undefined | Better HN

0 pointslintiness9y ago0 comments

"if someone wins a popular vote by 2 million fucking votes, then they should probably win the election."

what if she spent TWICE the money getting them?

0 comments

Why is the amount of money spent relevant? At the end of the day, more individuals felt that Clinton should be their president.

lintinessOP9y ago

uh, dunno ... maybe yield on dollars spent is indicative of, say, their ability to manage our tax dollars.

phailhaus9y ago

No? I don't see how spending money on a campaign is related to spending money on, say, social security. Otherwise, you're suggesting that advertising companies would be fantastic at government. Like, "They got me to buy Coke, they must be great at managing our public education!"

1 more reply

RCortex9y ago

You're ignoring the Citizens United decision, we don't have real figures on campaign spending with superpacs and third party campaign vehicles. Additionally no one is taking into account the resources the Russian government poured into the Trump campaign, their state news channel was repeating the republican/trump message ad verbatim. [1]

[1] http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/underst...

sxg9y ago

That's a separate issue. Not saying it's right or wrong, but at the end of the day, she had more votes.

jedmeyers9y ago

She got more votes in a system where opponent did not optimize his process for more votes, therefore it is a meaningless metric.

dingaling9y ago

Indeed, but if it were based on raw votes then we'd probably not have had Mrs Clinton vs Mr Trump in 2016 because the timeline would have branched in 2000 based on the same metric.

It's an interesting example of arguing against a cause that's only relevant because of the effect it caused previously.

logmeout9y ago

Legal votes? Not likely and also not likely she got the plural vote. Yes, even if 100% of the difference were legal (they aren't) it's not a majority, it's a plurality.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

phailhaus9y ago

Why is the amount of money spent relevant? At the end of the day, more individuals felt that Clinton should be their president.

lintinessOP9y ago

uh, dunno ... maybe yield on dollars spent is indicative of, say, their ability to manage our tax dollars.

phailhaus9y ago

1 more reply

RCortex9y ago

[1] http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/underst...

sxg9y ago

That's a separate issue. Not saying it's right or wrong, but at the end of the day, she had more votes.

jedmeyers9y ago

She got more votes in a system where opponent did not optimize his process for more votes, therefore it is a meaningless metric.

dingaling9y ago

Indeed, but if it were based on raw votes then we'd probably not have had Mrs Clinton vs Mr Trump in 2016 because the timeline would have branched in 2000 based on the same metric.

It's an interesting example of arguing against a cause that's only relevant because of the effect it caused previously.

logmeout9y ago

Legal votes? Not likely and also not likely she got the plural vote. Yes, even if 100% of the difference were legal (they aren't) it's not a majority, it's a plurality.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse