But it's a problem that will NEVER be addressed because it's used as a PARTISAN issue..

The Left whines and complains about "big money" in politics, but they refuse to clean their own house..

The Citizens United ruling is a perfect example..

The Right simply ignores the issue...

Michale

The problem is the advantage of big money over small money.

That wasn't anywhere close to being a determining factor in the last couple of California gubernatorial contests where small money soundly defeated very, very big money.

Why do you think big money didn't matter one iota here?

Did you get yourself an exemption?

do either of you think that a presidential campaign that costs a billion dollars, more or less, is a big problem for US democracy?

It's still a little low. There are roughly three hundred million Americans, but only about a hundred million or so vote. (There's a problem already.) To sustain an ongoing discourse over the period of a campaign, ideally the various people and organizations involved in the campaign should be doing the equivalent of providing several issues of a large newspaper or a quality magazine to each voter. An issue of a newspaper or magazine costs anywhere from a couple dollars to ten or so. A hundred million voters times ten dollars per voter would be a billion dollars.

The problem is the advantage of big money over small money.

There's more small money around, potentially. If everyone were involved in politics, most of them could easily spend ten bucks on several occasions during a campaign, and a few could give a little extra to cover the costs for those who couldn't afford it.

Big money, meanwhile, is pretty much all-in already. There are more cost-effective ways of influencing policy than campaign contributions: hiring lobbyists; "hiring" ex-legislators for lucrative "consulting" gigs if they cooperated with you while in office, thereby making clear to current legislators what incentives they face; and similarly "hiring" close associates of legislators who don't seem convinced that you'll be around to provide any payoffs by the time they retire. If those became less advantageous, more money could shift into campaign donations. But as long as those alternatives are there, I don't think there's a lot of room for big-money campaign donations to increase.

But small money is difficult and expensive to organize, and it needs a lot of organization to do so.

The good news is the ever increasing costs of running for office are probably a diminishing return. The bad news is the graft has poisoned US politics AND is embedded in constitutional concrete. Sorry about the mixed metaphor...

What can be done:

Supreme Court rethinks past rulings? Voters miraculously get more demanding and more discerning? Move to another country? Which one?

Friday morning round-up of the BetFair nomination markets, expressed as implied % probabilities = inverses of the decimal odds X 100.

Winning the Republican Nomination

Bush 35%
Rubio 15%
Trump 15%
Walker 8%
Kasich 8%
Carson 6%
Fiorina 5%
Cruz 4%
Huckabee 4%
Christie 2%

The difference between back and lay positions is notably high in the Republican field today.... arbitrage opportunities

All others DOA

Winning Democratic Nomination

Clinton 65%
Sanders 13%
Biden 13%

I'm going to start spread sheeting these numbers, 'cause Betfair tracking is mysterious about the time line. The old Intrade market was much better.

Quick notes: Hillary has been quite stable in spite of all the press chatter. She's slipped about 5% over the last month or so.

LadBrokes generally agrees closely with Betfair, Ladbrokes operates as a traditional bookmaking establishment (not a futures market). Ladbrokes and Betfair are merging as we speak...probably not a good thing.

I respect his campaign. He has touched a nerve in Americans that Democrats have long ignored and Republicans can't seem to find even with both hands and a flashlight..

But I am not sold on him yet...

Except for, you know, the last "CEO president" we elected. His name was George W. Bush.

And he was a HELLUVA lot better POTUS than Obama has been on a magnitude of 1000...

Don't forget that while most pundits are likely wrong about Trump collapsing and going away, they're also likely wrong about Hillary collapsing and going away. Just something to keep in mind.

I disagree... Pundits just don't LIKE Trump and their emotions color their judgement.. There really isn't any REASON to dislike Trump other than his arrogance... And if we disliked people for their arrogance, I would have been gone a LONG time ago!! :D

As to Hillary, there are real, tangible and legitimate reasons why her demise is probable...

Her email practices are being CRIMINALLY investigated by the FBI..

Her main IT guy is being offered immunity to talk...

Her Girl Friday is being CRIMINALLY investigated for embezzling the US State Dept...

Not to mention the TOTALLY BONEHEADED judgment of thinking it's a good idea to have the US SecState use a private insecure email server stored in some rinky-dink mom n pop's bathroom closet totally outside the secure stream of government communications...

I mean, honestly.. Ignore partisan or Party.. Would YOU trust someone with that kind of judgement??

We actually (gasp!) agree on this one. Free TV time for all candidates would solve a LOT of the problems of "money in politics."

It sure would.. But look at all the forces lined up against it..

The candidates..

The lobbyists...

The donors...

The ONLY people for something like that are the American People..

And of course, they don't matter one whit to Democrats OR Republicans..

About the ONLY thing that the Left has that is successful is chrisweigant.com

Well, I'm certainly not going to argue that point!

Now, let me rub this brown stuff off my nose.. :D

Michale

Yeah, but he seems to be "stumbling upwards" if the polls are any indication. You're right, if he becomes the nominee it's going to say quite a bit about the GOP of today.

Michale [3] -

I'm interested, have you thrown your lot in with Trump yet, or are you still keeping your options open? Do tell!

Michale [4] -

Except for, you know, the last "CEO president" we elected. His name was George W. Bush.

TheStig [7] -

All excellent points. Before I get to addressing them, I've been pondering for a while writing a column on how much of Trump's support seems to be coming from the "first-time voter" or (I swear I heard this from a friend's relative) "I haven't voted since Nixon, but I'm voting for Trump."

This could wildly swing the polls, and could also be compared to what Obama did in his two elections. OK, with that general comment out of the way, let's get to your points.

17 is a pretty big field, but that'll narrow over time. There are already at least 5 or 6 who barely register. In a few months, the race will likely clearly be between, say, 8 or fewer candidates. So this problem will correct itself over time.

Phone tech is also an issue, but the pollsters have been desperately trying to account for it for at least the past 5 years (if not 10), so they're getting a little better at it. They've got a long way to go to get back to that "representative sample" that was so easy when everyone had a landline and answered pollsters gladly, but they're at least aware of this problem.

What are the prediction markets saying about the Dem and GOP races? How's Trump doing there? That would be very interesting to hear...

altohone [10] -

The second debate is going to be a rip-snorter, that's my prediction. Trump is doing so well, the others almost HAVE to attack him. Fiorina could lead the charge, we'll see...

LizM/Michale -

Actually, although it pains me to say it, Trump is more reasonable on the Iran deal than most of the GOP field. He admits it will be a done deal by the time the next president arrives in office. The other GOPers can't quite seem to grasp this reality. Just to be scrupulously fair...

Also, Trump's (admittedly sophomoric) attitudes on getting better trade deals with other countries resonates with blue-collar Dem voters (unions, etc.). NAFTA's still an ugly word among many solid Dem voters.

Michale [19] -

Don't forget that while most pundits are likely wrong about Trump collapsing and going away, they're also likely wrong about Hillary collapsing and going away. Just something to keep in mind.

TheStig [23] -

You refer, of course, to the "invisible primary"?

:-)

That's a good point though. It could be a tipping point if an establishmentarian jumped on Trump's bandwagon.

Michale [25] -

OK, now THAT was funny! Heh... still chuckling...

:-)

Michale [31] -

But Trump needs to fundraise???

That's like saying god needs to go to church.. :D

"...and a preacher on the Old-Time Gospel Hour stealing money from the sick and the old. Well the God I believe in isn't short of cash, Mister."
-U2's Bono, "Bullet The Blue Sky"

Don't know why that seems so appropriate...

Michale [34] -

We actually (gasp!) agree on this one. Free TV time for all candidates would solve a LOT of the problems of "money in politics."

[36] -

About the ONLY thing that the Left has that is successful is chrisweigant.com

Well, I'm certainly not going to argue that point!

:-)

-CW

Hehehehehehehe..

Colbert attacks Trump in some of the most vile and disgusting ways in his premiere 1st episode of THE LATE SHOW...

Next night, his ratings plummet...

The Left just doesn't get it...

The USA is a center Right country and are sick and tired of moron liberals telling us how bad and evil our country is....

It's why you don't see a successful Left Wing version of Rush Limbaugh, Fox News or Drudge Report...

The Left will ALWAYS be second fiddle...

About the ONLY thing that the Left has that is successful is chrisweigant.com

:D

Michale

Would LOVE to see Democrats try that old WAR ON WOMEN schtick again... It was hilarious how last time in went down in flames..

Remember Mark Uterus?? :D heh

Michale

Touche' :D

The total Prez Election of '16 is guesstimated at 5 B, so yes, 2.5 B is probably closer to what both the winning candidate's campaign will ultimately shell out. The doubling time for costs seems pretty close to 2 years.

Yea, 5 Billion amongst 25 candidates and almost 2 years...

What did Obama spend in 2012?? Less than 800 million??? People like Trump carry that on them...

"What?? $4 Million?? I think I got that on me..."
-George Wendt, SPIN CITY

:D

Trump is getting a lot of free publicity right now. There is no doubt he is very good at it. But, this can't last if he keeps going into the primaries. If he runs for president he's going to have to build a national organization. I suspect top talent is going to demand top dollar. The air time is going to stop being free. At some point he will need to raise money, or start selling properties. I think he's going to want to fund raise instead. His fans won't mind. They are very forgiving.

He is going to want to build a network.. That's a given...

But I wager we will see VERY minimal fund-raising.. Probably just enough so people feel they are part of something...

One of Trump's biggest appeals is that, unlike every other candidate, he is not out there begging for money...

Liz,

I'm just wondering ... do either of you think that a presidential campaign that costs a billion dollars, more or less, is a big problem for US democracy?

And, if so, what do you think can and should be done about it.

I agree, it's a problem..

My solution is simple..

Give every candidate an equal amount of air time and advertising. All for free..

NO OUTSIDE MONEY at all...

The problem with that is lobbyists and donors, both DEM and GOP would scream hysterically at that...

But that's the ONLY way to make it fair..

Michale

You guys are throwing around some pretty large sums of money like it's going out of style, or something.

I'm just wondering ... do either of you think that a presidential campaign that costs a billion dollars, more or less, is a big problem for US democracy?

And, if so, what do you think can and should be done about it.

:-) Well, if Trump can exaggerate his net worth by a factor of two, I can exaggerate his expenses by a like amount.

The total Prez Election of '16 is guesstimated at 5 B, so yes, 2.5 B is probably closer to what both the winning candidate's campaign will ultimately shell out. The doubling time for costs seems pretty close to 2 years.

Trump is getting a lot of free publicity right now. There is no doubt he is very good at it. But, this can't last if he keeps going into the primaries. If he runs for president he's going to have to build a national organization. I suspect top talent is going to demand top dollar. The air time is going to stop being free. At some point he will need to raise money, or start selling properties. I think he's going to want to fund raise instead. His fans won't mind. They are very forgiving.

If that's demonizing, well, so be it.
Colbert got demonized last night. It was pretty funny. Strong start.

OK, fine...

Then list for me all the Trump Fundraisers that he has attended..

Compare and contrast that to all the fundraisers of all the other candidates, Dem and GOP...

See my point???

Trump needs to build support.. I am not arguing that...

But Trump needs to fundraise???

That's like saying god needs to go to church.. :D

Michale

Oh bull-puckies...

Previous campaigns were WELL below the billion dollar mark...

Not only does he need other peoples money, he wants it, because investors end up working to protect their investment. Knowing that he has backers gives confidence to other potential backers. It's a herd effect.

I understand why you would say that.. You are trying to cast Trump in a familiar mold as it is more easy to demonize him that way...

Remember all those $10,000 dollar a plate fund raisers Trump has attended???

Me neither... :D

Michale

http://nonprofitquarterly.org/2015/08/03/if-trumps-charity-reflects-the-man/

How do you say it....other peoples money??

"Trump doesn't NEED anyone's money..

THAT'S the point..."

Baloney...

A Presidential campaign is going to cost something like 5 Billion. Forbes says Trump's fortune is somewhere in that vicinity - but most of it is tied up in real estate, so his liquidity is limited. Do think he wants to stake his kids' legacies on one campaign?

How do you the fabulously rich get that way? Not by writing unnecessary checks....they use other peoples money. That's exactly how Trump get rich - by using other peoples money, he knows how the game is played. Spread the risk.

If Trump doesn't need the money, than why is he selling trinkets on the internet? Does he need a hobby? If it's just a publicity stunt, he could just dump it out of his jet for free. Trump is notoriously stingy, gives little to charity compared to his peers.

Not only does he need other peoples money, he wants it, because investors end up working to protect their investment. Knowing that he has backers gives confidence to other potential backers. It's a herd effect.

It's EXACTLY stuff like this that makes Trump so popular..

Michale

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/253047-trump-calls-on-cnn-to-donate-debate-money-to-veterans

Trump trumps CNN!!!

I LOVE IT!!!! :D

Michale

heh

Michale

Trump doesn't NEED anyone's money..

THAT'S the point...

Michale

Trump has never held any elected office, has never paid his political dues in the
Republican trenches.. When you look at Republican nominees from years past, seniority is pretty important - if not you, at least your family. I think the costs to the first Establishment Bolter would be pretty savage, just short of drawing and quartering. Trump is winning over the cannon fodder, but he needs to get some nobility behind him. Somebody who can anoint. A fixer.

It was informative in trying to understand where the opposition to the deal is coming from. If the opponents would present a viable alternative - one that would actually have any real prospects for success - there case against this deal would be quite a lot stronger than it actually is.

You should take a listen to both events, Michale!

I think that, as president, she may spearhead a very enlightened foreign policy.

But it's going to be an interesting election... Especially if Hillary goes down in flames which is looking increasingly likely...

The fact that her IT guy is being offered immunity must have Hillary crapping in her knickers...

Michale

He thinks he can get a better one. Which proves to me that he is completely delusional.

So, you still can't come up with a Trump policy that Democrats can support??

He just thinks he can get a better one..

Considering his history, I don't doubt him...

Michale

He just thinks he can get a better one..

Considering his history, I don't doubt him...

Michale

Now, it's your turn ... name a Trump "policy" than any sane person could support ...

Name one you hate that doesn't have to do with Illegal Immigration.. :D

Michale

Actually, 4 times..

I've missed more than 9000 shots in my career. I've lost almost 300 games. 26 times, I've been trusted to take the game winning shot and missed. I've failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed.
-Michael Jordan

Michale

Name one that doesn't have to do with tax reform.

I have heard that he has declared bankruptcy, more than once.

I am still of the opinion that, like Romney who was also born on third base, Trump won't manage to make it home.

Of course, looking at 2012, Repubs seemingly are blind to the politics of wealth... and look to be repeating their mistake... deja vu all over again.

It will be interesting if the Repub establishment starts hurling serious dirt at Trump, or if they play nice because of a fear they will end up with him as their candidate. So far, it's been pretty mild.

Maybe there is no criticism that exposes Trump as a fraud because Trump is NOT a fraud??

His success in business is well-documented and beyond dispute...

He has more "ACCOMPLISHMENT" in his little pinky-nail than Obama had in his entire body when Obama was elected POTUS...

He has already laid out some policy platforms that DEMOCRATS agree with...

Take away his illegal immigrant position and the Left would LOVE Trump... :D

Michale

Of course, I mean the kind of criticism that comes from an enlightened media and analytical class and exposes him for the fraud that he is by deconstructing his house of cards which masquerades as a policy platform.

The Republican field is huge(-uh) and that's putting a strain on historical precedents. History never does more than suggest plausible scenarios, but right now the notion of plausible seems highly stretched...at least to me. In normal cycles, the Democratic field would be considered large for a party with a sitting Prez - but these are not ordinary times.

The art of semi-scientific polling has probably not been weaker than at any time since Truman-Dewey. There is a Perfect Storm out there, and it's hammering The Representative Voter Sample, the life-blood of objective pollsters. The Storm has a number of elements:

:-( The Huge(-uh) Republican Field Sixteen + betas is a BIG statistical model and you are going to want a BIG sample to cope with this. This gets expensive in an exponential fashion, which is not good.

:-( Rapidly shifting voter demographics

Even more rapidly shifting personal communications technology. Cell-phone and I-phones have distorted polling as we used to know it. TheStig, who is nothing if not CHEAP, uses internet phone. TheStig also switched to internet phone because he hates receiving 50+ pointless calls per day from his shiftless merchants, family, friends and well wishers. Nobody has polled him in 4 years, maybe more, because he uses internet phone.

:-( Polling bias isn't a fatal weakness if it's predictable from recent history and you correct your models for it. If a pollster or pundit corrects for systematic bias, said individual can create meta data from all the other polls out there. Meta data is much more powerful and reliable than its individual bits. I'm not sure this is going to work well this year. I think there could be big surprises, or maybe it's better to say that I fear a much greater likelihood of big surprises this year. Especially early on, which of course is going to affect Later On (aka non-silly season primaries and the actual elections).

Readers of CW.com know that I like Prediction Markets, such as the late lamented InTrade and the not quite as good but still in business BetFair. Predictions Markets have a good track record going back well over a century. As good or better than "scientific polling" IMHO. Still, they worry me a bit right now. The volume of the markets is fairly small. A small market is relatively easy and cheap to manipulate, if somebody wanted to so. The market may have a herd mentality. Too many people may just bet based on Nate Silver's columns. A crowd may be wise, a herd is probably dumb.

It's entirely possible that we might actually see POTUS Trump..

How crazy is THAT!!???

All made possible but the utter incompetence and ineptitude of Obama and the Democrat Party... :D

Michale

I don't know if it says ANYTHING about the Republican Party..

It DOES say a whole lot about how much the American people are fed up with greasy, corrupt, Politically Correct politicians who will say anything to anyone just to get votes..

That's the appeal of Donald Trump.. In your face, telling it as he sees it with no mamby-pamby, group hugs, koom-bye-ya bullcarp...

How could he NOT be successful with the American people who are STARVED for such a leader??

A Trump has been inevitable since the day Obama took office...

Michale

I think it says that America is finally getting serious about righting it's ship of state....

No pun intended.. :D

Maybe this country NEEDS to be run like a business.. And who better to do it right (again, no pun intended :D) than one of the best businessmen on the planet??

Michale

And, if that happens, to paraphrase the old George Jones song....

"It's {Gloating} Time Again....." :D

I'll be subtle... And brief... :D

Michale

Absence of REAL criticism???

Surely you jest!?? :D

That is practically ALL that Trump has received since his announcement.. Sans supporters, of course..

Put another way.. There is no "eh.." about Trump...

One either loves him or hates/ridicules him...

In that sense, he is the Right Wing version of Hillary Clinton...

Michale

One might say, with some degree of certainty, that Trump has been stumbling through his presidential primary campaign from the get-go, in the absence of any real criticism of how he is conducting himself or of what policies he is proposing, or not proposing, as the case may be.

But, if he does end up the Republican nominee, then what does that say about the Republican Party, about a good proportion of the voting American public, and about where America, itself, might be headed?