Scott Walker win in WI?

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"In a post-Citizens United world, it's depressing that the election process in this country is far more a battle of fundraising than it is a battle of "who's most qualified."

To repeat, Obama spent way more money in 2008 than Obama did. Obama's fundraising shattered records. Back then, I didn't hear a peep from liberals about buying elections. Citizens United doesn't favor one party over the other. If Walker had more money, that tells me that more people agreed with him than his opponent. The Citizens United case only favors Republicans, if the GOP has more money to donate than the Dems. If Republuicans had all the money, how did Obama accumulate such an unfathomable war chest in 2008?

Here is al ink from Wikepedia...

Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A quote..."Barack Obama's fundraising broke previous records for presidential primary and general campaigns, and has changed expectations for future presidential elections. "

Johnny, I reject the notion that money matters more after Citizens United. Liberals are terrified that when the Koch brothers donate, they are buying influence. Those same liberals have no problems with labor unions donating. I don't buy it. I agree that money plays too big a role, but I reject any notion that the GOP benefits more from donations than the Dems. Obama shattered all fundraising records in 2008. Liberals sure didn't express any concern then...

I'm not contesting that the playing field isn't somewhat level. And most of my comments regarding how money played a roll in WI were more "devil's advocate" type statements.

For clarity's sake, I shouldn't have conflated my opinions on CU with WI. Money doesn't matter more in the Dems vs. Repubs situation. In my opinion, a post-CU world has more effect on the actual candidates we, as citizens, get and their motivations rather than on how those candidates compete with each other.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

I'm not contesting that the playing field isn't somewhat level. And most of my comments regarding how money played a roll in WI were more "devil's advocate" type statements.

For clarity's sake, I shouldn't have conflated my opinions on CU with WI. Money doesn't matter more in the Dems vs. Repubs situation. In my opinion, a post-CU world has more effect on the actual candidates we, as citizens, get and their motivations rather than on how those candidates compete with each other.

I'm with you 100% that it's counter-productive, if not dangerous, that money plays such a big role. I just suspect that liberals are playing that card this week, simply because they didn't get what they want this time. And when liberals don't get what they want, they throw a hissy fit just like my kids. I know you're not doing that, I'm saying everyone at MSNBC is doing that.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I'm with you 100% that it's counter-productive, if not dangerous, that money plays such a big role. I just suspect that liberals are playing that card this week, simply because they didn't get what they want this time.

The Dems must of released their "they were outspent excuse" talking points early,
as I heard one pundit saying that when 70% of the votes were in and the hand
writing was on the wall.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by justplugit

The Dems must of released their "they were outspent excuse" talking points early,
as I heard one pundit saying that when 70% of the votes were in and the hand
writing was on the wall.

And there's the difference between Republicans and Democrats (at a high level). In 2008, the GOP just got clobbered, absolutely clobbered. What did they do? They re-tooled their message, spred that message with the Tea Party, and they have been a roll ever since.

When the Democrats get clobbered, they charge racism, make fantasy claims of influence-peddling from outside money, and they throw rocks, camp (and crap) outside in public parks, engage in anarchy and mayhem, and scream "WAAH!"

[buckman]

Originally Posted by justplugit

The Dems must of released their "they were outspent excuse" talking points early,
as I heard one pundit saying that when 70% of the votes were in and the hand
writing was on the wall.

Hmmm the 20 mil spent by the unions in a losing effort was not included in the calculations

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by buckman

Hmmm the 20 mil spent by the unions in a losing effort was not included in the calculations

But when unions give $$ to Democrats, that's just free speech. When conservative groups give $$ to Republicans, that's corrupt. So it's OK to give $, to campaigns, as long as it goes to Democrats...