- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 5, 2010 at 3:04 pm #707496
SmittyParticipantNovember 5, 2010 at 3:11 pm #707497
redblackParticipantit will turn out to be a pyrrhic victory.
the new kids on the republican block are about to find out how progressives feel when they fight the democratic party machine – and all of its money – and lose.
yeah, smitty, having rethought it, i’m okay with republican gains. for example, blanche lincoln lost, but she voted like a republican, anyway. same with evan bayh. now it will be a little easier to push progressive ideas through the democratic caucus.
at least both progressive muslims in the house got reelected. :D
November 5, 2010 at 4:20 pm #707498
KenParticipantThey want the Democrats to pledge to just run out the clock and wait for the new Congress to act on anything. Because, you know, they’d act just as honorably.
Oh, wait, that’s right.
The impeachment of Bill Clinton happened during a lame duck session. So, really, the proper response is, “No, you need to blow us, Boehner and McConnell….”
— The Rude Pundit
November 5, 2010 at 4:28 pm #707499
JoBParticipantKen…
you never fail to make my day…
Smitty…
California rejected “fiscal conservatism” in spite of the dandy sell job.
they are living with the consequences of what “fiscal conservatism” at it’s finest did to their state.
fool me once…
shame on you.
fool me twice
shame on me.
lessons learned the hard way tend to stick…
and Californians learned theirs the really hard way.
November 5, 2010 at 9:07 pm #707500
JanSParticipantOK, folks..yes, I can be a bit cynical at times…this about sums it up…and be forewarned..three are some “f” bombs in here…open at your own peril…just a warning. but, hey…he speaks for me…
November 5, 2010 at 10:02 pm #707501
DPMemberFrom George Carlin’s routine (courtesy of JanS):
Forget the politicians. They’re irrelevant. The politicians are put there to give you the illusion that you have freedom of choice. You don’t. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything . . .
JanS, do you really believe that? If so, then why get involved in politics?
November 5, 2010 at 10:58 pm #707502
JanSParticipantDP… I miss George Carlin…and do I really believe that? I guess I really don’t – mostly, but, having said that, I am disgusted with the money that was thrown at this election. And I fear that is what it is going to become. Maybe that’s why I have an involvement in politics… to HOPE that it doesn’t turn out that way. Considering the turn of things this election, I feel like I’m definitely in the minority now, and the majority welcomes those big buck guys. Yes, money talks…can’t deny that. It spoke to the Supreme Court, it spoke to the Repub candidates, it spoke to many Dem candidates…you can’t deny it. Yep, I get cynical at times.
November 6, 2010 at 12:34 am #707503
SmittyParticipantJanS,
You *do know* that Democrats spent more this cycle than Republicans, right? If you have a problem with the “source” of the funding that’s one thing.
Just not letting this turn into a “I can see Russia from my house” “fact”.
November 6, 2010 at 12:38 am #707504
SmittyParticipantNovember 6, 2010 at 1:12 am #707505
JoBParticipantSmitty…
democrats did not outspend republicans.
but they did mostly spend through highly regulated political organizations where their donations were regulated and recorded.
Unlike Republicans who spent more through the new “non-profit” organizations where there is no regulation and no reporting.
the number one female republican fundraiser stopped raising money for the party and went to work for Karl Rove’s cheery little group that brought us several million dollars worth of attack ads here in Washington alone.
Republicans outspent democrats.. they just don’t have the cahones to back their money with their reputation.
November 6, 2010 at 4:30 am #707506
JanSParticipantSmitty…I didn’t say it was just the Repubs. I included the Dems. This is a bipartisan effort, believe me. Who outspent the other is irrelevant. It’s the fact that BIG money is running things here that pi$$es me off. And people think they’re making the choices, when they’re just buying into it..wool being pulled over their eyes..like I said, today I’m cynical. There is no “compromise” here, no working together. It ain’t gonna happen. It’s what people wanted, they think, but it’s not what they’re going to get.
November 6, 2010 at 9:44 am #707507
HMC RichParticipantHeh heh heh. Tsunami.
I want you to hold the newly elected peoples feet to the fire as well as the old freaks in power. Just be a little honest for once. Oh wait, tell a lie enough times and that becomes the truth. Yeah. Go get some Paxil so you don’t lose it any further.
JanS can attest to the link I posted on the forum about a week ago. The Democrats had more money. Both parties and multiple groups spent millions. Sorry JoB, you are partially incorrect. Each group targeted different areas and people. And there were different types of fundraising that Republicans did raise more. Overall the Dems still had more money in reserve.
Serious election reform isn’t going to happen. Too bad.
Even though you think most of us Stink, Welcome Back Harry Reid. Nancy, meet John. He has a nice tan. He is from Ohio. You hand that gavel back to him like he gave it to you in 2006. What was that about no more deficit spending Nancy? That swamp is not very clear is it. Hmmmm. Go ahead and take an Air Force jet back home dear to S.F.
Damn right we are polarized. Tea Partying Tsunami. But it was the Independents who changed sides. 2012, one term unless somebody compromises.
November 6, 2010 at 9:48 am #707508
HMC RichParticipantCongratulations Mrs. Murray. You survived. I just have a few requests. Please trim some of the pork from the fat. Please be a leader and forget the term earmark. Learn what fiscal responsibility means. Please. We are running out of time and money.
November 6, 2010 at 1:52 pm #707509
redblackParticipantactually, rich, denny hastert – the sausage king of chicago – handed the gavel to nancy pelosi in 2006.
i have to say it again: you got played. you’ve been getting played for 30 years. republicans invented deficit spending, and a lot of the guiltiest parties just got reelected. supply-side is an abject failure and a lie.
so democrats are supposed to do as republicans say, not as they do, huh? sorry, but getting lectured on fiscal responsibility from the GOP is like getting lectured on raising chickens by a fox.
do teabaggers really believe that the old-guard GOP is going to put them on budgeting committees?
any specifics on what you want to cut from the budget and how much it will save?
i can’t wait for the new kids to see just how much subsidies, pork, and earmarks go to corporations – and not lazy-assed inner city cadillac-driving big-screen having socialist welfare bum democrats.
i can’t wait for them to see the price tag for their precious tax cut/extensions for their masters.
i can’t wait to see their reaction when they realize that they have to decide whether to raise the national debt ceiling inside of 6 months or have the u.s. go into default – and the global implications. (hint: your tax cuts won’t fit under that ceiling, not matter how much spending you cut – which won’t be much.)
i’m already enjoying the teabaggers turning on karl rove, even though he paid to get those rubes into office.
hey! how about the “slurpee summit,” huh? boehner would prefer a merlot? weelll, who’s the effete elitist now?
lastly, i’m going to be watching boehner’s spending habits the way the righties have been watching pelosi’s. let’s see just how much golf that orange creep plays with insurance execs when he should be working for the people of ohio.
this is fun! i might switch my party affiliation just for the entertainment value.
November 6, 2010 at 2:11 pm #707510
redblackParticipantokay, smitty. since you won’t go to opensecrets.org, i’ll bring them to you. i’m not afraid of hard work. :)
house democrats: 615 candidates
total raised: $464,939,555
total spent: $421,559,821
cash on hand: $151,237,249
total from PACs: $177,845,988
total from indiv.: $263,185,846
house republicans: 1117 candidates
total raised: $502,595,920
total spent: $419,170,255
cash on hand: $139,706,634
total from PACs: $112,387,700
total from indiv.: $316,301,899
senate democrats: 105 candidates
total raised: $294,002,310
total spent: $288,717,613
cash on hand: $58,655,162
total from PACs: $42,289,559
total from indiv.: $197,590,752
senate republicans: 155 candidates
total raised: $355,765,589
total spent: $303,570,178
cash on hand: $89,664,233
total from PACs: $40,179,250
total from indiv.: $219,310,109
total democratic spending: $710,277,434
total republican spending: $722,740,433
http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/index.php
the site doesn’t include stats for governors’ races or money spent promoting/defeating ballot initiatives.
estimates for the cost of this election – total, between both parties – is $5 billion or thereabouts. i wonder where the other $3.6 billion is.
November 6, 2010 at 3:22 pm #707511
SmittyParticipantI’m not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I think those numbers include “all” candidates – in other words, Republican money that was spent against each other in the primaries. Not to mention races where there was a R and Tea Party candidate (like AK).
Since there were a lot more Democrat incumbents they didn’t spend as much in primaries.
Could be wrong, and it’s still close, regardless – but I think Joe Democrat thinks it was 2-1 or something (because of the Citizens United ruling and the media coverage it received).
November 6, 2010 at 3:35 pm #707512
CarsonParticipantGuess what the first thing most politicians and PAC leaders did Weds Morning? No, after they took 2 Advil. They started to raise money for 2012. This year will seem like a kids party compared to 2012. The only question is can the R’s get the FCC to allow TV stations to run MORE ads during prime time tv shows. The game has changed, again.
November 6, 2010 at 3:46 pm #707513
JoBParticipantBusiness week weighed in on election spending..
interesting article…
“Republican-leaning groups spent $167 million between Sept. 1 and Oct. 31 in support of their party’s nominees, compared with $68 million by Democratic-leaning organizations, Federal Election Commission reports show.”
What i would find interesting is how the donations from individuals from the open secret reports breaks down.. in numbers…
i wonder if those numbers…
how many people were willing to put their money where their mouth is…
would be a real eye opener.
Is this just party money or total money.. including organizations like crossroads or the money individuals dump into their own campaigns?
November 6, 2010 at 3:50 pm #707514
JoBParticipantSmitty…
I am not the sharpest knife in the box either..
but i can recognize a distraction when i see one..
it doesn’t really matter whether republicans spend money knocking one another out in the primaries… campaign dollars are still campaign dollars.
there isn’t a separate line for democrats knocking one another out in the primaries..
so there shouldn’t be one for republicans either.
the most interesting race financially is between the two republicans in Alaska..
i wonder what the write in candidate spent?
and who funded her?
and what does it say about republican candidates that so many of them had to spend so much to get elected.. or not?
I think Michelle Bachman spent more than any other congressional race to date…
ok.. i can see why Michelle had to spend money.. she was too busy making herself a national political figure to actually campaign in her district…
but she wasn’t the only republican to spend obscene amounts..
i think that when the dust settles…
campaign money is going to be the most interesting contender is this election season.
who it came from.. where it came from…how many individuals donated.. … and how it was spent..
the same people who want to tighten the deficit on the backs of the indigent… seem to have no trouble spending some pretty big bucks when it comes to elections.
November 6, 2010 at 4:10 pm #707515
redblackParticipantjo, visit the site. there’s way too much information there to sum up in a post on the blog. it’s sortable and searchable by district, and it does list individual PACs’ donations for each candidate.
and it’s non-partisan.
but i noted that sarahpac gave $10,000 to joe miller and $5,000 to lisa murkowski.
smitty, let me know which way you want to frame or quantify the argument. i posted the raw information that i could find. if you have other sources, i’m actually interested in the debate and not just counting coup.
i think citizens united was a terrible decision, especially in light of both major parties trying trying to get ahold of spending before it bankrupts the country any further. (and yes, both parties have different means and methods for deficit and debt reduction – a timeless topic that i’m not addressing here.)
in other words, when the rank-and-file in both parties agree that elections shouldn’t just be money-making machines for candidates and broadcasters, then we can get serious about spending and hold the candidates and their PACs to their own platitudes about being fiscally responsible.
since when did money become speech? since when did money become the only thing that dictates policy? and is that where we want to be in a democracy when 90% of the electorate is going broke?
November 6, 2010 at 4:28 pm #707516
JoBParticipantredblack…
so this is PAC money?
one of Rove’s crossroads organizations is a PAC.
but is the other?
i thought the difference was PACs are still required to disclose donors and these new organizations aren’t.
So.. are they counted in this tally?
is the chamber of commerce money included?
you are right.. i need to go dumpster diving…
but today my little grey cells will only allow me to ponder.. not to research:(
another day perhaps.
November 6, 2010 at 4:36 pm #707517
SmittyParticipantrb,
I think your information is valid, it’s just important to note (imo) that Republicans spent a lot of that money in their primaries, and they still spent less than Democrats, so this spin that’s out there that R’s “bought” the election because of CU is just flat wrong.
That doesn’t mean I agree with the decision.
Carson is correct, 2012 is “Katy, bar the door” time compared to 2010.
November 6, 2010 at 4:49 pm #707518
CarsonParticipantSmitty,
What I want to know, more because there is lots of money to be made, is where will they get the message out? I mean, they bought probably 80% of all the available TV time. Social media? nah, too hit and miss. That money will get spent someplace to get the message out, just don’t know where!
November 6, 2010 at 5:51 pm #707519
JanSParticipantJoB…funny thing about Michele Bachmann…her election day party wasn’t even held in her own 3rd district.(I think that’s hers). She had it in an entirely different district…way to give those dollars to your constituents. I had to laugh when Chris Matthews confronted her on election night. She truly looked like she had been hypnotized. A completely vacuous stare. And they keep re-electing her…I don’t get it.
November 6, 2010 at 6:44 pm #707520
redblackParticipantsmitty, while i’ll concede that democrats spent more than republicans per candidate, i have the same question as jo regarding what was disclosed.
one could speculate that the other estimated $3.6 billion was from undisclosed sources, and the bulk of it probably went to state-wide elections. after all, that’s where district lines are drawn, and the big money is very interested in gerrymandering before 2012. (not a partisan jab, necessarily, it’s just political chess; although republicans have historically benefited far more than dems from redistricting.)
btw, one of the bills waiting to clear conference is the DISCLOSE act, which, as i understand it, is the legislature’s response to citizens united and would help keep things more transparent.
even so, i doubt there’s much information available – yet – about where the remainder of that campaign cash was coming from and where it went. i think that even established journalists are having a hard time digging up that info.
bottom line: republicans don’t want unions buying government; we, on the left, don’t want the koch brothers buying government. we can argue until we’re blue about who has more money and influence, but getting the money out of elections benefits the republic.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.