|
Here is your first current events posting to follow, and the school year hasn't even started! On this blog I'll post a variety of news and news related items such as articles, graphics, and podcasts (like this one) that will complement our work in the classroom. I've made the website so that it is easy to "follow" either by following @ttuecoblog on twitter, or by subscribing to the RSS feed on the right (below the twitter box). To get to the article or podcast simply click the green highlighted word and you will be taken to that page.
According to Freakonomics authors, money doesn't buy everything. Not even votes in an election. Why not? What do the broadcasters mean by "correlation does not mean causation?" Are there any examples from your own life where you thought that if one thing happened another was bound to? Feel free to provide some examples in the comments, and don't be ashamed to post you lucky underwear-wearing Cowboys fans! 1/23/2012 03:59:53 am
Maybe money can or can't buy elections, but can money by policies or bills passed?
10337145
2/9/2012 03:39:20 pm
I dont think money can pass bills, surely our congressmen are pursuaded values and morals; not money.
R# 01948411
1/23/2012 04:34:02 am
I don't think money can determine which bills are passed, but it does help to have money in getting the word spread to a larger population. But it mainly comes down to the individuals own opinion, such as in an election.
R10379616
1/23/2012 04:50:48 am
I feel that though many times elections may not be won by the candidate who has put forth the most money in their campiagn it is a large factor. So when determining whether what bills can or will be passed one large factor is that many times money talks. Our society is very reliant on wealth and if you speak to the right people and pay them enough I think a bill could easily be passed.
R#10410186
1/23/2012 04:53:32 am
In my opinion, money can buy many different things, even votes. With money in hand, you can spread your name just through advertisement. It is proven that the more name is heard during elections the higher the rate of being elected.
R10363073
1/24/2012 06:52:09 am
Yes, the more advertisement, the better, but there have been certain legal actions (Finance Reform Act of 2000) to limit each candidates' advertisements. It simply keeps the race more fair for every candidate, so more money is not more of an advantage.
R#10403506
1/24/2012 06:03:35 am
Money, in my opinion, is what makes the world go round. But at the same time, I believe it cannot buy votes. Money just goes to the guy who is more popular.
R10359949
2/9/2012 10:49:06 am
Although the most popular candidates do have many financial endorsements, money does not always go to the most popular candidate. Rick Santorum was the recipient of a large financial endorsement while coming in far from first in the primaries. Sometimes all it takes is one wealthy beneficiary to financially endorse a candidate and give them a great start to advance their chances of success. 1/24/2012 06:22:33 am
In my opinion, I agree with the statement in this podcast, "Its always better to be the candidate with the most money." If your the candidate with the most funds your the most popular, however, you can win without it.
R#10440115
1/24/2012 07:10:11 am
Politicians spend a ridiculous amount of money on their campaign ads and with what result? I respect Santorum for spending a substantial amount less than the others and pulling out the win in Iowa. Obviously, there are ways to limit ones spending while still being successful, and I believe that is an integral part of this election and the future of our beloved country.
Gabriel Davila
1/24/2012 08:26:47 am
I don't believe that money can by you an election. In my eyes it doesn't matter how much you spend to make yourself look good to the people. If people simply do not like you no matter what you do, your never gonna win
R#10394446
1/24/2012 08:37:09 am
Money may not buy an election, but I think we can all agree that is doesnt hurt. We will probably see the importance of having a thick wallet when the primaries are over because Obama is estimated to raise over a billion dollars for his campaign, or so i hear. Thats a lot of HOPE posters.
R10386241
1/25/2012 06:43:31 am
Your absolutely right. There's no doubt that there is a significant correlation between the amount of money invested in a campaign and the results of an election. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Barack get reelected because of this. I guess we'll just have to see.
R10480114
1/24/2012 12:30:18 pm
I would have to agree with most of the comments made already. You don't need to spend millions of dollars to get the most votes, like the freakonomics people were saying there's only a 1% difference + or - on votes received. What it comes down to is the candidates themselves; who's more charismatic, who has the better policies, who has a better track record.
Alejandro Duarte
1/24/2012 02:15:25 pm
I think in some occasions money can buy elections, because it helps the the candidate so promote themselfs, that way becoming more popular, even so if they have money to have adds and stuff like that, that doesn`t make people like them, most electons are won based on how they interact with people and how their goals are described.
R#10435313
1/24/2012 02:54:36 pm
There are too many variables in election races to scrutinize any single part of the candidates campaign or his resources.In one case extra $ might make a difference, in another it w´ont. And if one candidate spends just the money necessary to become popular and influence public opinion to his advantage, why should it matter how much another candidate spends? Someone could spend x times that money without reaching the same result. I dont like statistics that are designed to boil everything down to one element as if all other things were equal. Thats too far from the real world and belongs more to a scientific laboratorium, where you can isolate elements and scrutinize them under a microscope...
R01954310
1/25/2012 12:18:50 am
In my opinion, money talks, when it comes down to the election i believe the candidate with the most money has more power, meaning he/she is more popular, and can be part of more ads for publicity. All in all, i think it does make a difference whether or not you have the extra money to put towards your people and election.
R10403116
1/25/2012 12:19:53 am
My personal opinion on this matter goes right along with closing statement that the most popular candidate is going to have the most money to spend. However, I am torn over the fact that politicians are receiving all of this funding just to have more elaborate advertising, but this can viewed as being the fault of the people, not necessarily the fault of the politician. I understand people that want their particular candidate to win, because they think he will do the best job of fixing our economy, but that money could be better spent on actually investing in companies and other various things to help get the American economy back on track.
R10361779
1/25/2012 05:42:18 am
I feel the more money a candidate is willing to put into his campaign, the further he will go. However, it just goes to show that this is not always the case considering Rick Perry had spent the most and he is no longer in the running.
R10436673
1/27/2012 03:17:19 am
I think that spending more money can only buy you more face time and advertisement as far as politics go. If your policies are bad then you are just wasting your money. The only personal experience that I can relate to is that I thought that wearing my lucky undershirt under my basketball jersey would make me play better. I don't think it worked though.
Caroline Andrews
1/29/2012 11:20:20 am
The bottom line is if you have money especially when it comes to politics, you will have a little more control over the outcome. The more money, the more publicity. With a candidate who is heard on the radio and seen on commercials, websites, newspapers, and posters, more people will know about that candidate and might vote for them rather than voting for someone that they have heard nothing about. In order to get their name out to the world they need propaganda and to use that to help get publicity, they need money. A person experience for me is that I believed the power balance bracelet would help me become a better athlete. Instead while wearing it, I tore my ACL and meniscus and ended up having to have them both reconstructed. Turns out the power balance was all a scam anyways.
R10492644
1/30/2012 06:46:32 am
I think that the person with the most money wins. I mean all of the people who make the donations to certain candidates vote for the person they gave the money to. All of those seats they sell at all of the dinners they have are not cheap and it goes into the campaign. I really think that if someone makes valid points and says what everyone wants to hear then the money and the votes are theirs.
R10358580
2/2/2012 01:57:24 am
The main question of this article is, "does money win an election?" I like how the article correlates money and popularity. It points out that often the candidate with the most money has this money because he/she is the most popular. It also establishes that the candidate with the most money is not always the winner, but the most popular candidate is. Therefore money doesn't win an election, but popularity and support (often monetary) will.
Blake Howe
2/9/2012 01:26:32 am
Although money does not give you an advantage based on stats, but if you have the most money, and you are a well liked candidate that has a huge advantage. You can not just have one or another to win an election, but the ones that are most well rounded with resources has the greatest chance to win.
R#10446726
2/9/2012 08:02:14 am
In an election it seems that it is no surprise that the person who spends the most time and money campaigning is often given the best chance of winning. I believe that whoever spends the most money putting their name out there has a better chance of winning, but does not necessarily buy votes.
R10359949
2/9/2012 10:45:11 am
Money can't always buy votes. Take the recent case of Rick Santorum receiving a large sum of money from an individual donor. Although Santorum had a winning streak a couple of nights ago, he is still way behind in the presidential race, coming in second and third to Romney and sometimes Paul. Just because one beneficiary sees a candidate fit and endorses them financially doesn't mean that others will endorse them also.
R10363571
2/9/2012 01:32:40 pm
I believe that you do not need money to win the votes. Yes having money will be helpful. But I personally feel that it should be what the person stands for and what they are trying to do for the people. Comments are closed.
|
About the BlogThis is the blog containing resources for all courses and presentations. For updates on required current events readings, podcasts, and videos subscribe to the RSS Feed Archives
July 2017
Categories
All
|
RSS Feed
Powered by
