Miscellaneous desk
< November 4	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 6 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 5

Campaigning in America

Why is campaigning to be president in America so aggressive? I live in Britain, so I can't understand why in America, candidates get TV adverts, massive banners, hold rallies etc, when over here, we only have a few signs in people's windows. --185.73.65.98 (talk) 09:21, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because there is a lot at stake for the winners of such election. Or, more to the point, there is a lot at stake for the people bankrolling those candidates(i.e ~~bribes~~ campaign contributions). This is true at all levels of government, including congressional and senate races and state offices as well. The other issue is there is very little regulation of Campaign finance in the United States; there was an attempt to reign it in in the early 2000s with the McCain-Feingold Act, which is the most famous such set of regulations, but those were just updates to regulations dating back to the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 and the Taft–Hartley Act of 1947. However, essentially ALL of these regulations, back to Taft-Hartley were struck down in 2009 with the decision in the Supreme Court case known as Citizens United v. FEC. The Citizen's United decision is widely held to be responsible for the large influx of dark money into political campaigns. All that money gets spent on political advertising, and the people spending that money expect return on investment for their troubles, which is why they are so aggressive in trying to win. Lots of businesses stand to profit from getting their person elected. --Jayron 32 12:50, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, political parties are limited to a spend of £30,000 each in any one constituency. Thus if a party contests every UK seat, the maximum total spend is £19.5 million. [1] That's about 1% of the amount spent at the 2016 US election. [2]. Also political TV adverts are banned in the UK, but parties get free TV slots called party political broadcasts, how many depending on a party's previous performance.

Also there's a cultural difference; many Britons regard election campaigns as something to be endured and can't wait for the whole thing to be over. Alansplodge (talk) 16:10, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Americans absolutely hate them too. But no one in government really listens to the vast majority of the American population because we don't have enough money to make significant ~~bribes~~ campaign contributions to our politicians. --Jayron 32 17:09, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Such gross generalizations don’t contribute to knowledge. I’ve always enjoyed the opportunity to throw the bums out! DOR (HK) (talk) 23:08, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So you must enjoy watching those relentless campaign ads for many months ad nauseum. The current election day chaos is far from over, but at least the TV ads are done. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most Americans at least are in safe states so get little or no presidential TV advertising. If I moved to a swing state I would love to see each presidential ad once then mute just like almost every other ad I've seen before. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:04, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than doing something that drastic, you could peruse YouTube and look for ads for Senate or Governor races in the battleground states. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:04, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But you don't get the full hipster experience that way, seeing the lunatic and unenthusiastic support one like the bombarders intended... Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:48, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does Detroit-Windsor get ads only relevant to the other country's residents? An hour east of Manhattan still gets its air ABC/CBS/FOX and NBC from antennae on the tallest Manhattanscrapers and they get political ads which talk to them as if every last inch of reception area is New Jersey. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:06, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That would depend on which TV stations you're watching. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:11, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ad (towards) takes the accusative case, so nause-am. I doubt there's any such word in Latin as nauseum. FYI. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:41, 6 November 2020 (UTC) [reply]

All those ads can put a spell on you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:38, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A nauseum sounds like a building to look at displays of historical stomach contents... --Jayron 32 12:58, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And yet a vomitorium is not at all what it sounds like. And isn't it weird that we say myu-ZEE-um rather than MYU-zee-um. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:17, 6 November 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Although it's vaguely a similar idea, i.e. of emptying out - in this case, an arena rather than a stomach. As to "MYU-zee-um", I've heard it said that way, but it's one of those things that faded over time, like phonograph "rec-ORds" instead of "rec-erds". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:59, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To explain it, the root nause- is grammatically female. The -um ending in the accusative indicates a noun that is grammatically masculine or neuter. 194.35.119.122 (talk) 17:18, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, nobody's perfect. I used to spell "in memoriam" with a "-um" ending too. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:01, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]