http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/08/u...or-cash-flood-by-big-donors.html?ref=politics That's some grade A bull#### right there.
actually that statement is completely believable, if a little pointless and of little consolation to the donors.
I think that's an interesting subject because I get the impression we got the version of Romney that we got in order to please a small group of big dollar funders without whom he could not have matched Obama's war chest. So, on the one hand, these Super PACs provided the money that was necessary to market but simultaneously degraded the product that was for sale. And, in the end, close is only good enough for horse shoes and hand grenades. Do these donors have any more access to the White House because their guy got kinda close?
Almost $400 million spent and Crossroads did not, that I know of, back a winning candidate. They put most of their money into TV ads, but every general worth their salt knows that ground troops win wars. The air game is flashy and cool and makes for great visuals, but the boots on the ground are going to secure the victory. Obama's team recognized this and their ground resources were superior.
What is even more nutty is Rove has convinced these knuckleheads that Romney lost because of Sandy and Christie not because Romney was a ****ty candidate.
So, these fatcats can drop this kind of cash on a losing election, but can't be asked to pay a dime more in taxes to better their country? Somethings not adding up here.
Sheldon Adelson, the biggest donor in political history, supported 8 candidates through super PACs. All of them lost Tuesday.
A couple points..... Rove got 10% of all the money that came in, he got $5,000,000.00 just from Adelson. Also, do not underestimate the value of PAC money, the mid term elections are where they will play a HUGE role at the local levels. Obama can raise money, because he is an icon.... but local politicans are less known.
Romney lost because of Obama.... The economy is bad and sluggish, the Republicans had momentum off of 2010 and had the most money. Romney was electable (the polls show a majority viewed him as Presidential)...... the reason the Republicans lost is the charisma and ability of Obama and the willingness people are to go out of their way to ensure he is re-elected. Obama will be on money some day.... movies will be made about him and he will become an FDR, Lincoln, Kennedy, Washington type figure in 50-100 years. His skills are extremely rare, and the mystique around him will grow as time passes.
It is true. Without enormous spending the GOP would lose much more often. A poster child for this is Michelle Bachman.. She outspent her opponent $23 million to $2 million and barely won. The money obviously made the difference.
Hey taxes are theft. The Bain Capitalists types earned their money and can waste it how they like. Doncha know Signed, a contented market fundie
Obama will go down as the greatest American president since FDR, even if he accomplishes little in his 2nd term due to lockstep Republican obstruction. Book it.
I think there is something wrong with a system where you have to spend about $ 400 M to even compete in an election.
GOAT? That is subjective.. but I am telling you that he will be one of the 4-5 most popular and mentioned Presidents in US history 50-100 years from now..... as Clinton and Reagan fade, Obama will not, he is just too big and monumental....
Unbelievable. It's becoming harder these days to be able to tell whether or not these people actually believe the lies they tell. The good news..political Darwinism currently underway.
But money is free speech right? and Corporations are people. You cannot deny people their right of free speech.:grin:
