Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

It ain't about who has the best ideas.

Super Tuesday brings super PAC spending milestone


Heading into Super Tuesday, spending by super PACs aligned with presidential candidates has surpassed spending by all super PACs in the 2010 mid-term election.

To date, super PACs aligned with one of the 2012 White House hopefuls have spent more than $66 million, an iWatch News analysis of data filed with the Federal Election Commission has found. Notably, the pro-Mitt Romney super PAC “Restore Our Future” accounts for almost 50 percent of this spending.

The super PAC has spent more than $32 million so far this election, nearly all of it on ads bashing his opponents. That’s nearly twice as much as the $16 million spent by pro-Newt Gingrich “Winning Our Future.” And it’s roughly six times as much as the $5.3 million spent by the pro-Rick Santorum “Red, White and Blue Fund.”

http://www.iwatchnews.org/2012/03/06/83 ... -milestone" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

kalm wrote:It ain't about who has the best ideas.

Super Tuesday brings super PAC spending milestone


Heading into Super Tuesday, spending by super PACs aligned with presidential candidates has surpassed spending by all super PACs in the 2010 mid-term election.

To date, super PACs aligned with one of the 2012 White House hopefuls have spent more than $66 million, an iWatch News analysis of data filed with the Federal Election Commission has found. Notably, the pro-Mitt Romney super PAC “Restore Our Future” accounts for almost 50 percent of this spending.

The super PAC has spent more than $32 million so far this election, nearly all of it on ads bashing his opponents. That’s nearly twice as much as the $16 million spent by pro-Newt Gingrich “Winning Our Future.” And it’s roughly six times as much as the $5.3 million spent by the pro-Rick Santorum “Red, White and Blue Fund.”

http://www.iwatchnews.org/2012/03/06/83 ... -milestone" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yesterday's news, we learned that lesson a little over 3 years ago.

Baldy wrote:

kalm wrote:It ain't about who has the best ideas.



http://www.iwatchnews.org/2012/03/06/83 ... -milestone" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yesterday's news, we learned that lesson a little over 3 years ago.

Romney's winning because the other two candidates, Santorum and Gingrich, are looney and unstable. Money tends to follow the winner, and yes, money has been in politics for a long, long time, and every election, more money enters politics. Super PACs have been legal for 40 years, nothing new about them and money up front doesn't guarantee any votes. Next?

GannonFan wrote:Romney's winning because the other two candidates, Santorum and Gingrich, are looney and unstable. Money tends to follow the winner, and yes, money has been in politics for a long, long time, and every election, more money enters politics. Super PACs have been legal for 40 years, nothing new about them and money up front doesn't guarantee any votes. Next?

Romney, a presidential looking candidate, successful businessman, religious, is having a tough time dispatching the loons. He's spent 1/2 of all the money by himself. How do you think the race would be going if his spending resembled the other two?

Think the clown will have any debt after Obama buries him?

kalm wrote:

GannonFan wrote:Romney's winning because the other two candidates, Santorum and Gingrich, are looney and unstable. Money tends to follow the winner, and yes, money has been in politics for a long, long time, and every election, more money enters politics. Super PACs have been legal for 40 years, nothing new about them and money up front doesn't guarantee any votes. Next?

Romney, a presidential looking candidate, successful businessman, religious, is having a tough time dispatching the loons. He's spent 1/2 of all the money by himself. How do you think the race would be going if his spending resembled the other two?

First of all, are you honestly saying his religion is an asset in this race? Surely you don't mean that, as it has been quite clear that there may not be a more disadvantageous religion to be in this country, when running for political office outside of Utah or Idaho, than being Mormon is. If Romney was any other religion I'd wager that he'd be much farther ahead now than he is.

And as for the money, yeah, I think the more people get to hear Santorum, the less they like him. He is a loon and he's lucky more people haven't paid attention to him. Getting more exposure, i.e. money, will only hurt Santorum.

Romney is having a tough time dispatching the loons because 1) he's Mormon and people in America generally don't like Mormons, especially those that are also religious or gay or Black or... 2) Romney has a lot of baggage that comes from being a New England-style Republican, i.e. he took a lot of positions that were different than the rest of Republicans elsewhere in the nation 3) the primaries are decidedly backloaded this year in terms of delegates - even if he swept everything to now he would still have far less delegates than he would've in the frontloaded primaries of 4 years ago and 4) Romney is like a more successful John Kerry - basically he's boring and uninspiring and will likely face the same outcome. But money is not the most important driver in this election - it matters, but it isn't all important as you make it out to be.

GannonFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
Romney, a presidential looking candidate, successful businessman, religious, is having a tough time dispatching the loons. He's spent 1/2 of all the money by himself. How do you think the race would be going if his spending resembled the other two?

First of all, are you honestly saying his religion is an asset in this race? Surely you don't mean that, as it has been quite clear that there may not be a more disadvantageous religion to be in this country, when running for political office outside of Utah or Idaho, than being Mormon is. If Romney was any other religion I'd wager that he'd be much farther ahead now than he is.

And as for the money, yeah, I think the more people get to hear Santorum, the less they like him. He is a loon and he's lucky more people haven't paid attention to him. Getting more exposure, i.e. money, will only hurt Santorum.

Romney is having a tough time dispatching the loons because 1) he's Mormon and people in America generally don't like Mormons, especially those that are also religious or gay or Black or... 2) Romney has a lot of baggage that comes from being a New England-style Republican, i.e. he took a lot of positions that were different than the rest of Republicans elsewhere in the nation 3) the primaries are decidedly backloaded this year in terms of delegates - even if he swept everything to now he would still have far less delegates than he would've in the frontloaded primaries of 4 years ago and 4) Romney is like a more successful John Kerry - basically he's boring and uninspiring and will likely face the same outcome. But money is not the most important driver in this election - it matters, but it isn't all important as you make it out to be.

Good thoughts and I agree, money isn't everything, but it is one of the key determining factors.

kalm wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
First of all, are you honestly saying his religion is an asset in this race? Surely you don't mean that, as it has been quite clear that there may not be a more disadvantageous religion to be in this country, when running for political office outside of Utah or Idaho, than being Mormon is. If Romney was any other religion I'd wager that he'd be much farther ahead now than he is.

And as for the money, yeah, I think the more people get to hear Santorum, the less they like him. He is a loon and he's lucky more people haven't paid attention to him. Getting more exposure, i.e. money, will only hurt Santorum.

Romney is having a tough time dispatching the loons because 1) he's Mormon and people in America generally don't like Mormons, especially those that are also religious or gay or Black or... 2) Romney has a lot of baggage that comes from being a New England-style Republican, i.e. he took a lot of positions that were different than the rest of Republicans elsewhere in the nation 3) the primaries are decidedly backloaded this year in terms of delegates - even if he swept everything to now he would still have far less delegates than he would've in the frontloaded primaries of 4 years ago and 4) Romney is like a more successful John Kerry - basically he's boring and uninspiring and will likely face the same outcome. But money is not the most important driver in this election - it matters, but it isn't all important as you make it out to be.

Good thoughts and I agree, money isn't everything, but it is one of the key determining factors.

Money is reactionary, not predictive. Romney has the money advantage because he is the best candidate in that bunch, he's not the best candidate in the bunch because he has the money. Obama didn't win in '08 because he had more money - he ended up with more money because he was going to win. Everybody likes to bet on a winner.

GannonFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
Good thoughts and I agree, money isn't everything, but it is one of the key determining factors.

Money is reactionary, not predictive. Romney has the money advantage because he is the best candidate in that bunch, he's not the best candidate in the bunch because he has the money. Obama didn't win in '08 because he had more money - he ended up with more money because he was going to win. Everybody likes to bet on a winner.

Oh there's a certain degree of truth to all that. So tell us...why do they spend the money? And does the amount you spend matter?

kalm wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Money is reactionary, not predictive. Romney has the money advantage because he is the best candidate in that bunch, he's not the best candidate in the bunch because he has the money. Obama didn't win in '08 because he had more money - he ended up with more money because he was going to win. Everybody likes to bet on a winner.

Oh there's a certain degree of truth to all that. So tell us...why do they spend the money? And does the amount you spend matter?

They want to back a winner, and I'm sure many hope that the money will buy them access and advantages when the person wins. Whether it matters in the end depends on the integrity of the winner - some are corrupt and will let money influence them to do things they wouldn't normally do, and some have integrity and take the money and say thank you and then govern as they think they should, regardless of the money. But like I said, money doesn't win elections, it just likes to follow a winner.

GannonFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
Oh there's a certain degree of truth to all that. So tell us...why do they spend the money? And does the amount you spend matter?

They want to back a winner, and I'm sure many hope that the money will buy them access and advantages when the person wins. Whether it matters in the end depends on the integrity of the winner - some are corrupt and will let money influence them to do things they wouldn't normally do, and some have integrity and take the money and say thank you and then govern as they think they should, regardless of the money. But like I said, money doesn't win elections, it just likes to follow a winner.

What percentage have integrity? Nice guys and altruists tend to finish last in this system.