You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

4
4

[–] Sixtysixpixistix 4 points 4 points (+8|-4) ago  (edited ago)

Person X spent less on his campaign than person Y spent on his campaign.

Therefore X is better a better suited to run an economy

What relationship is there between spending money on a campaign and running an economy?

0
9

[–] AdultRandy 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

I think the idea is that it tries to show the person is frugal/good at managing money. I don't know much about economics, but I imagine that business/personal finance is not the same as understanding the entire economy. Still, people like the idea that the candidate isn't wasteful and hopes this will translate to their administration as well.

4
0

[–] Sixtysixpixistix 4 points 0 points (+4|-4) ago 

If the candidates were spending money on the same campaign that would make sense. Maybe person Y can afford to spend more. Maybe the campaign is more important to him. Maybe he needs to spend more in order to compete with person X. The possibilities are limitless because we're not comparing like with like.

That said, it does seem to be effective propaganda. People take a short-cut in their thinking and assume the disparity in campaign spending means one candidate is more frugal than another.

1
-1

[–] Palaver 1 point -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

It is becoming increasingly clear the events before an election have no bearing on the events after an election.