Republican Party has evolved into something very dark

SweetLou is the perfect embodiment of a lefty: completely lost in his own mind, absence of all commonsense.

Newsflash for you lefties, you accused me, Basso, bigtexxx being shills for the GOP. I am a conservative first and foremost, I have no party affiliation. The GOP needs house cleaning in the worst possible way. I'd still take them over you lefties' pinko party any day of the week.

 

Except there might be an argument that "corporate money" is what is keeping Romney close when even among Republican circles he is unpopular. Also how can you say Romney has been at a disadvantage when he has outraised Obama in most of the months since he wrapped up the nomination?

As far as his tacking left on health care keep in mind he did implement a policy that was essentially the model for the ACA. That is a problem that he has to provide some sort of credible defense than just pretend like it never happened as he had been.

 

Really? That's pretty naive, in my opinion. Both parties are completely sold to corporate interests. The two parties have been a mirror image of each other for a long time! They're a false choice that serves to disenfranchise the people and prevent any resistance to the policies put in place by their corporate overlords.

 

I meant disadvantage poll-wise. Romney's behind in the polls, and I do believe that there's a better than 50% chance Obama will be re-elected. And this corporate money has had utterly no effect on the polls - do people think Mitt Romney's more likeable these days, or do they hate Obama more than they did before? Not really. As for your argument, if it really was significant, I'd observe that period where there are greater ads and greater influence of money should make a more decisive effect. However, that is not true. Pretty much any national poll within the last few months between Obama and Romney have been statistically similar.

 

Except though Romney was lagging far behind in the polls until you started seeing him getting a surge in corporate money, granted this is a chicken and egg issue but there does appear a correlation. Further Romney's other Republican opponents cited the vast amounts of money in Romney's favor as one of the reasons why he sewed up the nomination when he did.

As far as the numbers not being statistically different between Romney and Obama you yourself state that Romney is less popular than Obama so if Romney is outraising Obama then it seems like money is a factor in keeping him in. Also money works on both sides and while Romney has outraised Obama for several months Obama has also raised substantial amounts of money and ran many ads.

If money really wasn't a factor Romney should be languishing in the polls due to his innate unpopularity while Obama should be riding much higher since he is more popular.

 

But by that guideline, your ranting about how it's the end-all evil and will DOOOOOOMMM our democracy is wrong, because you don't know what the results have been either. I do believe that the impact of corporate money on elections is massively, massively overrated, especially since in the last few years, we've seen loons raise lots of money from idealists and activists... and still get owned. See Angle, Sharron.

 

I smell a troll? When fact checking does not hold back your campaigning, you can spew out any number of BS "facts" that the uneducated American public will buy.

 

I reckon you could take the position that Thadeus and I have espoused on this board many times; that elections should be held at random from the adult population. It takes money out of the equation. To prevent having reps being bought, you compensate them for the job they forego to enter into public service.

 

2 things:
1. Last time I checked, Romney has been behind Obama in most polls. No, Obama isn't destroying him, because that's the nature of our electoral system, but Nate Silver recently stated that Romney has about a 30% chance of winning, which I found about accurate. However:
2. THIS is the thing which pisses me off about this thread. If Obama wins, it's the voice of the American people speaking. If Romney wins, it's about money. Like I said, it reminds me of the GARM after a late-game whistle.

Well, what do you think Romney's opponents would say? "Oh, I lost because I'm bat**** insane compared to Romney and had no idea how to run a campaign at all and Obama would get 40+ states if I ran against him." (see Perry, Bachmaan, Cain, etc)

 

you can break this specific thing down pretty easily. yes its the american people speaking. obama gets a much much higher percentage from smaller donations. its pretty simple man

 

And if you thought the Tea Party freshmen were bad, just wait until you have people who don't even want to be there in Congress.

 

Even if that happens, once they are there, they will start becoming less and less ethical, that's why we need term limit for the congress.

 

It would be perfect. Congress would only convene for serious issues. More legislating would be left to the States, as was intended. Plus, you get a more truly democratic representation of the people without the hassle of the voting system.

 

Corporate money has the least effect on presidential race.

There is no doubt that money has diminishing returns at a certain point. An extra 100 million on a multi billion dollar race really doesn't do anything. I'd say super-pacs will have little to no effect on the presidential race but that still doesn't mean that's a good thing.

That said, where corporate money has ruined politics is at the state level. There are good hard working state legislators that are losing because corporate money are paying for ads and campaigns for shills. You see it every day in small states that are now in the midst of multi-million dollar ad campaigns. Even local races have been infected with club for growth ads that just slander candidates but you simply dont have the money to respond so people buy into those lies.

Take a state like North Dakota where a statewide race might cost 2-3 million dollars between both candidates in total.

In the Senate race there, over 20 million dollars has already been spent and in the case of the Republicans, its literally been spent lying. (And I mean that absolutely in a literal sense, North Dakota has laws against lying in political ads so multiple Karl Rove ads have been pulled down for lying) And those are just the blatant lies. You see this elsewhere in Senate races in Ohio, Montana, Virginia, etc..

Also it is funny that you rail on the left wing for pushing ideas that are unpopular but then you cite corporate money which is also terribly unpopular. Over 60% of people disapprove of citizen's united and that number has been growing pretty rapidly as the campaign season has exposed how terrible the corporate funded ad blitz is.