Another American Hero

[Loki]

I'm sure studies are not up to your rigorous standards, and therefore you will have "proved" that money doesn't influence politics. Why go through the inevitable debate?

Um, this is an area that Americanists care a lot about. I'm sure there are numerous studies on this topic. Considering that you're making definitive statements about the influence of money, it probably wouldn't be all that hard for you to dig up some of those studies. You can start with American Journal of Political Science and American Political Science Review. Those are the top 2 Americanist journals. Presumably you have access to JSTOR or some similar database.

[']['ear]

I'm too lazy and I don't give a shit. It's 10 pm on a Friday night. I've read it in plenty of respectable places, so I'm pretty secure with the statement.

Besides, I think it's pretty much prima facie. I'd say the burden of proof is on you to show that money doesn't much matter, since on the face of it that's an implausible statement, given that most of humanity is fairly stupid. Can we work from the assumption that both of us have IQs in excess of 130, and that they way WE view the world and elections is radically different than that of your average citizen? Remember, American Idol has been the most popular show in the country for years.

Edit: Damned straight that's elitist.

[Loki]

And I always thought the burden of proof lay on the person who was making an assertion. I don't really care about this topic (I'd be studying it if I did), so I'm hardly going to do your homework on it. You could probably find some relevant studies in under 5 minutes if you actually tried.

[']['ear]

Yet people here infrequently provide linkage to support assertions, even when asked. Or more accurately, people usually only provide linkage when they know more or less where it is beforehand. In fact, it's sort of become a "I want to hassle your ass, so I'll ask for a source" type thing. Given that, why should I be the sucker that goes and spends all his time digging around boring sources, especially when I've read something over and over in reputable contexts?

[CitizenCain]

Given that, why should I be the sucker that goes and spends all his time digging around boring sources, especially when I've read something over and over in reputable contexts?

Maybe because you want there to be any chance of anyone believing you? Last time we took your word on something, you were terrorizing the poor villagers in exchnage for cocaine.

[LittleFuzzy]

I'm too lazy and I don't give a shit. It's 10 pm on a Friday night. I've read it in plenty of respectable places, so I'm pretty secure with the statement.

Besides, I think it's pretty much prima facie. I'd say the burden of proof is on you to show that money doesn't much matter

He didn't say it doesn't much matter. He said that incumbency matters more, which I believe you acknowledged, and also asserted that money doesn't have any sort of directly progressive effect on the outcome, that it rather operates with fairly distinct plateaus or saturation levels. Which is hardly a controversial claim.

[']['ear]

He didn't say it doesn't much matter. He said that incumbency matters more, which I believe you acknowledged, and also asserted that money doesn't have any sort of directly progressive effect on the outcome, that it rather operates with fairly distinct plateaus or saturation levels. Which is hardly a controversial claim.

Yes, I'd never argue that the effects of money were strictly linear. But I'll stand by the "all other things being equal" argument. Since most of the other things are beyond one's control, money becomes one of the few factors a politician DOES have control over. I think it follows that if you want to win in politics, you sell your soul for money, because a lot of the rest is random noise of the universe that you can't alter.

Certainly Obama did this. Good political call, bad soul call.