
Jeb spent $2845 per vote in Iowa - shihn
http://braid.io/tile/iowa-cost-per-vote
======
mrdrozdov
They took the dollars that each candidate spent on advertising and divided it
by the number of votes they received. They only highlighted the total dollars
spent ($14.9M) and total votes received (5,235) by Jeb Bush, but didn't bring
up the totals of any of the other candidates. For all we know, he could have
spent the least amount of money. It's impossible to tell without the other
candidates' totals. If I paid my friend $10 to vote for me, then I'd be
spending $10/vote which all of a sudden sounds pretty good. Although, if I
spent $5k to convince that same friend then all of a sudden my efficiency has
dropped below Jeb's.

EDIT: Was easy enough to find those other numbers.
[http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/and-the-total-amount-spent-
campai...](http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/and-the-total-amount-spent-campaign-ads-
iowa)

Total Iowa ad spending so far:

    
    
      Team Bush: $14.9 million (all from the Right to Rise Super PAC)
      Team Rubio: $11.8 million ($4.6 million from campaign, $4.7 million from Super PAC, $2.5million from 501c4
      Team Clinton: $9.4 million (all but $50K from campaign)
      Team Sanders: $7.4 million (all from campaign)
      Team Cruz: $6.0 million ($2.2 million from campaign, rest from outside groups)
      Team Trump: $3.3 million (all from campaign)
      Team Carson: $3.5 million ($3.2 million from campaign, $300K from Super PAC)
      Team Jindal: $3.3 million
      Team Huckabee: $2 million (all from Super PAC)
      Team Paul: $1.1 million
      Team Walker: $1 million
      Team Perry: $814,000
      Team O’Malley: $219,000 (all from Super PAC)
      Team Santorum: $3,000 (all from campaign)

~~~
shihn
The bottom of the page has a link for the source with all the absolute number:
[https://morningconsult.com/briefs/campaigns-brief-how-to-
wat...](https://morningconsult.com/briefs/campaigns-brief-how-to-watch-the-
iowa-caucuses/)

------
emilsedgh
Could someone elaborate on the reasons for his lack of popularity? Is it
because of his Brother/Father's track record?

Sorry for my ignorance, I don't live in the U.S so I'm just an observer.

~~~
Outdoorsman
I suspect you may be on to something...

His father, George H. W. Bush, was known for prosecuting a fairly "successful"
war--the 1990-1991 Gulf War--that ostensibly lasted about 5
months...essentially "ejecting the Iraqi army from Kuwait"\--the stated
goal... his domestic record was viewed as "less than stellar"...

Americans pay attention to things like that and seem to relish a
victory...listen to the response to Whitney Houston singing the National
Anthem at the 1991 Super Bowl:

[https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-
instant&ion=1&e...](https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-
instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=whitney+houston+super+bowl) (This is worth a
listen even if you're only interested in the question itself...it's the best
rendering I'm aware of at any time in U.S. history.)

The audience's response hints at the "prevailing" national mood at that
time...

His brother, George W. Bush, served 2 terms with mixed results...some counted
him as one of the least-talented (intellectually) Presidents the U.S. has ever
seated...here you can factor in the controversial 2003 invasion of Iraq
itself, and the mishandling of a response to Hurricane Katrina, especially in
the city of New Orleans...

I'll stop here; the tale is long and complicated...those are just major
highlights...

Jeb Bush is likely quite capable of exceeding expectations, but some say he
lacks charisma, charm...there's probably some reluctance to elect another Bush
because of journalists and historian's evaluations of the presidencies of his
father and brother...

Having said all that, he might be the best qualified "moderate" candidate the
Republicans could field in this election...time will tell...he appears to be
out of the running for a nomination...

~~~
DrScump
<some counted him (GWB) as one of the least-talented (intellectually)
Presidents the U.S. has ever seated>

That's the popular media and pop-culture narrative, but it just wasn't true.
Read firsthand accounts from non-media policy experts who were there, for
example...
[http://keithhennessey.com/2013/04/24/smarter/](http://keithhennessey.com/2013/04/24/smarter/)

Similarly, Eisenhower and Reagan were portrayed as a dottering grandfatherly
types disinterested in policy during their tenure, but honest historians later
gave them their due.

~~~
Outdoorsman
That's precisely why I used the word "some"...

The questioner asked about his brother's track record, specifically the
potentially negative aspects of that record...public perception, even if
shaped or influenced, remains that...truth often doesn't enter into it, just
as you correctly allude...thanks for your response...

------
Mark222
The real story here seems to be Trump's impressive showing, having both the
most votes per $ AND the most votes per day spent there.

------
adamnemecek
Dude, just drop out already.

------
bduerst
I wish someone would do this with the Walker *recall (not impeachment)
advertising dollars, from several years ago. I think it was somewhere around a
magnitude more than the challenger.

~~~
hga
_Recall_ , you're thinking recall, not impeachment.

And Walker's fight was viewed as one for the Right for the whole country, I,
for example, sent him $200 for that, did my part to validate the recall
petitioner signatures on a web site they set up (didn't find any bad ones),
etc.

Rather a different thing than a normal election. Oh, _and Walker won_.

~~~
bduerst
Fixed.

And yeah, he _only won 52% to 46%_ (w/ 4% margin of error), despite _spending
7x_.

* Walker Spending Dollars: $30.5 million

* Barret Spending Dollars: $4 million

* Walker cost per vote: $23.10

* Barret cost per vote: $3.49

Thanks for interfering with another state's recall, I guess. You fell for
their schtick that the entire country was threatened, when in reality it was
just WI public sector workers losing their universal rights.

~~~
hga
The same universal "rights" FDR thought it was unconscionable for them to
have? Wasn't until JFK at the national level, and as I recall Wisconsin a few
years before, that this ripoff of taxpayers started, public sector unions
negotiating with politicians for the mutual benefit.

I, for one, want that replicated in my state, so we don't go bankrupt like
Illinois and California are frequently close to, so establishing that a
governor and ruling party could do this without losing in the polls was
_essential_ , my state is very much threatened.

~~~
bduerst
The same Universal Rights as declared by the United Nations.

I don't really care about whatever fallacious reasoning you've come up with to
appease your cognitive bias. It's pretty obvious your critical thinking is
impaired if you think setting a state budget has anything to do with
collective bargaining. Or that the people whom you paid $200 to take rights
away from are even a threat. Good job.

------
yostrovs
Another example of money having little power in elections.

~~~
ajarmst
I'm not sure that's in any way demonstrated here. If Bush didn't have quite a
bit of money he wouldn't even be on the ballot for the vote he lost. We've got
ample evidence that money is extremely powerful in elections.

It would be more accurate to say the money, while still a necessary condition
for competing, is not a sufficient condition for winning. You have to
have...well, a personality, too.

