidential election campaign requires. Unfortunately I don’t think Bernie would get any air time if he was just funded by grassroots donations.
Guess no one told Bloomberg that. Also, we’ve just come through the second election where Trump won despite spending far less than the Democrats. I’m sure the billionaire class would go hard against Sanders, but spending isn’t everything in campaigns anymore, especially against populists.
Russias invasion of Ukraine needed Trump to win. Their bot farms aren’t on the books. Billionaires were literally buying votes and that wasn’t counted as campaign spending. To claim Trump won because spending isn’t everything in campaigns anymore is to ignore how Trump won.
Foreign interference isn’t magic; Russian bots didn’t hand Trump the win, just like Iran hacking Vance didn’t hand him a loss. Elon Musk’s Super PAC seems to have been largely ineffective, just like Mark Cuban seems to have been ineffective for Harris. These reasons you’re giving for Trump’s victory aren’t based on evidence. These are excuses to avoid the conclusion that, despite spending way more than Trump, Harris’ campaign and message weren’t good enough to win.
They are based on the evidence that Trump won.
You’re comparing Elons super PAC’s success (Trump won = Elons super PAC successful) to Mark Cuban, a single billionaire that supported Harris and was unsuccessful as measured by the evidence that Harris lost.
Billionaires don’t want to be taxed. Harris campaigned on taxing billionaires. Marc Cuban was an exception to that rule
Marc Cuban wasn’t enough to counter the work of all the other billionaires, whose efforts were not included in campaign spending.
This isn’t reality, this is contradictory nonsense based on vibes. Saying Musk Super PAC must have been effective because Trump won is like saying Trump’s golden sneakers must have been effective because Trump won. And by this exact logic, spending more must not have been effective, because Trump spent less and he won.
Super PACs supply funding for campaigns. Is that not reality?
Funding for a campaign = more resources for the campaign to accomplish more. Is that not reality?
Campaigning is done to increase votes for a candidate. Is that not reality?
Spending more doesn’t guarantee a win because not everything a campaign does to increase votes is equally effective or equal in cost. Is that not reality?
But spending less means less resources for the campaign which limits what the campaign is capable of. Is that not reality?
Trump selling sneakers was for his personal gain and unrelated to campaign funding.
I don’t know why any of that needs to be explained.