Debate, and discuss, just dont Bore me.
How not to spend
Published on November 7, 2008 By Dr Guy In Politics

Headlines in the conservative internet blare "Bought for $650m".  Referring to the white house.  But was it?  Despite spending an obscene amount of cash.  Despite Obama breaking his pledge, and spending (Wasting?) his money on a 1/2 hour infomercial, his money played a very small part in the election.  Oh, I am not saying you dont "need" money.  But there comes a time when the money is wasted.

And it is obvious that there was a lot of waste.  Getting calls 3-6 times a day to vote for X?  Hardly decisive.  The infomercial?  Adored by his fans, but again hardly decisive.  The election was one that was his to lose, and despite some of  the "pundits" who are analyzing his win, Obama almost managed to lose it.

I remarked several times that the candidates seem to be trying to lose it, and it was a race to see who could lose it first.  If future candidates want to imitate Obama's campaign, they will surely lose.  It was not a well run campaign.  Despite having $650 million to spend.

The problem with all that money is that there comes a time when you get to the law of diminishing returns.  That last dollar of money does not buy you the "oomph" that the first $100 does. But Obama had the money and no place to really spend it .  The election was not won by the money spent.  The election was won and lost based on one key factor (one that has already sunk 2 recent presidents).  The Economy. 

Despite cries from congressional candidates to spend money on their races, presidents never share their money.  They never seem to have enough to go beyond their own race, even when the race is already won.  A lot of that money would have done better (perhaps even giving the democrats a super majority) in the hands of senatorial candidates and representatives, but I have yet to see where anyone has shared any appreciable amount with them (from the presidential race).  Even when they have more money than they know how to responsibly spend.

I am sure we will see some posts of how this election was bought.  But the truth is the election was almost sold out.  Not sold to the highest bidder.  For anyone in a swing state, there was no problem with hearing from both candidates.  Both had more than enough money, but one had a problem (the economy stupid) and the other had lousy advisors.

Despite campaign reform, and a reason that many of us are against it in the first place, there was no shortage of money for this race.  Too much so.  While the economy tanked, the candidates were freely spending money that was doing nothing more than modifying the presidential seal, and putting cute buttons on pets (since all the supporters already had them).  But it is somewhat satisfying to know that the co-author of one of the worst pieces of legislation to come out of the last 8 years was shown that his "intentions" were just smoke and mirrors.  And accomplished nothing other than adding another nail in the coffin of free speech.

No, Obama did not buy an election.  He wasted a lot of money and betrayed a lot of his principals (if her really has any to begin with - Who is Barak Obama is still a valid question that will be answered shortly).  But he almost managed to buy defeat.  Like the lottery players who strike it rich, the candidates this time came into a huge windfall and then did not know what to do with it, so spent it like drunken sailors.


Comments (Page 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on Nov 07, 2008

McCain lost me with the bailout.

I think that was one of the best opportunities he had to win the election, or at least really differentiate himself on the economy from Bush.  If he had voted no, voiced opposition to the bailout, he would have better been able to tap into the anger that the American people felt about the legislation.

on Nov 09, 2008

If he had voted no, voiced opposition to the bailout, he would have better been able to tap into the anger that the American people felt about the legislation.

And he would have either failed, and the bailout still would have won, or you would see even more turmoil in the economy that there had been in October.

on Nov 10, 2008

I actually expected the claims of having bought the election.

If it was bought, they paid a buck 25 for a nickle candy.  I honestly dont think that the amount of money had that big an effect.  I was contacted by both sides enough, and heard enough from both sides.  I just tried to ignore it (as much as I could).  But it was over the top - actually for both, but more so for Obama (150m does that).

on Nov 10, 2008

If he had voted no, voiced opposition to the bailout, he would have better been able to tap into the anger that the American people felt about the legislation.

I dont really know if he could have done anything that would have won on that issue.  But he would have gotten me to probably vote for him if he had voted no (but I am just one).

As it was, I saw it as just the real McCain coming back to roost.

on Nov 10, 2008

And he would have either failed, and the bailout still would have won, or you would see even more turmoil in the economy that there had been in October.

When you got cancer, you dont "nip the bud", you cut the whole thing out.  We can argue what the bailout would or would not have done, if or if not it was passed, but it is all moot now.  WHat bcshow is saying is that he probably would have picked up his base quite a bit, win lose or draw.  I cannot speak for that "vast etheral" base, as I am not a republican but a conservative.  But I can say that he would have come a lot closer to getting my vote if he had voted against it.

on Nov 17, 2008

Childish tantrums over having lost and claims that the election was "stolen" from them are not.
A very different scenario compared to the last two presidentials. Obama had won almost two hundred more electoral votes--hardly the climate for screaming "stolen."

on Nov 17, 2008

Obama had won almost two hundred more electoral votes--hardly the climate for screaming "stolen."

So only democrats can yell stolen?  Seems that way.  Cheaters are the first to yell fowl when they lose.

on Nov 18, 2008

So only democrats can yell stolen? Seems that way. Cheaters are the first to yell fowl when they lose.

Doc, remember what I told you: if the "winner" gives away all the states that have been controversial and still wins, I don't think it matters.

In that case, it doesn't matter. the dems might have "stole" whatever state you want to say, Obama still wins clearly. You can't say that for 2000 and 2004. Not by a long shot. Not even by a short shot.

on Nov 18, 2008

Doc, remember what I told you: if the "winner" gives away all the states that have been controversial and still wins, I don't think it matters.

Very true.  But that does not mean they are not going to try to yell it.  After all, last I checked, 119k votes is hardly close or controversial.

In that case, it doesn't matter. the dems might have "stole" whatever state you want to say, Obama still wins clearly. You can't say that for 2000 and 2004. Not by a long shot. Not even by a short shot.

I am not saying anyone stole anything - or for that matter bought it.  Clearly we have a miscommunication here.  One comment concerned stealing and I merely made the observation that those who yell are those that are usually crooked, and as we saw, a lot of dead people voted.  Fortunately, their votes did not mean anything this time.  But leading up to the election, it was the democrats yelling it, and ACORN, their patsies, doing it.

on Nov 19, 2008

I am not saying anyone stole anything - or for that matter bought it. Clearly we have a miscommunication here. One comment concerned stealing and I merely made the observation that those who yell are those that are usually crooked, and as we saw, a lot of dead people voted. Fortunately, their votes did not mean anything this time. But leading up to the election, it was the democrats yelling it, and ACORN, their patsies, doing it.

I still need evidence to prove that ACORN actively have provoked cheating. They have encouraged mass-registration of voters, but those registration have to be checked up anyway before being confirmed. And it is only about first-time voters. I don't really think first-time voters didn't made that much of a difference.

Hell, we have things that could be considered more controversial in Canada, but nobody gave a damn, because it's "fair game".

The thing is, the Republicans were screwed because it just happened that first-time voters chose in large majority Obama. So any actions made to "promote democracy" in making people vote for the first time ended up helping Obama. And you can't stop the actions made to "promote democracy", as much as you'd like to whine about the unfairness of the situation. the republicans have used such stragegies in their time, and not the Dems have done it.

And it's not even a "Well, they've done it before, so it's right for us to do it then". there is nothing wrong from the beginning about it!

on Nov 19, 2008

I still need evidence to prove that ACORN actively have provoked cheating.

Evidence?  Google is your friend: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=acorn+vote+fraud

The thing is, the Republicans were screwed because it just happened that first-time voters chose in large majority Obama. So any actions made to "promote democracy" in making people vote for the first time ended up helping Obama. And you can't stop the actions made to "promote democracy", as much as you'd like to whine about the unfairness of the situation. the republicans have used such stragegies in their time, and not the Dems have done it.

No one is denying anyone anything.  Voter registration has reached the point of a joke in many states here as it was already easy, so it was easy to commit fraud (see link above).  And no one is railing against anyone getting out the vote - legal votes that is.  As far as I see, you are trying to change the subject to a referendum on voter registration.  Clearly one has little to do with another (like saying banks encourage robberies because the money is there).

Another popular, but unsupported dodge, is that "well they did it now it is our turn". A popular one because they hope to taint all with the sins of themselves.  Yet the sad fact is that the old south democrats did it, not the republicans (to disenfranchise the blacks) and of course Chicago style (well documented) politics is built on it.  But then when you go looking for "they did it" you come up short.

And it's not even a "Well, they've done it before, so it's right for us to do it then". there is nothing wrong from the beginning about it!

And cleArly you have now changed the subject completely (even not resembling the original topic).  Voter registration is fine.  But it does not cause voter fraud.  The latter is a conscious act to circumvent and pervert the process.  Not an accident of the system.

2 Pages1 2