redblack
smitty: 94% of elections in this country go to the campaigns with the most money. yeah, obama outspent mccain. did he buy it? tough call, but given the number of small contributions and new voters, it would be hard to make the argument that big money put obama in office.
(of course, kootch will come along in 3 – 2 – 1… to tell me how the unions are bigger spenders than corporate america – which is patently untrue. and how the banks backed obama when it became clear that mccain was rudderless – which is true.)
however, the koch brothers have announced their intention to spend $400 million in this election cycle. that’s almost half of what it will take to outspend the president.
i guess we’ll see if america buys the big lie in november.
but i’ll answer your question with a question: does the free media on fox about romney, unions, about the economy sucking, about there not being a war on women, and about taxes – do you think any of that factors into the elections? fox is the ratings leader, after all. and as such, a good chunk of those billion-dollar campaigns goes directly to them.
look, no one’s making excuses for wisconsin and we left-wing moonbat socialist union thugs were hoping to reverse the money-election paradigm. i blame voter fatigue and low turnout by dems.
but you can’t ignore how gloriously the dems were outspent. if dems had had more money to spend there, democratic turnout would have been higher. there’s a direct correlation.