I think people are confused about the difference between a PAC spending money, and Carrick’s campaign having money.
I agree, and you’re right that my comment could have been clearer. (Regardless, my point was that here and in other posts people are talking about ‘how much votes cost’ in an incautious manner, and e.g. the fact that there was much less pro-Salinas spending per Salinas vote than pro-Carrick spending per Carrick vote doesn’t mean that pro-Salinas spending was more effective.)
money given To Carrick’s campaign was far more helpful.
I’m curious how much more helpful you think it is; I would have thought <2x. The fact that campaigns sometimes spend money on basically the same thing PACs would—ads—seems to suggest that marginal campaign spending can’t be much more effective (or campaigns wouldn’t buy ads).
I agree, and you’re right that my comment could have been clearer. (Regardless, my point was that here and in other posts people are talking about ‘how much votes cost’ in an incautious manner, and e.g. the fact that there was much less pro-Salinas spending per Salinas vote than pro-Carrick spending per Carrick vote doesn’t mean that pro-Salinas spending was more effective.)
I’m curious how much more helpful you think it is; I would have thought <2x. The fact that campaigns sometimes spend money on basically the same thing PACs would—ads—seems to suggest that marginal campaign spending can’t be much more effective (or campaigns wouldn’t buy ads).