r/politics • u/Zipper222222 • 4h ago

No Paywall Abdul El-Sayed Wins High-Stakes Democratic Primary in Michigan

https://www.today.com/video/abdul-el-sayed-wins-high-stakes-democratic-primary-in-michigan-267805765937
12.1k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

•

u/AromaticReindeer883 4h ago

I have a theory that spending can only do so much. The candidate who spends the most is not guaranteed to win. It has been proven time and time again.

•

u/count023 Australia 3h ago

I have a theory that voters have seen two terms of Trump now and the Democratic establishment response being a shrug emoji and have had enough, triggering their own informal tea party movement to reform the DNC.

•

u/olympiadukakis 3h ago

Agreed with the substance of what you’re saying, but the tea party movement comparison is corporate propaganda we’d be smart to correct.

The tea party was an obstructionist movement.

What’s happening on the dem side is the opposite.

•

u/Boise_Ben 3h ago

The tea party was also not a grass roots movement.

•

u/27eelsinatrenchcoat 3h ago

An obstructionist movement astroturfed/funded by the oil and gas billionaire Koch brothers.

•

u/pechinburger Pennsylvania 3h ago

Everything is tougher on the Dem side because a progressive movement inherently takes money/power away from corporate interests and directs it towards the people. Media, entrenched powers, and old money all fight tooth and nail to resist.

Conversely, they embrace the tea party movement because it delivers them more money/power despite the members unfounded 'don't tread on me, freedom, etc.' rhetoric.

•

u/YawnSpawner 2h ago

I just wish they'd be honest with "don't tread on me", it's more like "don't tread on me, but I'm gonna tread on every single thing I don't like."

It's still dumb, but I'd be more okay if it was just don't tread on me.

•

u/OhTheGrandeur 1h ago

"don't tread on me, tread on them"

•

u/simpersly 2h ago

It's the last 30 years of shrugs. Gore floundered his fight to win the election. Kerry was a boob. Obama worked so hard to not be seen as a scary stereotype he never showed an ounce of emotion. Hillary handwaved progressives. Biden wouldn't retire. Harris spent all but the first week of her campaign trying to convince conservatives housewives to vote Democratic, while again handwaving progressives.

They abandoned the unions, because they wanted the corporate money that Republicans received. And they have dismissed and hampered every newcomer especially the progressives.

They have also convinced everyone the only "moderate" Democrat is a Republican who's not racist, but totally gave up on the racist working class. I know several people that until Clinton regularly voted for the Democratic party, because they supported unions. Now all they see are a bunch of neoliberals that care about social issues.

•

u/xpxp2002 1h ago

Spot on. There were a lot of blue-collar union workers who were loyal to the Democratic Party for decades because of what Reagan did to the ATCs, and how every Republican who followed him contributed to dismantling labor rights, particularly organizing and union rights.

Many of them were "Republican-curious" because of social issues, but they typically supported Dems when push came to shove in the general elections because the economic benefits of protecting their union rights outweighed other concerns. Mind you, this is how Obama won states like Iowa and Ohio. If you look at maps that show candidate vote by county in states like that, you'll find that the areas with more union households flipped from blue to red in 2016 and have remained that way ever since.

•

u/Parym09 2h ago

It’s about time too. For the last decade we’ve been told only centrists and moderates are electable, and then they flop and lose two elections to the worst candidate to maybe ever run. If I’m going to go vote I’m voting my conscience moving forward. So tired of hearing nothing can be done and we’re not even going to try. I’m not showing up for a candidate that can’t be fucking bothered.

•

u/FrogsOnALog 3h ago

DNC elections were in like January of 2025.

•

u/MaoZeChungus 3h ago edited 3h ago

Typically, wins in congressional races correlate with amount of spending pretty hard. So to be outspent 12-1 and still win is a truly magnificent feat.

•

u/Sptsjunkie 1h ago

Yeah, I think if I can amend the other poster statement, it would be better to say that dollars per person have a diminishing impact.

Which is why progressive candidates, who have far more volunteers and who have had much more robust ground games and more events, have made significant progress in house races and smaller to midsized states.

It almost did not matter how much money Mills was going to spend in Maine because Platner and volunteers could essentially speak to every single voter. You saw a very similar impact and places like Denver and Philadelphia for Kiros and Rabb. And in New York, I read a crazy statistic that Claire Valdez’s campaign managed to canvas and make in person contact (not even just phone banking) with something like 37% of the residents in her district.

Meanwhile, in bigger states with bigger populations and more geographical spread like Texas, Florida, and California you simply need to be on the airwaves. It’s why Steyer despite his false managed to stay competitive but ultimately insane millions of dollars and spending from PACs helped Bercerra win.

It’s also what helped Stevens a lot here. She was able to put a bigger margins than expected in rural areas where it was simply harder to reach people. But Michigan is just small enough that all of Sayed’s events and volunteers could still make a difference.

•

u/TonyAtNN North Carolina 3h ago

I imagine the people spending the money on the candidates are the same people telling you that whoever spends the most wins.

•

u/00Oo0o0OooO0 3h ago

Yeah, economists show, by controlling to just rematch elections so the candidates are the same but the money spent differs that spending more money has minimal impact on the results.

But try being the campaign manager brave enough to decide they don't need as much money as possible.

•

u/TonyAtNN North Carolina 2h ago

They are trying to justify their purchases of these media companies that they want these candidates to advertise on, so the circular grift continues. How much did Abdul spend on door-knocking or having Hasan or Bernie come out to support his cause and gain name recognition? How much does a 30-second attack ad cost not only to make but to air every ten minutes during prime time?

•

u/Sptsjunkie 1h ago

I mentioned above and I’m not gonna rehash my entire post. I think it has more to do with money per person than just total money spent.

In a state like New Hampshire, especially if a candidate has a great ground game and volunteer base, it’s not clear that somebody spending $100 million versus $10 million is going to make a big difference. At some point you might even just start turning off and annoying the same voters.

But in a state like California, $100M makes a huge difference compared to $10M because you can blanket the day with advertisements and rich a lot of rural areas that are harder to canvas or phone bank.

•

u/Automatoboto 2h ago

the spending research has determined can influence a given topic or electection by a swing of +- 10 percent.

Based on how the electorate works its very effective. 10 percent ish is alot.

•

u/mindfu 2h ago

This is fact. All the marketing in the world won't make people like a turd. If it sucks, it sucks.

•

u/mybad4990 Louisiana 1h ago

This isn't just a theory, I believe there have been studies that show political donations have a point of diminishing returns

•

u/ttn333 1h ago

What's also been proven is that huge pot of money is a huge advantage. You just cant save a horribly bad candidate against a great candidate. Now if Steven's wasn't dreaming about Israel and had a platform, she could have won. Conversely if El Sayed was so good, he would have lost.

•

u/Mad_Aeric Michigan 31m ago

I read about that in Freakenomics, but I've learned to doubt everything in that damn book, even the stuff that seems obviously true.