Have you considered that the Biden election tends to indicate that in the high-tech age, political campaigning is not necessary?
You would think that the high-tech supporters of Biden would be claiming that modern technology make old fashion campaigning unnecessary. Based upon the fact that Biden had the worse political campaign and Trump one of the best political campaigns in the past 15 presidential elections. But no one is making that claim or offering an explanation of why the Biden campaign could generate so many votes. So, that leads to the possibility that there are a lot of votes for Biden from some other source, and a massive voter fraud. So, what do you think: a new discovered method to campaign or voter fraud or something else?
- MarkLv 42 months ago
Trump was campaigning for both of them. He already had his following before the election, and he just went to campaign to the choir. He wasn't actually gaining anybody. Meanwhile, when he said or did different things, he also hurt his campaign, so Biden just had to let Trump campaign for him. Face it, there were very few undecided. Trump had polarized the nation so much that likely 97% of the people knew who they were voting for before the campaigning even started.
- Anonymous2 months ago
Bigger crowds don't dictate more support, Trump supporters gathered maskless, and had no consideration for spreading Covid. Biden supporters watched on TV and didn't need to be there to be a vote for him. Same reason we had such a voter turnout, Biden encouraged people to do mail in ballots to stay safe.
- EntropyLv 72 months ago
I think applying such broad generalizations on the basis of a single race is the height of bad science. Especially a race as odd as this past one.
What I think we CAN say, because it's a long term trend with statistical analysis backing it up, is that money in politics isn't as powerful as the media likes to claim. A study the media likes to forget about showed that when you control for factors like incumbency, and gerrymandering and such, money actually has a pretty mild effect on electoral outcomes. Every DOUBLING of spending relative to a competitor only moves the needle about 1%. So in a perfect 50/50 race, you have to double your opponent's spending to win by 1%, QUADRUPLE it to win by 2% and so on.
Most other studies don't control for these outside factors, and thus attribute huge effects to campaign spending, but in reality incumbents are better fundraisers (because they HAVE the office) and so forth. Thus the candidate that raises more money usually ALSO has other advantages and most studies purporting to show huge money effects are really just detecting those other advantages.
In this race in particular, Democrats outspent Republicans by HUGE margins all over the country. And yet, many of those Democrats lost...and often lost DECISIVELY. Democrats have had the money advantage for several election cycles in a row now. And of course, that's why most Democrats don't talk about public campaign financing anymore.
- BeardogLv 72 months ago
No. I strongly disagree that Trump’s campaign was the best of the last fifteen presidential campaigns, that’s just absurd. Trump repeatedly led his followers into danger to benefit himself, because he does not care if they live or die.
Biden would have campaigned traditionally if it were safe to do so. It wasn’t. Recognizing the obvious, when his opponent failed to, gave Biden an edge. It’s not magic, it’s just character.
- What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
- ElliotLv 72 months ago
It indicates that Trump has been a terrible president.
- Anonymous2 months ago
I think most Americans hate trump.
- EmmaLv 52 months ago
Trump campaigned for his opponent for four years.
- JakeLv 62 months ago
Trump held rallies to feed his ego, they had nothing to do with his campaign.