The Republican Thread

[Balta1701]

The Dems see this as a huge chance to steal a seat they haven't had since 1966, and they aren't going to throw SuperPAC money at it. Only those dirty Republicans will do it. Yeah, ok.

When the Republicans are outraising them 10-1 from SuperPACs, yeah, that makes it hard to throw SuperPAC money at it.

[southsider2k5]

When the Republicans are outraising them 10-1 from SuperPACs, yeah, that makes it hard to throw SuperPAC money at it.

 

So you are comparing the spending in contested Presidential primaries, and comparing it to an uncontested primary, to come up with this?

[Balta1701]

So you are comparing the spending in contested Presidential primaries, and comparing it to an uncontested primary, to come up with this?

Karl Rove's SuperPAC has, on it's own, outraised every Democratic Endorsed SuperPAC 2-1 in this cycle already, and Crossroads hasn't been spending in the Republican Primary. The numbers really are quite staggering. Obama's campaign is even more reliant on small donors than it was in 2008, because a lot of the wall street money has shifted to Republican SuperPAC's.

[southsider2k5]

Karl Rove's SuperPAC has, on it's own, outraised every Democratic Endorsed SuperPAC 2-1 in this cycle already, and Crossroads hasn't been spending in the Republican Primary. The numbers really are quite staggering. Obama's campaign is even more reliant on small donors than it was in 2008, because a lot of the wall street money has shifted to Republican SuperPAC's.

 

Obama also has a $100,000,000 lead in fund raising too. Then again, that is irrelevant to what is going on here. A better example would be the outside money we saw spent in the WI recall race, where we saw millions in that same sort of money from Dems who were jockeying to oust Walker.

 

The money is there for the right races.

[Balta1701]

Obama also has a $100,000,000 lead in fund raising too. Then again, that is irrelevant to what is going on here. A better example would be the outside money we saw spent in the WI recall race, where we saw millions in that same sort of money from Dems who were jockeying to oust Walker.

 

The money is there for the right races.

I think that this graph works well in reply when we're talking about outside money spent in the WI recall race.

[southsider2k5]

I think that this graph works well in reply when we're talking about outside money spent in the WI recall race.

 

Except it isn't accurate. Not even close.

[southsider2k5]

Except it isn't accurate. Not even close.

 

http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/noquarter...-144160905.html

[southsider2k5]

http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/noquarter...-144160905.html

 

And this...

 

http://mediatrackers.org/2012/04/27/pro-fa...-from-the-left/

 

Taking the numbers from your original post's story ($3.57m), that means Walker got less than Falk did from outside sources.

[Balta1701]

That's the direct contributions to the candidates. SuperPAC spending...I can't give you...because it's not required to be disclosed.

 

I can, however, give this. And as you noted...this was with a contested Democratic Primary...which should mean the Democrats were spending more because of it.

Republicans are dominating the battle for Wisconsin's airwaves this year with about 78 percent of the dollars spent on TV advertisements supporting GOP candidates and conservative causes, an investigation by Gannett Wisconsin Media found.

 

The records indicate the biggest overall advertiser in Wisconsin is a group that's backing Gov. Scott Walker to the tune of $3.25 million called "Right Direction Wisconsin PAC," and it's affiliated with the Washington, D.C.-based Republican Governor's Association.

(That number, of course, is a factor of 2x the amount you just quoted...and that's again, what Walker was running when he didn't have an actual opponent).

[Balta1701]

Taking the numbers from your original post's story ($3.57m), that means Walker got less than Falk did from outside sources.

No it doesn't, because you're conflating direct candidate contributions and Super-PAC contributions.

[southsider2k5]

No it doesn't, because you're conflating direct candidate contributions and Super-PAC contributions.

 

 

Read it again.

 

With just under two weeks to go before the Democratic primary for governor, former Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk trails Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett for the Democratic nomination in every single poll. But one wild card that has Falk and her team optimistic is the heavy spending occurring on her behalf by the pro-Falk super PAC Wisconsin For Falk, a conduit for union money that pledged to spend a total of $4 million during the primary campaign.

[Balta1701]

Read it again.

But you're comparing that to direct contributions to Walker's campaign which have some limited disclosure requirements, and which still dwarf the money that union group could spend. His SuperPAC has already spent almost as much as that group was pledging to spend over the full election, according to that other piece, and thanks to the lack of disclosure requirements, I have no clue how much more they have left in the tank, but I'd assume it's a helluva lot m ore than $4 million.

[southsider2k5]

But you're comparing that to direct contributions to Walker's campaign which have some limited disclosure requirements, and which still dwarf the money that union group could spend. His SuperPAC has already spent almost as much as that group was pledging to spend over the full election, according to that other piece, and thanks to the lack of disclosure requirements, I have no clue how much more they have left in the tank, but I'd assume it's a helluva lot m ore than $4 million.

 

Those numbers you posted are also extremely misleading as Walker didn't have the limits to donations that the other candidates had for a good portion of the electoral cycle. And it wasn't SuperPAC over a whole cycle, it was specifically for the primary, not the general.

 

Again, the point is that the Left Wing SuperPAC money is out there for contested races. Switching the fundraising totals from general to SuperPAC money when the recipient changes, isn't going to change the end result here.

 

Just judging by the fact we are talking about a union-supported SPAC spending $4 million in WI on a contested primary (and not even the general yet) and adding to the fact that Donnelly is a big time union guy anyway, shows that all signs point to there being a plenty big pool of that kind of cash for saintly left wingers to tap into if the race has national implications (which duh, could the Dems have a bigger seat to steal this year?)

[Balta1701]

Those numbers you posted are also extremely misleading as Walker didn't have the limits to donations that the other candidates had for a good portion of the electoral cycle. And it wasn't SuperPAC over a whole cycle, it was specifically for the primary, not the general.

 

Again, the point is that the Left Wing SuperPAC money is out there for contested races. Switching the fundraising totals from general to SuperPAC money when the recipient changes, isn't going to change the end result here.

 

Just judging by the fact we are talking about a union-supported SPAC spending $4 million in WI on a contested primary (and not even the general yet) and adding to the fact that Donnelly is a big time union guy anyway, shows that all signs point to there being a plenty big pool of that kind of cash for saintly left wingers to tap into if the race has national implications (which duh, could the Dems have a bigger seat to steal this year?)

And then it will be dwarfed by 3x as many republican SuperPAC dollars if it looks remotely close, just like Wisconsin.

[southsider2k5]

And then it will be dwarfed by 3x as many republican SuperPAC dollars if it looks remotely close, just like Wisconsin.

 

Except it wasn't. But OK.

 

That article bounced back and forth in the numbers, but never really compared apples to apples. There was no where that actually showed SuperPAC money by candidate. It also misled by comparing fundraising when Walker had no limits, and the rest of the candidates did. That has now changed.

[Balta1701]

Except it wasn't. But OK.

 

That article bounced back and forth in the numbers, but never really compared apples to apples. There was no where that actually showed SuperPAC money by candidate. It also misled by comparing fundraising when Walker had no limits, and the rest of the candidates did. That has now changed.

Because it doesn't have to be disclosed. Which is one of the reasons why it's so insidious. Gives you the chance to pretend to deny things.

[StrangeSox]

Now that there is one candidate, fundraising should pick up.

[southsider2k5]

Now that there is one candidate, fundraising should pick up.

 

No doubt about that.

[southsider2k5]

Because it doesn't have to be disclosed. Which is one of the reasons why it's so insidious. Gives you the chance to pretend to deny things.

 

I think the slickest thing about the article was the attempt to muddle the terms "out of state" with "superPAC" money.

[EvilMonkey]

Leave it to the supposed racist free party to always make it about race.

 

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com...ce-issue/537146

 

When will this over the top s*** end? Seriously. it ISN'T always about race. Assholes are assholes regardless of color, sexual origin or religion. If someone sucks at their job, and they happen to be well then they suck at their job. if you disagree with a black president, 99% of the time you would still disagree with the very same words/positions if they came from a white President. Get over it. Those who only see things thru a racial prism are the true racists.

[mr_genius]

Leave it to the supposed racist free party to always make it about race.

 

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com...ce-issue/537146

 

When will this over the top s*** end? Seriously. it ISN'T always about race. Assholes are assholes regardless of color, sexual origin or religion. If someone sucks at their job, and they happen to be well then they suck at their job. if you disagree with a black president, 99% of the time you would still disagree with the very same words/positions if they came from a white President. Get over it. Those who only see things thru a racial prism are the true racists.

 

Obama has nothing else. Unfortunately, we will now be subjected to endless dimwitted NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN news stories about how everyone not voting Obama is a racist.

[Cknolls]

 

 

Many of President Obama’s fervent devotees are young enough not to have much memory of the political world before the arrival of The One. Coincidentally, Obama himself feels the same way—and the White House’s official website reflects that.

 

The Heritage Foundation’s Rory Cooper tweeted that Obama had casually dropped his own name into Ronald Reagan’s official biography on www.whitehouse.gov, claiming credit for taking up the mantle of Reagan’s tax reform advocacy with his “Buffett Rule” gimmick. My first thought was, he must be joking. But he wasn’t—it turns out Obama has added bullet points bragging about his own accomplishments to the biographical sketches of every single U.S. president since Calvin Coolidge (except, for some reason, Gerald Ford). Here are a few examples:

 

 

On Feb. 22, 1924 Calvin Coolidge became the first president to make a public radio address to the American people. President Coolidge later helped create the Federal Radio Commission, which has now evolved to become the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). President Obama became the first president to hold virtual gatherings and town halls using Twitter, Facebook, Google+, LinkedIn, etc.

In a 1946 letter to the National Urban League, President Truman wrote that the government has “an obligation to see that the civil rights of every citizen are fully and equally protected.” He ended racial segregation in civil service and the armed forces in 1948. Today the Obama administration continues to strive toward upholding the civil rights of its citizens, repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, allowing people of all sexual orientations to serve openly in our armed forces.

President Lyndon Johnson signed Medicare signed (sic) into law in 1965—providing millions of elderly healthcare stability. President Obama’s historic health care reform law, the Affordable Care Act, strengthens Medicare, offers eligible seniors a range of preventive services with no cost-sharing, and provides discounts on drugs when in the coverage gap known as the “donut hole.”

On August 14, 1935, President Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act. Today the Obama administration continues to protect seniors and ensure Social Security will be there for future generations.

In a June 28, 1985 speech Reagan called for a fairer tax code, one where a multi-millionaire did not have a lower tax rate than his secretary. Today, President Obama is calling for the same with the Buffett Rule.

I imagine Bill Clinton will be especially receptive to Obama’s habit of shoehorning himself into the limelight previously occupied by others. As you can see, the bullet points make clear that while each president has done something historic or notable, Obama is carrying forward every one of those accomplishments since Coolidge. No wonder he always seems so proud of himself.

 

 

The most narcissistic, egomaniacal douche to ever grace the halls of 1600.

[CanOfCorn]

Many of President Obama’s fervent devotees are young enough not to have much memory of the political world before the arrival of The One. Coincidentally, Obama himself feels the same way—and the White House’s official website reflects that.

 

The Heritage Foundation’s Rory Cooper tweeted that Obama had casually dropped his own name into Ronald Reagan’s official biography on www.whitehouse.gov, claiming credit for taking up the mantle of Reagan’s tax reform advocacy with his “Buffett Rule” gimmick. My first thought was, he must be joking. But he wasn’t—it turns out Obama has added bullet points bragging about his own accomplishments to the biographical sketches of every single U.S. president since Calvin Coolidge (except, for some reason, Gerald Ford). Here are a few examples:

 

 

On Feb. 22, 1924 Calvin Coolidge became the first president to make a public radio address to the American people. President Coolidge later helped create the Federal Radio Commission, which has now evolved to become the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). President Obama became the first president to hold virtual gatherings and town halls using Twitter, Facebook, Google+, LinkedIn, etc.

In a 1946 letter to the National Urban League, President Truman wrote that the government has “an obligation to see that the civil rights of every citizen are fully and equally protected.” He ended racial segregation in civil service and the armed forces in 1948. Today the Obama administration continues to strive toward upholding the civil rights of its citizens, repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, allowing people of all sexual orientations to serve openly in our armed forces.

President Lyndon Johnson signed Medicare signed (sic) into law in 1965—providing millions of elderly healthcare stability. President Obama’s historic health care reform law, the Affordable Care Act, strengthens Medicare, offers eligible seniors a range of preventive services with no cost-sharing, and provides discounts on drugs when in the coverage gap known as the “donut hole.”

On August 14, 1935, President Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act. Today the Obama administration continues to protect seniors and ensure Social Security will be there for future generations.

In a June 28, 1985 speech Reagan called for a fairer tax code, one where a multi-millionaire did not have a lower tax rate than his secretary. Today, President Obama is calling for the same with the Buffett Rule.

I imagine Bill Clinton will be especially receptive to Obama’s habit of shoehorning himself into the limelight previously occupied by others. As you can see, the bullet points make clear that while each president has done something historic or notable, Obama is carrying forward every one of those accomplishments since Coolidge. No wonder he always seems so proud of himself.

 

 

The most narcissistic, egomaniacal douche to ever grace the halls of 1600.

 

Yeah, wow...taking the good policies and ideas of past presidents and somehow making it relevant to todays world. He isn't douchey, he's the first one who has a staff smart enough to do it.

 

[Cknolls]

Yeah, wow...taking the good policies and ideas of past presidents and somehow making it relevant to todays world. He isn't douchey, he's the first one who has a staff smart enough to do it.

 

 

Yeah that's it.

[kapkomet]

Yeah that's it.

 

 

There are a lot of ass kissers around. There's a justification for anything.