What Americans Think about Elections (1 Viewer)

[Doug64]

Not so. FiveThirtyEight listed polls:

I was referencing the polls in the RCP rolling average.

Since you mentioned yourself that Rassmussen is a B rated pollster, it's also worth noting that they lean 1.5% to the Republicans. That makes your 8% actually a 5%

No, it would make it a 6.5.

RCP are a much inferior aggregator since they don't even try to account for poll quality or past lean.

And there's something off about that weighting. Looking at the list of polls they are using to come to their aggregate number, only one of those below R+4 has a rating over B/C, and it polled registered voters. Of the other three, one of them doesn't even have a rating!. And yet, somehow they have their aggregate at R+2.3. Though there is a slight adjustment, if you just averaged them out without any weighting the result would be R+2.1.

Which leads to the real difference between FiveThirtyEight's result and RCP's, which polls they are looking at. They only have three polls in common, and the two polls (by a single polling company) that have the lean going towards the Democrats isn't among them.

 

[The Stars Tremble]

I was referencing the polls in the RCP rolling average.


No, it would make it a 6.5.

No, it would make it 5. Notice that it says "mean reverted bias"

And there's something off about that weighting. Looking at the list of polls they are using to come to their aggregate number, only one of those below R+4 has a rating over B/C, and it polled registered voters. Of the other three, one of them doesn't even have a rating!. And yet, somehow they have their aggregate at R+2.3. Though there is a slight adjustment, if you just averaged them out without any weighting the result would be R+2.1.

Which leads to the real difference between FiveThirtyEight's result and RCP's, which polls they are looking at. They only have three polls in common, and the two polls (by a single polling company) that have the lean going towards the Democrats isn't among them.

There was a problem in 2016 called "herding". Pollsters all adjusted their method to give "accurate" results compared to other pollsters, and the herd wandered off into Wrong land. I think this is the reason FTE includes minor and new pollsters. Of course pollsters shouldn't adjust their methodology to get ANY result, but since they do, there is no better punishment than some statistics major with a new poll site, getting better results than they do.

Anyway, you can go with RCP if you prefer. Since you're a Republican supporter, I welcome your complacency.

 

[forn]

Personally, I hope Trump doesn't run--in which case we'll almost certainly see a President-elect DeSantis taking the oath in 2025. If Trump does run things get a lot more iffy

A lot can happen in two years, so I wouldn't bet on anything as a sure thing right now. I do think that Trump is going to run (unfortunately). In which case DeSantis may wait until 2028. If DeSantis were to run, and Republicans preferred him, what kind of tantrum do you think Trump would throw? I'm betting he would do everything in his power to ruin Republican chances that year for the White House.

 

[yankintx]

DeSantis hanging in to the convention then losing to Trump is just about my ideal scenario. Whatever the polls say (now) I am sure Trump cannot win again. Even without a crucial part of his base leaving with DeSantis.

The GOP primaries 2024 will be a blood bath.

 

[The Stars Tremble]

The GOP primaries 2024 will be a blood bath.

Maybe the moderates should take a leaf from France's book, and decide which ONE of them is going to run against Trump. It need not be a public agreement, the designated losers could just drop out early in the primaries.

Thing is, I don't think any candidate knows in advance, if they can win the primary voters. This goes for Democrats too. How often have we seen the media's "designated winner" fail miserably?

It might be because turnout is lower in primaries. It's very hard to predict which kind of voters will stay involved until it's their turn (and vote for their second or third choice) and which will lose all interest.

 

[Doug64]

There was a problem in 2016 called "herding". Pollsters all adjusted their method to give "accurate" results compared to other pollsters, and the herd wandered off into Wrong land. I think this is the reason FTE includes minor and new pollsters.

I wasn't thinking so much of the polls FiveThirtyEight is using (though as I said one of them seems ... odd) as the polls it isn't using.

 

[Doug64]

And the pendulum swings again.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that, if the elections for Congress were held today, 47% of Likely U.S. Voters would vote for the Republican candidate, while 42% would vote for the Democrat. Just four percent (4%) would vote for some other candidate, but another eight percent (8%) are not sure. The Republican lead has decreased by three points since last week, when they led 48%-40%. The GOP has led the Generic Congressional Ballot all year.

 

[Lafayette]

PARTISAN PERSONAL FINANCE

Rasmussan's survey, it seems, has little to do with money in politics. Beyond that, in my previous post I was addressing US politics at large and money. I was not referring to a particular party.

"Money in politics" - is there really any other subject that is more important in America than "Money, money, money"? Comparative wealth very largely defines how you will live and with whom as your neighbors and even social-contacts.

Because money defines where you live and with whom you chose to be close-friend it is easier to develop and enjoy a friendship with people who think-and-act alike. In terms of personal identity choosing friends with like political outlooks allows one to feel assured with people who think like like we do.

And this is a common social-trait throughout the Income-Spread (bottom-to-top) across the nation. The poor do not mingle with the rich and vice-versa, when in fact financial-status should have no reference whatsoever. But it does.

From here: How Democrats and Republicans differ on their personal finances

What’s partisan about personal finance?

The split may come down to how partisanship is increasingly affecting Americans’ attitudes about things that may seem totally unrelated to politics, says Aaron Weinschenk, an assistant professor of political science at University of Wisconsin Green Bay who has extensively researched the issue.

“When there’s a change in the White House, then the lines flip around. A Republican takes office, and Republicans suddenly say personal finances are better,” he says. “A Democrat comes in 4 years later, then Democrats suddenly say their personal finances are better, and Republicans say they’re much worse.”

In fact, the political climate affecting people’s sentiments about their personal finances isn’t a new phenomenon, says Weinschenk. He recalls research done in the period leading up to the 2000 election, when Republicans had negative views on the economy even as GDP and median income were clearly on the upswing. And, says Weinschenk, it cuts both ways.

“I think polarization has kind of amplified that for people. They’re really tuned in to the parties and the economy and maybe they don’t want to say that things are doing so well when somebody they don’t like is in office,” he says.

But while it’s not new, the effect may be increasing in intensity.

 

[Lafayette]

THE POOR IN AMERICA ARE VERY LIKELY TO LIVE POOR AND DIE POOR

And the RCP average has it at 3.4%. Of course, the Rasmussen poll is the only one filtering for Likely Voters, the rest are only filtering for Registered Voters.

The basic fact of the matter is twofold, and I suggest both points below are of little concern to most Americans (when they are key to any economy):

* Upper-income taxation has come down considerably over the post-JFK years. See here:



In 1963 JFK started the slow but continued slide downward in Upper-income Taxation, which has been reduced from 90% to a bit less than 41% today. Which is why there exist so many very rich Americans.

* Whilst America's poverty rate has come down since 1959 from around 23% to about half as much, it has remained at a rather permanent level. Of course, there are far, far more impoverished-Americans than rich-Americans.

I, for one, cannot see how this history of poverty has remained so glaring for so long and not one PotUS (Replicant or Dem) has done anything to make matters more fair. The poor are still living the same drudgery in America. It's as if poverty was a condition that was handed down from parents to thier children who handed it down to their children, who ...

When that need not be case any any country that wanted - really 'n truly - to remedy that awesome unfairness. It is NOT mission-impossible.

But it seems to be Mission Improbable in Uncle Sam's Land. We-the-sheeple do not have the desire to change it whether the PotUS is a Dem or a Replicant ...

PS: From here - Soaring markets helped the richest 1% gain $6.5 trillion in wealth

 

[Lafayette]

PS: From here - Soaring markets helped the richest 1% gain $6.5 trillion in wealth

Ya gotta be crazy to just accept that as mankind's inevitability ... and just walk away because there aint nuthin you can do about it.

In America, the rich get richer and the poor can go to hell. It aint that way in Europe.

Comparative income taxation rates graphic:

Of course, some Yanks will say the above graphic is "goodness" because the US is so low in the list.

But, higher taxation is what brings about very low cost National Healthcare and Post-secondary Education. That is, more people are better off healthwise and far more people get a post-secondary education. It is this latter that prepares individuals better for the massive loss of Manufacturing Jobs that has occurred both in the US and the EU (presently less than 10% of total in either the US or EU).

In Europe, the much lower-cost post-secondary education helps people find better jobs at a far better pay-level. Nonetheless, EU attainment-numbers of a post-secondary education is today lower than in the US. In the EU 37% of all students attain a post-secondary degree versus 50% in the US.

So, cost is not the only issue - a US post-secondary degree is much more expensive than the same in Europe ...

 

[Doug64]

@Lafayette, since you chose to bring poverty into the discussion, here's the breakdown of the Rasmussen poll by income:

	Under $30,000​	$30,000 - $50,000​	$50,000 - $100,000​	$100,000 - $200,000​	More than $200,000​	Not sure​
Republican	47%​	48%​	46%​	44%​	43%​	52%​
Democrat	40%​	40%​	43%​	46%​	49%​	33%​
Some other candidate	7%​	3%​	4%​	2%​	1%​	3%​
Not sure	6%​	9%​	7%​	7%​	7%​	12%​

And here's the breakdown by education:

	Attended high school, but did not graduate​	High school graduate​	Attended college, but did not complete​	College graduate​	Graduate school​	Not sure​
Republican	56%​	50%​	48%​	46%​	41%​	61%​
Democrat	27%​	37%​	39%​	43%​	51%​	35%​
Some other candidate	4%​	5%​	5%​	3%​	3%​	0%​
Not sure	13%​	9%​	8%​	8%​	5%​	5%​

You might notice that the group of Likely Voters giving the greatest support to Republicans is precisely those most likely to be poor and working class. In fact, the generic Democrat doesn't get at least a plurality until their income hits $100,000, and a majority until their education reaches Graduate School. I would say that the poor aren't putting much faith in Democrats these days.

 

[Lafayette]

TRY HARDER!

​

You might notice that the group of Likely Voters giving the greatest support to Republicans is precisely those most likely to be poor and working class. In fact, the generic Democrat doesn't get at least a plurality until their income hits $100,000, and a majority until their education reaches Graduate School. I would say that the poor aren't putting much faith in Democrats these days.

Say whatever you want. It's a free country. That does not mean your data is telling the truth.

For your edification, here: A Guide to Statistics on Historical Trends in Income Inequality

Extract:

The broad facts of income inequality over the past seven decades are easily summarized:

• The years from the end of World War II into the 1970s were ones of substantial economic growth and broadly shared prosperity.
  • Incomes grew rapidly and at roughly the same rate up and down the income ladder, roughly doubling in inflation-adjusted terms between the late 1940s and early 1970s.
  • The gap between those high up the income ladder and those on the middle and lower rungs — while substantial — did not change much during this period.
• Beginning in the 1970s, economic growth slowed and the income gap widened.
  • Income growth for households in the middle and lower parts of the distribution slowed sharply, while incomes at the top continued to grow strongly.
  • The concentration of income at the very top of the distribution rose to levels last seen nearly a century ago, during the “Roaring Twenties.”
• Wealth — the value of a household’s property and financial assets, minus the value of its debts — is much more highly concentrated than income. The best survey data show that the share of wealth held by the top 1 percent rose from 30 percent in 1989 to 39 percent in 2016, while the share held by the bottom 90 percent fell from 33 percent to 23 percent.

Data from a variety of sources contribute to this broad picture of strong growth and shared prosperity for the early postwar period, followed by slower growth and growing inequality since the 1970s. Within these broad trends, however, different data tell slightly different parts of the story, and no single data source is best for all purposes.

This guide consists of four sections. The first describes the commonly used sources and statistics on income and discusses their relative strengths and limitations in understanding trends in income and inequality. The second provides an overview of the trends revealed in those key data sources. The third and fourth sections supply additional information on wealth, which complements the income data as a measure of how the most well-off Americans are doing, and poverty, which measures how the least well-off Americans are doing.

You've got a LOT of reading to do! Your ignorance of the pertinent facts in the matter of human-poverty in America is woefully lacking!

YOU NEED TO TRY HARDER ... !!!

 

[Lafayette]

MORE DIRTY TRICKS FROM THE REPLICANTS IN CONGRESS

From Bloomberg: Harris Links Abortion and Voting Rights, Says Fight Must Go On

Excerpt:

Vice President Kamala Harris drew a link between states moving to outlaw abortion and those limiting voting rights, telling an audience mostly of Black women that the overturning of Roe v. Wade “requires all of us to speak up.”

“At least 11 states are doing both at the same time,” Harris said at the annual Essence Festival in New Orleans on Saturday. “No surprise there.”

Voting rights legislation is stalled in Congress as Democrats lack Republican support to pass it in the evenly split Senate. It remains a key issue for Black voters, 87% of whom backed Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election.

“We must be vigilant and we must remember we are always going to have to fight to maintain these rights,” Harris said.

President Biden has said he would support blocking the Senate’s filibuster rule under certain circumstances to codify abortion access into law and pass federal voting rights legislation. House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, who endorsed Biden in the South Carolina primary, has said he would back revoking the filibuster for bills related to constitutional issues.

The Replicants and their Dirty-tricks Mentality have stalled the process in Congress. Any real revolution in existing law is dieing a slow death.

And who is responsible? The Replicants ... !

 

[Doug64]

Say whatever you want. It's a free country. That does not mean your data is telling the truth.

I suppose we'll find out come November.

 

[Lafayette]

A FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH

I suppose we'll find out come November.

November is highly unpredictable are regards voting results. The American public is fickle as regards political options.

Because they think the only aspect that matters is "Can I pay the rent, or not?". Most of us Yanks do not yet understand the importance of a Post-secondary Education and how it opens wide doors to a higher personal income.

Once upon a time Manufacturing provided about half the total employment in America. Nowadays it is down to below 10%. All the rest is Services - which is fine for some people who learn a trade. But, beyond a year or two of doing so the dearth of jobs available to those without either a skills-ormation or a proven work-experience leaves many highly dependent upon state and national freebees.

That aint no way to live a life ... but to "kids" who are in their mid-teens they do not seem to understand the necessity of a higher level of education that prepares them for a sufficiently well-paid job. In the US, an annual salary between $70,000 – $78,000 before tax ($5,800 – $6,500 monthly) is considered to be a good wage in most states.

So, one need not imagine the limited work-possibilities of those who graduate without a high-school degree. But, about a quarter of high-schoolers fail to graduate on time. The U.S., which had some of the highest graduation rates of any developed country now ranks 22nd out of 27 developed countries.

Which means what? This: All the pissing-and-moaning about the next PotUS is of little consequence when today's mentality of a quarter of our youth do not seize the Fundamental Truth that our kids need a far higher education/training than they are getting today. A quarter of them (25%) have prepared themselves for a life in the financial-doghouse ... !

 

[The Stars Tremble]

You might notice that the group of Likely Voters giving the greatest support to Republicans is precisely those most likely to be poor and working class. In fact, the generic Democrat doesn't get at least a plurality until their income hits $100,000, and a majority until their education reaches Graduate School. I would say that the poor aren't putting much faith in Democrats these days.

Maybe because Democrats don't have the balls to call for BIG TAX INCREASES on the rich. The people who would be paying those taxes are apparently OK with it, but the middle class who think they're rich already (even when technically they have negative wealth, eg a home loan) would run to Republicans if Democrats (other than Bernie) proposed what has to be done. So many voters are deluded about their own social class so they keep voting like they're rich when really they are not.

The last time Republicans cut taxes, you know what the lowest bracket got? Six bucks. The well has run dry, and the Republican party can't use that trick again. Doubly so if they're going to make out that inflation this year is caused by Democrat deficits.

So how this goes is that Republicans get one more try to "build a strong economy" with tax cuts but no spending cuts, and when it underperforms for the fourth time then the voters embrace a high-taxing democratic socialist government instead. Republicans do not get a fifth chance, because they will no longer be believed.

 

[Lafayette]

A FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH

Pertinent historical chart of Manufacturing vs Services employment in America (from here):

Some services are learned-by-doing. Like serving hotdogs at a baseball game. But most of the better paying services require some sort of prepared education/learning - and education of that sort is mostly a state-responsibility.

To my mind, for it to be right-and-proper (meaning necessary and well-done), it should be Nationally (part US- and part State-government) Funded and Managed for all Americans ...

PS: And some states with very low populations could join together to be sure to offer training/learning to all their members (regardless of age) ...

 

[Lafayette]

The GOP primaries 2024 will be a blood bath.

So much the better. They deserve it.

They are not a political-party. They are a cult* ...

*"A system of religious veneration and devotion directed towards a particular figure or object."

 

[bomberfox]

PARTISAN PERSONAL FINANCE



"Money in politics" - is there really any other subject that is more important in America than "Money, money, money"? Comparative wealth very largely defines how you will live and with whom as your neighbors and even social-contacts.

Because money defines where you live and with whom you chose to be close-friend it is easier to develop and enjoy a friendship with people who think-and-act alike. In terms of personal identity choosing friends with like political outlooks allows one to feel assured with people who think like like we do.

And this is a common social-trait throughout the Income-Spread (bottom-to-top) across the nation. The poor do not mingle with the rich and vice-versa, when in fact financial-status should have no reference whatsoever. But it does.

From here: How Democrats and Republicans differ on their personal finances

Umm its been well known how much money influences politicians for centuries. Its why we created campaign finance laws…..

 

[Lafayette]

DIDDLY-SHAT

Umm its been well known how much money influences politicians for centuries. Its why we created campaign finance laws…..

If a people like politicians so much that they keep voting for the same ones (along party lines) then they deserve the obvious consequences.

That's been the problem with America's "democracy" since its inception.. That is, a political party on the Rabid-Right thinks that government need not be "for the people" but just for "certain people". Typically of a higher income status - after all, who gives them most of the money with which to get elected?

And the campaign finance laws have addressed only a part of the general problem. Which is the mentality of the American people - largely encased in the saying, "Money-money-money! It's all about the money:" So, Replicant politicians get mountains of money to pay for mountains of media-support that succeeds in igniting the voting-response necessary to rule politics in America.

Enormous amounts of money can bring you political-adulation but that is not necessarily what a political-governance should be straining to produce from an electorate. Not at all - but it seems that we swallow the pathetic notion that "wealth is everything" hook, line and sinker.

A lesson to be learned in the US, from here: Financing of political structures in EU Member States

How funding is provided to national political parties, their foundations and parliamentary political groups, and how the use of funds is controlled.

Abstract: While some areas of political finance regulation have experienced a significant convergence (e.g. the expansion of state funding for parties and other political entities and the establishment of disclosure requirements), largely as a result of international standards and monitoring, others exhibit major differences across the EU Member States. (E.g. limits on private donations and on spending, disclosure thresholds, nature and quality of oversight). This study underlines the need to implement international standards in order to achieve objectives in specific regulatory environment, rather than importing “off-the-shelf” solutions.

And here resides an interesting review by Pew Research: 5 facts about U.S. political donations

Excerpt:

Affluent Americans are donating more to candidates. So, politically, what remains for those at the bottom? Didly-shat, that's what ... !

 

[yankintx]

Umm its been well known how much money influences politicians for centuries. Its why we created campaign finance laws…..

Politicians use to be owned by the mob, now they corporate owned.


Not sure which is worse

 

[Lafayette]

Umm its been well known how much money influences politicians for centuries. Its why we created campaign finance laws…..

You ARE naive!

From here: The federal agency that enforces campaign finance laws can’t even meet. Why?

Excerpt:

Under normal circumstances, the commission [Federal Election Commission or FEC] would have at least four members, the minimum required to meet, issue advisory opinions and approve enforcement action. But circumstances at the agency aren’t normal: For most of the last year the FEC has only had three members, rendering it nearly powerless.

It’s unlikely the Senate will confirm a fourth member before the November election — the president’s last nominee waited nearly three years for a Senate vote.

Even if a new commissioner were confirmed, campaign finance reform advocates have lamented for years that the agency has been hampered by structural issues, a lack of resources and partisanship that have weakened its ability to enforce the law and deter illegal election spending. They say the problem has been exacerbated by Republican leaders opposed to limits on campaign spending, who have sought to weaken the agency.

Like most things "political" in LaLaLand-on-the-Potomac so is the FEC ...

 

[Lafayette]

THE NECESSITY OF ANY REAL DEMOCRACY DEPENDS UPON ITS MANAGEMENT OF PROCESSES

Politicians use to be owned by the mob, now they corporate owned.

Not sure which is worse

Yes, indeed, politicians are influenced by BigMoney. And why?

Because BigMoney has the right to influence them. Uncle Sam needs a law that forbids the manipulation of a Federal Election Committee and our FEC needs to be run by a purely-independent and non-political person or Advisory Board (not more than 5 people sitting on the board).

There are ways to do things right - but when you make politics your life's work then you are committed to an established "Ways and Means". And that "thing" (which is highly political in nature) is not what should be influencing how elections are run.

From here: Fixing the Federal Election Commission

The problem:

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is a deadlocked and ineffective agency. Created in 1974, the FEC is charged with enforcing federal campaign laws to prevent corruption or the appearance of corruption. However, the agency was intentionally structured to be weak from the beginning, and throughout the years, it has become increasingly less effective and mired in partisan division.

Our campaign finance laws only work if they are enforced. The unfortunate reality is that federal laws about money in politics are regularly violated, and when the FEC recognizes a violation, the agency usually takes very little meaningful action. And because the commission has an even number of Republicans and Democrats, it deadlocks 3-3 on most major decisions.

Solutions:

The Restoring Integrity to America’s Elections Act (H.R.1414) has been introduced with bipartisan support in multiple sessions of Congress. The bill is designed to restructure the FEC and ensure it can effectively enforce the law.

Key provisions in the bill would:

1. Change the number of commissioners. By reducing the number of commissioners from six to five and permitting no more than two members to be affiliated with the same party, the FEC would become a more effective enforcer of ethics and election laws. The commission would have the authority to initiate, defend and appeal civil actions, conduct investigations, issue advisory opinions, and change or amend regulations.
2. Create a blue ribbon panel to recommend commissioners. To help ensure the president nominates a highly qualified appointee, a nonpartisan Blue Ribbon Advisory Panel is needed to publicly recommend potential nominees to the FEC for the president’s consideration.
3. Strengthen the FEC Chair. The bill also directs the president to appoint a chair, subject to confirmation by the Senate. The chair would have administrative powers and the power to order written reports, administer oaths, and handle witnesses and evidence.
4. Eliminate never-ending holdovers. Currently, FEC commissioners can serve long after their term has expired while they wait for a replacement commissioner. Instead, commissioners would serve a single six-year term and may not remain in office in holdover status for more than one year.
5. Improve enforcement. The bill clarifies that the FEC may be represented by agency attorneys before the Supreme Court and allows those who respond to requests before the FEC to appear at hearings.

The solution above does not take into account that if the FEC is feckless it is because it is run by politicians. It needs to be run by people who have no political background whatsoever. That is, they never run for political office.

But, both parties have been manipulating politics for a great long time. You wanna believe that American politics is clean of manipulation? Be my guest, but you are only fooling yourself ... !

 

[yankintx]

THE NECESSITY OF ANY REAL DEMOCRACY DEPENDS UPON ITS MANAGEMENT OF PROCESSES



Yes, indeed, politicians are influenced by BigMoney. And why?

Because BigMoney has the right to influence them. Uncle Sam needs a law that forbids the manipulation of a Federal Election Committee and our FEC needs to be run by a purely-independent and non-political person or Advisory Board (not more than 5 people sitting on the board).

There are ways to do things right - but when you make politics your life's work then you are committed to an established "Ways and Means". And that "thing" (which is highly political in nature) is not what should be influencing how elections are run.

From here: Fixing the Federal Election Commission



The solution above does not take into account that if the FEC is feckless it is because it is run by politicians. It needs to be run by people who have no political background whatsoever. That is, they never run for political office.

But, both parties have been manipulating politics for a great long time. You wanna believe that American politics is clean of manipulation? Be my guest, but you are only fooling yourself ... !

Yes

I did agree with Trump on term limits when he ran in 2016.

After he took office not a word, never mentioned again. I was hopeful as it would solve a couple problems with our political aristocracy who have been there far too long.

 

[bomberfox]

DIDDLY-SHAT



If a people like politicians so much that they keep voting for the same ones (along party lines) then they deserve the obvious consequences.

That's been the problem with America's "democracy" since its inception.. That is, a political party on the Rabid-Right thinks that government need not be "for the people" but just for "certain people". Typically of a higher income status - after all, who gives them most of the money with which to get elected?

And the campaign finance laws have addressed only a part of the general problem. Which is the mentality of the American people - largely encased in the saying, "Money-money-money! It's all about the money:" So, Replicant politicians get mountains of money to pay for mountains of media-support that succeeds in igniting the voting-response necessary to rule politics in America.

Enormous amounts of money can bring you political-adulation but that is not necessarily what a political-governance should be straining to produce from an electorate. Not at all - but it seems that we swallow the pathetic notion that "wealth is everything" hook, line and sinker.

A lesson to be learned in the US, from here: Financing of political structures in EU Member States



And here resides an interesting review by Pew Research: 5 facts about U.S. political donations

Excerpt:

Affluent Americans are donating more to candidates. So, politically, what remains for those at the bottom? Didly-shat, that's what ... !

What money does is:
1. Buys access to the politician’s power to create and vote on laws.
2. Creates networks of power in which politicians and public officials look the other way and give you preferential treatment.
3. Buys you much more ad space and access to an audience
4. Buys infrastructure for which you can disseminate information across multiple networks.
And 5. Easily buys favors in government.

This is why we had more strict campaign finance laws.