Could the moneyed left turn McCutcheon against the GOP?

[grasswire]

The Art of War recommends turning a foe's strength against that foe. Sort of like Rove turned Kerry's war record against him.

Would it be possible for the left to use McCutcheon as a battering ram? Is there enough money out there in unions and Hollywood and wealthy liberals to punish the GOP?

If that money is there but lefties are unwilling to use it to exploit the RW's own law......shame on us.

[AlinPA]

1. It seems to me that corporations have more $$ and favor the GOP.

[Jackpine Radical]

2. Democratic candidates can often roll in substantial money,

but generally only by advocating Third Way policies. Wall St. is relatively liberal socially (gay rights, choice, pot, etc.) & will fund advocates of those positions, but only if they keep their hands off the banksters, go along with destructive environmental policies & keep corporate taxes low, etc.

Real leftists have relatively few sources of BIG money. George Soros (to some extent), Warren Buffett, Hollywood.

Harry Reid might have the right idea--turn the Koch Bros., Adelson & their ilk into millstones. Use whatever money you have to focus public awareness on the tilted playing field. Portray Democratic candidates as the underdog.

Here are 2 interesting papers that get at what I'm talking about:

The Appeal of the Underdog

Joseph A. Vandello
University of South Florida, [e-mail]

Nadav P. Goldschmied
University of South Florida

David A. R. Richards
University of South Florida

Pers Soc Psychol Bull December 2007 vol. 33 no. 12 1603-1616

Abstract

When people observe competitions, they are often drawn to figures that are seen as disadvantaged or unlikely to prevail. The present research tested the scope and limits of people's support for underdogs. The first two studies demonstrated, in the context of Olympic matches (Study 1) and the Israeli—Palestinian conflict (Study 2), that observers' support for a competitor increased when framing it as an underdog. The final two studies explored mechanisms underlying support for underdogs. Study 3 showed that participants attributed more effort to a team when they believed it to be an underdog, and perceptions of effort mediated liking. In Study 4, participants reading a hypothetical sporting event supported a team with a low probability of success and labeled it an underdog unless it had greater resources than an opponent, suggesting that low expectations by themselves do not engender support if positive outcomes are not seen as deserved.

Also this one--

The attractive underdog
When disadvantage bolsters attractiveness

Kenneth S. Michniewicz⇑
Joseph A. Vandello

University of South Florida, USA

Kenneth S. Michniewicz, Department of Psychology, University of South Florida, 4202 E. Fowler Avenue, PCD 4118G, Tampa, FL 33620, USA. Email: [e-mail]

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships November 2013 vol. 30 no. 7 942-952

Abstract

While intuition suggests and much research has shown that people are attracted to advantaged individuals, the present study explored the conditions under which people might be attracted to disadvantaged individuals. We hypothesized that perceiving someone as unfairly disadvantaged can motivate attributions of positive personal characteristics and, consequently, judgments of heightened attractiveness. Seventy-eight participants were randomly assigned to read about a job applicant facing a fair or an unfair application process resulting in a competitive advantage or disadvantage. In support of our hypothesis, participants judged unfairly disadvantaged applicants (i.e., underdogs) and fairly advantaged applicants as more physically attractive and suitable as dates compared with fairly disadvantaged and unfairly advantaged applicants. These results highlight the role of situational factors in judgments of one’s attractiveness.

[grasswire]

5. let's hope Dems have the strategists to pull this off.

Something has to click for 2014.

[Chan790]

3. Unnecessary.

While McCutcheon is bad law and something that should be repealed...a point has been missed in its importance...or the reduction thereof. It doesn't help them half as much as they hope it will.

Money has less of an impact now than in elections past and the impact is decreasing as the emphasis moves from expensive marginally-effective 30 second TV spots to cheaper more-effective implementations of the internet and big data. Running a big data campaign, exploiting the grassroots and shifting the emphasis in advertisement from solely TV (something the GOP still does and McCutcheon likely doubles-them-down-on) to social media and the web yields better results at lower costs. All the money in the world can't save the dinosaurs of how the GOP runs its campaigns. We own the dominant narrative paradigm. We kick GOP ass at social-media and technology, we destroy them at big data, we dominate internet campaigning. The only thing they do better than Democrats is get their voters out...and more money doesn't help them there. (There's little room for improvement there...they're highly effective at getting out a large % of their smaller voter base. We're highly ineffective at getting out even a moderate % of a much much larger voting base.)

It'd be like if the GOP had decided to use its larger financial resources in the era of the birth of television to attempt to get more bang for its buck by almost-solely advertising on radio. (Oh wait, they did that too. It bought them a Nixon loss against Kennedy.) McCutcheon is a bullet to the head of GOP electability...it commits them to continue to do ineffective things because they can't buy their way to being good at the effective things...and their target audience isn't as engaged where effectiveness lies anyways. The cheap flow of information and the proliferation of sources of information has become their cross.

McCutcheon isn't a time machine. The GOP will continue to lose for the reasons it lost to-date recently...their voters are old, their voter pool is shrinking, their voter pool is more expensive to engage than that of Democrats, there's too many vehicles out there to debunk their lies that they can't shout down all of them; the tactics all of that locks them into are decreasingly effective...and limitless money can't solve any of that for them.

[grasswire]

4. good thoughts, thanks

The immediate problem is 2014. If we don't hold the Senate, then I fear we descend into greater darkness. Can we mobilize and strategize well enough to hold the Senate? Are these superior forces of ours in place, and making progress?

[TheKentuckian]

6. I'm befuddled by the belief in the concept of the billionaire leftists at least in any such

numbers to significantly offset the regressive billionaires much less when asked to also cover the non philosophically but functionally right wing types (nor the thought that we can win over these folks come law writing time).

You simply cannot adequately represent all interests and if that was chewed, swallowed, and digested we wouldn't fall prey to such tall tales and fables.

The reason for a big tent is to hold a lot of people who share significant common interests and needs and yes that tent has to hold a lot of folks that need a steady job that allows them to contribute to the broader society while providing for the needs and dreams of themselves and their families. Folks that need a quality education for not only their brood but all kids. Folks that need to feed their families. People struggling and working hard to keep a roof over their heads.

Capital, extraction, the insurance cartel, and the military contractors have a very nice tent of their own that serves every whim with far greater influence than numbers dictate, they don't need to run ours too.

It is a struggle to represent diverse interests, it is a con to pretend you can represent competing interests and it is one of the epic whoppers to conflate the two in order to get away with the second. It is this that infuriates me to no end, lie to cover con artistry in broad daylight.

It is an insult to the intelligence and a sign of fundamental contempt. It is like being the lamb who thinks because it is given a name that it isn't meant for the table.

I guess what I am saying is, we are largely diametrically opposed in interests and goals with those with the lion's share of the wealth because much of it could not be generated, maintained, and grow without exploitation of person and nature and/or what gets "small people" thrown under the jail for longer and with more certainty than rape and murder of another of similar caste.