Oh, I completely agree. We have ideal (self-education) and we have reality. Marketing is the process of finding the most efficient way to get your message across and increase your return. In today's day and age where time = money, many people do not value the information gathering process as worth more than the sound bites. Then as a result, they make decisions based on hearsay and short-term payback.

The ironic thing is that the only cure for the problem is education itself ;)

Hello AJAshinoff,
It is quite astonishing the skill with which the money spent is obfuscated by the liberals while they expertly exploit the spending of the opposition.
On a positive note, it was quite refreshing to see how Dave Brat could be outspent manifold and still beat Eric Cantor, thus demonstrating that money doesn't always win elections.
Regards,
O.A.

Blarman, I agree with much of what you say regarding the onus is on the individual to educate themselves. However, the reality is in this age 2 parents appear to be a luxury. If two parents are available to children the odds are pretty good that both are working simply to make ends-meet. Combine that with at least 10 separate areas where an evermore liberalized society is snaking into a child's mind and with a parent trying his/her hardest to spend time with their kids its no wonder a great many people are ignorant of the politics surrounding them. Its for these reasons that the individual has a 5-10 second attention-span and politicians speak in sound-bites rather that with substance. Its why hillary clinton can be considered viable when she's throughly incompetent and has murdered people through her incompetence and gross negligence. This is exactly why more money means something, its the ability to put as many sound-bites in front of people as frequently as you can. Politicians know a large portion of voters haven't a freakin' clue that they are being boldly lied to with every statemtent a politician makes and, if they do, they don't care because they are too busy surviving. And yes, the piss-poor economy (unfavorable trade agreements and national debt included) is something politicians have manufactured to encourage our current condition to bring this country down.

I place the responsibility for gaining knowledge on each and every responsible citizen in this nation, including myself. That being said, the reality is that 99% of the voting electorate do not educate themselves prior to voting other than to listen to the occasional radio or TV spot. That's the reality of politics. Advertisement costs money, ergo money = advertising and reaching that 99%.

It isn't that many don't have the capability to make rational decisions, it is that many lack the information upon which to make those rational decisions. What is even worse is that for those who rely solely upon political advertisements, they often get a skewed perspective on the matter and make rational decisions based on false information, which leads to electing candidates who were effective at advertising, but not necessarily governing.

Then you also have a large (and growing) portion of the population that votes Democrat simply because they have a vested interest in maintaining the welfare state. They don't care about anything but their next check, not realizing that their desire for another monthly check threatens not only everyone else's well-being, but theirs as well when the money supply dries up.

Alleged lazy voters is not reason to limit anyone's speech or freedom of action in any way. I have never talked to anyone who said they voted for the candidate that raised the most money or ran the most TV ads... don't know why us "enlightened" voters insist the majority are not capable of making the same choices that we do. Blaming money is just weak.

OK Robbie...let me throw this at you and tell me what you think.
1. Look at a presidential electoral map of the US...when you look at one and see where the blue is highlighted...you wonder why anyone liberal ever wins...but it is population...not geographical area that determines representation.
2. Conservatives generally fare best in rural areas where the populations are thinner.
3. Liberals are generally concentrated in urban areas.
So, in my estimation, and maybe I'm wrong, but if you added more members based on population distribution...you will end up with more liberal voters and politicians within those urban areas as you create smaller representative blocks.
So I guess if you wanted more...you could anoint that messiah now under that scenario as well.

You are also a minority in that regard, because you care enough to educate yourself on the candidates, their positions, and their histories. Unfortunately, we live in a nation where 99% of people rely on someone else to educate them.

Did you know that the most valuable commodity a politician can have is name recognition? It rarely even matters if the connotations are positive or negative - voters vote for candidates they have heard of. It's one of the primary reasons incumbents are so hard to oust and why an incumbent getting bounced in a Primary Election is such a big deal. It means that they screwed up so bad that people actively voted them out instead of letting them just keep going.

I just finished a book "Public Enemies" by Jess Money that notes only one party is running the country, The corporate party and that controls both dems and reps. Great political fiction book by the way.

They just need to pay the fee to get on the ballot. Free media and a (can be free FB or G+) webpage is all I need after that. I vote for candidates all the time that spend very little on their campaigns.

More politicians? Certainly you jest! Can you imagine the squabbling over the bread crumbs and even bigger back room deals just to get a piece of legislation out the door? Nah...keep it where it is at.

through it all regardless of which party takes the reins we the people get screwed.

I do not need a candidate to raise large sums (or any money) and run TV ads to vote for them. I am not unique.

Money does not vote, TV ads do not vote, people vote... and the 99% have 99% of the vote. Your problem is with the voters and not the people who voluntarily give their money to a candidate and the candidate who spends it on TV ads. Voters could end that in one election cycle by simply voting for the candidates who do not participate in that. Now if you want to be worried about vote buying, how about the candidates that promise large groups of voters government benefits and services largely paid for by smaller groups of voters. Difficult to understand how Democrats lose any election since Democrats seem to do this while Republicans promise small groups of voters government benefits and services to largely be paid for by large groups of voters.

I just think the quantities of monies being laid out by anyone is simply absurd.