@CptSuperlative @pluralistic
In America, the winners are 100% decided by who spends more on commercials. This is rarely progressive Democrats.
This is a weird thing to post ONE DAY after a Democratic candidate in a race (WI Supreme Court) who was WILDLY outspent won by 10 points.
Perhaps "100% is an overstatement?
@pluralistic @algaeman @CptSuperlative
I'm not sure the winner, Crawford was wildly outspent. I read:
"Total spending in the race topped $100 million. Crawford's campaign had raised just under $28 million and Schimel's, a little over $15 million. The remaining money was raised and spent by third-party groups."
As usual the story is not giving us all the right numbers. If all but $28 million of the $100 million was spent by pro-Schimel forces, Crawford would be outspent by a bit more than 2 to 1. But that seems unlikely.
@johncarlosbaez @pluralistic @algaeman @CptSuperlative it took me a while to interpret this, so I'd like to ask if I understand correctly? Are you saying that if it's not more-than-2 to 1, it doesn't count as a wild outspending?
I mean 3:2, which is a more realistic proportion, appears as wild a ratio too, doesn't it.
@mapto - I said I'm not sure Crawford was wildly outspent. The reason why is that the limited amount of information in the newspaper article does not prove she was wildly outspent.