Embed Notice

HTML Code

<blockquote style="position: relative; padding-left: 55px;"><section><a href="https://hachyderm.io/users/molly0xfff/statuses/113489675271007513">Molly White (molly0xfff@hachyderm.io)'s status on Saturday, 16-Nov-2024 08:57:00 JST</a><a href="https://hachyderm.io/@molly0xfff" title="molly0xfff@hachyderm.io"><img src="https://gnusocial.jp/avatar/34789-48-20230824095227.webp" width="48" height="48" alt="Molly White" style="position: absolute; left: 0; top: 0;">Molly White</a><div><a href="https://hachyderm.io/@molly0xfff/113489670409799896" rel="in-reply-to">in reply to</a></div></section><article><p>Crypto-focused super PACs spent in 68 races across 35 states. $70.9 million went to support Republicans, and $48.3 million backed Democrats.</p><p>While some of the outcomes may have their spending to thank, much of this was a “back-the-winners” strategy.</p><p><a href="https://hachyderm.io/tags/crypto" rel="tag">#crypto</a> <a href="https://hachyderm.io/tags/cryptocurrency" rel="tag">#cryptocurrency</a> <a href="https://hachyderm.io/tags/USpolitics" rel="tag">#USpolitics</a> <a href="https://hachyderm.io/tags/USpol" rel="tag">#USpol</a></p></article><footer><a rel="bookmark" href="https://gnusocial.jp/conversation/4008637#notice-7832482">In conversation</a><time datetime="2024-11-16T08:57:00+09:00" title="Saturday, 16-Nov-2024 08:57:00 JST">about 6 months ago</time> <span>from <span><a href="https://hachyderm.io/@molly0xfff/113489675271007513" rel="external" title="Sent from hachyderm.io via ActivityPub">hachyderm.io</a></span></span><a href="https://hachyderm.io/@molly0xfff/113489675271007513">permalink</a><h4>Attachments</h4><ol><li><label><a rel="external" href="https://gnusocial.jp/attachment/3497688">As for the Congressional races, the crypto-focused super PACs spent in 68 races across 35 states. $70.9 million went to support Republicans, and $48.3 million backed Democrats. Only ten races failed to go their way (eight if you exclude two races where candidates they backed in the primaries withdrew — and in both of those two races, the crypto PACs chose new candidates to support who went on to win). 58 races went how they wanted them to go, with either their supported candidate winning the election, or candidates they spent to oppose losing. The remaining two races — California’s House District 45 and Alaska’s House At-Large District — have still not been called, as of writing.Certainly, some of their success comes down to the PACs’ willingness to shell out massive amounts of money. The crypto PACs put $40 million behind Ohio’s Republican Senatorial candidate, car salesman and one-time blockchain entrepreneur Bernie Moreno, and the tight margins in his race against Democratic incumbent and crypto opponent Sherrod Brown means that it’s possible that it was the crypto spending that made the difference.</a></label><br><a href="https://media.hachyderm.io/media_attachments/files/113/489/672/186/149/157/original/0d48fac0db23e8a5.png" rel="external">https://media.hachyderm.io/media_attachments/files/113/489/672/186/149/157/original/0d48fac0db23e8a5.png</a></li><li><label><a rel="external" href="https://gnusocial.jp/attachment/3497689">However, it’s important to note that cryptocurrency PACs were largely going with a “back the winners” strategy in this cycle — exemplified by their spending on candidates like Jim Justice (R, WV Senate) and John Curtis (R, UT Senate), who were all but assured to win their races, and whose races were called moments after polls closed. Although it took a while for me to realize this — there were times when I wondered why the crypto PACs were supporting some candidate when their opponent seemed roughly equivalent in their crypto-related stances — the strategy later became clear. As I noted in an earlier issue [I68], a whopping 32 of the 39 candidates endorsed by Coinbase’s advocacy group Stand With Crypto had been assigned a 75% or more chance of winning their respective races.Graph of 39 Congressional candidates, showing them plotted on a vertical axis of 0% to 100% likelihood of winning. Almost all are in the top portion of the graph.</a></label><br><a href="https://media.hachyderm.io/media_attachments/files/113/489/672/230/323/190/original/0219f6c19edba048.png" rel="external">https://media.hachyderm.io/media_attachments/files/113/489/672/230/323/190/original/0219f6c19edba048.png</a></li></ol></footer></blockquote>

Corresponding Notice

Embed this notice
Molly White (molly0xfff@hachyderm.io)'s status on Saturday, 16-Nov-2024 08:57:00 JST Molly White
in reply to
Crypto-focused super PACs spent in 68 races across 35 states. $70.9 million went to support Republicans, and $48.3 million backed Democrats.
While some of the outcomes may have their spending to thank, much of this was a “back-the-winners” strategy.
#crypto #cryptocurrency #USpolitics #USpol
In conversationabout 6 months ago from hachyderm.iopermalink
Attachments
1. As for the Congressional races, the crypto-focused super PACs spent in 68 races across 35 states. $70.9 million went to support Republicans, and $48.3 million backed Democrats. Only ten races failed to go their way (eight if you exclude two races where candidates they backed in the primaries withdrew — and in both of those two races, the crypto PACs chose new candidates to support who went on to win). 58 races went how they wanted them to go, with either their supported candidate winning the election, or candidates they spent to oppose losing. The remaining two races — California’s House District 45 and Alaska’s House At-Large District — have still not been called, as of writing. Certainly, some of their success comes down to the PACs’ willingness to shell out massive amounts of money. The crypto PACs put $40 million behind Ohio’s Republican Senatorial candidate, car salesman and one-time blockchain entrepreneur Bernie Moreno, and the tight margins in his race against Democratic incumbent and crypto opponent Sherrod Brown means that it’s possible that it was the crypto spending that made the difference.
  https://media.hachyderm.io/media_attachments/files/113/489/672/186/149/157/original/0d48fac0db23e8a5.png
2. However, it’s important to note that cryptocurrency PACs were largely going with a “back the winners” strategy in this cycle — exemplified by their spending on candidates like Jim Justice (R, WV Senate) and John Curtis (R, UT Senate), who were all but assured to win their races, and whose races were called moments after polls closed. Although it took a while for me to realize this — there were times when I wondered why the crypto PACs were supporting some candidate when their opponent seemed roughly equivalent in their crypto-related stances — the strategy later became clear. As I noted in an earlier issue [I68], a whopping 32 of the 39 candidates endorsed by Coinbase’s advocacy group Stand With Crypto had been assigned a 75% or more chance of winning their respective races. Graph of 39 Congressional candidates, showing them plotted on a vertical axis of 0% to 100% likelihood of winning. Almost all are in the top portion of the graph.
  https://media.hachyderm.io/media_attachments/files/113/489/672/230/323/190/original/0219f6c19edba048.png

Public

Embed Notice

HTML Code

Corresponding Notice