Mitt Romney convinced me

[thundley4]

that money can buy an election.  On Saturday , the foreman left early and I had to answer the phones.  There were six robocalls for Romney within a half hour.  I'm sure these were just random calls that happen to hit my work place's list of numbers. It still pissed me off.

[DumbAss Tanker]

...that money can buy an election. 

Yes.  It's pretty appalling.

[Zeus]

y'all are too jaded. Money doesn't buy elections .ideals do. Money helps get the ideals spread but think about it,If you don't like what you hear will hearing it a couple more time win you over. If it does then maybe you shouldn't be voting.

Case in point, Bill Clinton never made more than 35K/yr in his life until he was elected President but he convinced enough people of his ideals until he had the backing to run a successful bid.

I don't think there should be any financial restrictions on elections. If some fool wants to spend all his money backing someone for political office more power to the 1st amendment.

[Eupher]

Well, I'd say the "money" angle comes in not from substance, necessarily, but one of spin and marketing.

There is no doubt that marketing strategies are effective. These are the guys and gals who have figured out exactly how it is you make purchases, when you make them, how often, and what impacts your decision-making. They are very adept at taking this information and crafting the story they're trying to sell you in such a way as to make it absolutely critical in your mind that you partake of this information and "join the partay."

So rather than spread "ideals" around like creamy peanut butter on day-old white bread, the effort is expended in spinning the story to make it appealing TO YOU and then secondly, and perhaps even more effectively, attack the opposition to create doubt in your mind about that person.

Of course, it's also important to get the spun stories out there for maximum soakage/exposure, but the substance of the message and how it's presented is perhaps more important if nothing else as to ensure biggest bang for the buck.

Nothing personal against those who work and deal in marketing, but for those who do, y'all are some sick puppies. 

[thundley4]

Well, I'd say the "money" angle comes in not from substance, necessarily, but one of spin and marketing.

There is no doubt that marketing strategies are effective. These are the guys and gals who have figured out exactly how it is you make purchases, when you make them, how often, and what impacts your decision-making. They are very adept at taking this information and crafting the story they're trying to sell you in such a way as to make it absolutely critical in your mind that you partake of this information and "join the partay."

So rather than spread "ideals" around like creamy peanut butter on day-old white bread, the effort is expended in spinning the story to make it appealing TO YOU and then secondly, and perhaps even more effectively, attack the opposition to create doubt in your mind about that person.

Of course, it's also important to get the spun stories out there for maximum soakage/exposure, but the substance of the message and how it's presented is perhaps more important if nothing else as to ensure biggest bang for the buck.

Nothing personal against those who work and deal in marketing, but for those who do, y'all are some sick puppies. 

I think sometimes that marketing strategies backfire.

[Eupher]

I think sometimes that marketing strategies backfire.

Sure, sometimes they do. But Barry will have more than enough money to try multiple strategies on multiple levels and adjust where necessary.

[thundley4]

Sure, sometimes they do. But Barry will have more than enough money to try multiple strategies on multiple levels and adjust where necessary.

In his case, his marketing strategies will work on the weak minded, misinformed and ill-informed.  Basically the demonrat base.

[Eupher]

In his case, his marketing strategies will work on the weak minded, misinformed and ill-informed.  Basically the demonrat base.

And those strategies will also be targeted at intelligent, thoughtful independent voters as well.

Do not underestimate Barry's machine. It will be formidable with all that money at its disposal.

[Eupher]

This little nugget is interesting:

Remember when the Obama campaign hinted that they could raise a billion dollars to keep Barack Obama in the White House?  Good times, good times.  In February, Obama raised $45 million, but that was in partnership with the DNC, which has claim on some of that cash:

    President Obama‘s reelection effort added $45 million to its coffers in February, a boost in fundraising as the campaign builds up its national infrastructure.

    The $45 million haul was raised jointly by the Democratic National Committee, Obama for America and two joint fundraising committees — the Obama Victory Fund and the Swing State Victory Fund.

    According to the campaign, 105,000 of the more than 1.5 million donors last month were giving for the first time. The average donation was $59.04, and 97.7% of donations were in increments of $250 or less.

Obama got $29 million all to himself in January, and February probably won’t be much different; for some reason, the LA Times doesn’t report on how the $45 million in February got split.  Even the joint number is down $12 million from the comparable number in 2008, and the Obama campaign still trails the George W. Bush re-election effort in 2004.  It’s getting so bad that Team Obama leader Jim Messina is acknowledging that Mitt Romney would beat Obama in an election today in an attempt to frighten Democrats into contributing.

HotAir

Regardless how much cash Barry and his Butt Buddies pull in (or not pull in), I still hold with my premise -- that he will not go quietly. He will employ every trick imaginable and then some to keep his lazy ass in office. After all, he's got four more years of country-****ing to do before he chills out and plays golf every day and then have Bill Ayers write his "memoirs". 

[DumbAss Tanker]

y'all are too jaded. Money doesn't buy elections .ideals do. Money helps get the ideals spread but think about it,If you don't like what you hear will hearing it a couple more time win you over. If it does then maybe you shouldn't be voting.

Case in point, Bill Clinton never made more than 35K/yr in his life until he was elected President but he convinced enough people of his ideals until he had the backing to run a successful bid.

I don't think there should be any financial restrictions on elections. If some fool wants to spend all his money backing someone for political office more power to the 1st amendment.

When one candidate and his PACs spend eight times what the opposition spends, and nearly all of it goes to attack ads on the guy without the bucks, it really has jack shit to do with ideas, it's more like selling soap or soda pop - just visibility of the product and crafting a public perception of momentum.

And Clinton really never actually had any ideals beyond getting his end wet.  What he had was no more complicated than just keen instincts in dealing with people to get what he wanted.

[thundley4]

When one candidate and his PACs spend eight times what the opposition spends, and nearly all of it goes to attack ads on the guy without the bucks, it really has jack shit to do with ideas, it's more like selling soap or soda pop - just visibility of the product and crafting a public perception of momentum.

And Clinton really never actually had any ideals beyond getting his end wet.  What he had was no more complicated than just keen instincts in dealing with people to get what he wanted.

That is pretty much Romney's strategy, and it will be Obama's against Romney for the general election.

[obumazombie]

When one candidate and his PACs spend eight times what the opposition spends, and nearly all of it goes to attack ads on the guy without the bucks, it really has jack shit to do with ideas, it's more like selling soap or soda pop - just visibility of the product and crafting a public perception of momentum.

And Clinton really never actually had any ideals beyond getting his end wet.  What he had was no more complicated than just keen instincts in dealing with people to get what he wanted.

For the dem candidates, if you have liberal bona fides, and the party thinks you are electable, the whole machine falls in behind. In the GOP there is so much infighting, you wonder how candidates can overcome that handicap.

[Zeus]

When one candidate and his PACs spend eight times what the opposition spends, and nearly all of it goes to attack ads on the guy without the bucks, it really has jack shit to do with ideas, it's more like selling soap or soda pop - just visibility of the product and crafting a public perception of momentum.

And Clinton really never actually had any ideals beyond getting his end wet.  What he had was no more complicated than just keen instincts in dealing with people to get what he wanted.

Well Like Eupher said marketing does work to a degree. When you saturate the market any message you hope to get across runs the danger being lost in the clutter.

Some of y'all seem intent on shooting the messenger when you should be expending your energy on the recipients.

[DumbAss Tanker]

Some of y'all seem intent on shooting the messenger when you should be expending your energy on the recipients.

Yeah, hold the phone while I call a couple of trucks full of large bills over from my Money Bin so I can alter the perceptions of those 'Recipeints' with my own message bombardment.

 

Whatever.  The primary's over in my State, I expect to get the choice between a shit sandwich and a poisoned shit sandwich in November.  It's always possible Roms could pick someone who isn't a hopeless RINO or another complete phoney for his VP, that would at least be like adding a lot of mustard to the shit sandwich to hide the taste.

[Zeus]

Yeah, hold the phone while I call a couple of trucks full of large bills over from my Money Bin so I can alter the perceptions of those 'Recipeints' with my own message bombardment.

 

Whatever.  The primary's over in my State, I expect to get the choice between a shit sandwich and a poisoned shit sandwich in November.  It's always possible Roms could pick someone who isn't a hopeless RINO or another complete phoney for his VP, that would at least be like adding a lot of mustard to the shit sandwich to hide the taste.

Why all the fatalism. Are you all alone in your political Idealism or do you think there may be others that match your politics. perhaps you don't think much of the voting public.

Yes the money may/can make somewhat of a difference but at the end of the day it's the message the electorate cares about.

[DumbAss Tanker]

Why all the fatalism. Are you all alone in your political Idealism or do you think there may be others that match your politics. perhaps you don't think much of the voting public.

Yes the money may/can make somewhat of a difference but at the end of the day it's the message the electorate cares about.

You could call me jaundiced and I could call you Pollyanna for the rest of the day, but let's just take that all as read, and leave it there.

[Eupher]

Well Like Eupher said marketing does work to a degree. When you saturate the market any message you hope to get across runs the danger being lost in the clutter.

Some of y'all seem intent on shooting the messenger when you should be expending your energy on the recipients.

Zeus, I call it political reality. Money talks and bullshit walks. It's really that simple.

[Zeus]

Zeus, I call it political reality. Money talks and bullshit walks. It's really that simple.

I guess it works on some folks. I still say the problem is more the recipient than the messenger as far as any possible remedy to any perceived or real problem.

As Far as the strength or weakness of a political candidate look at the meat grinder they and/or their family goes through. not only by the press but the public at large. Also the restraints imposed upon them as far as fund raising,when and where they can campaign,runs ads etc etc.

We ( the People) caused this and then we bitch and piss and moan about candidates not being politically pure enough etc etc.

Maybe it's time we released the restraints imposed on political candidates and let the chips fall where they may.

[Eupher]

I guess it works on some folks. I still say the problem is more the recipient than the messenger as far as any possible remedy to any perceived or real problem.

As Far as the strength or weakness of a political candidate look at the meat grinder they and/or their family goes through. not only by the press but the public at large. Also the restraints imposed upon them as far as fund raising,when and where they can campaign,runs ads etc etc.

We ( the People) caused this and then we bitch and piss and moan about candidates not being politically pure enough etc etc.

Maybe it's time we released the restraints imposed on political candidates and let the chips fall where they may.

Well, we all look at things through our own filters which color our perceptions and, ultimately, reality.

Sorry, but I have absolutely no sympathy for those who find it necessary to get involved in politics as a candy-date. Some may actually get into it for egotistical reasons, i.e., "I can FIX this!" or more ideological reasons, i.e., "I am here to SERVE!" but ultimately, history tells us that most of these people wind up on the shady side of things. Groupthink, internal politics, kissing the ass of the majority/minority leadership, all these things inevitably take their toll. And, as we all know, the overriding concern of ANY professional politician is to get elected and stay that way.

These people are a necessary evil and we have to tolerate them just as we have to pay them for their "service." But sympathy? Right there in the dictionary between "shit" and "syphilis."

We know that people are fallible and they inevitably will fail. So why is it so hard to fail to understand that professional politicians, especially, are going to fail with keeping their fingers out of the till or out of the intern's panties? This is a no-brainer.

As for me, I'd prefer term limits with the added caveat of having the electorate determine what their freaking salary is going to be -- right there as a line item on the ballot. Ditto for some of those outrageous perks that they've assembled for themselves, beyond what COTUS specifies. You'll quickly find that those same professional politicians will decide it's much more lucrative elsewhere -- most likely as a lobbyist or ambulance chaser.

The process of selecting a candy-date involves trying to find that person that most closely represents our own ideals and motives. Most of the time, that person either does not exist or we wind up with someone who might be close, but not quite there. Yeah, there's gonna be some bitching about that, but that's the process. We either hold our nose and pull the lever or bail out altogether, thereby helping the real opposition.

[Zeus]

Well, we all look at things through our own filters which color our perceptions and, ultimately, reality.

Sorry, but I have absolutely no sympathy for those who find it necessary to get involved in politics as a candy-date. Some may actually get into it for egotistical reasons, i.e., "I can FIX this!" or more ideological reasons, i.e., "I am here to SERVE!" but ultimately, history tells us that most of these people wind up on the shady side of things. Groupthink, internal politics, kissing the ass of the majority/minority leadership, all these things inevitably take their toll. And, as we all know, the overriding concern of ANY professional politician is to get elected and stay that way.

These people are a necessary evil and we have to tolerate them just as we have to pay them for their "service." But sympathy? Right there in the dictionary between "shit" and "syphilis."

We know that people are fallible and they inevitably will fail. So why is it so hard to fail to understand that professional politicians, especially, are going to fail with keeping their fingers out of the till or out of the intern's panties? This is a no-brainer.

As for me, I'd prefer term limits with the added caveat of having the electorate determine what their freaking salary is going to be -- right there as a line item on the ballot. Ditto for some of those outrageous perks that they've assembled for themselves, beyond what COTUS specifies. You'll quickly find that those same professional politicians will decide it's much more lucrative elsewhere -- most likely as a lobbyist or ambulance chaser.

The process of selecting a candy-date involves trying to find that person that most closely represents our own ideals and motives. Most of the time, that person either does not exist or we wind up with someone who might be close, but not quite there. Yeah, there's gonna be some bitching about that, but that's the process. We either hold our nose and pull the lever or bail out altogether, thereby helping the real opposition.

I'd have no problem with eliminating some of the perks of office. I'm still against Term limits because it's a restraint on the people and the argument can be made it violates the 1st , 10 Th and possibly 11 Th amendments to the constitution.

If the people of California want to send an idiot to Washington for ever it is there right and should remain so,same for any state.

[docstew]

I'd have no problem with eliminating some of the perks of office. I'm still against Term limits because it's a restraint on the people and the argument can be made it violates the 1st , 10 Th and possibly 11 Th amendments to the constitution.

If the people of California want to send an idiot to Washington for ever it is there right and should remain so,same for any state.

I do see your point that it's for the people to decide. How about we make "service" in Congress actually mean service? Minimal perks and bennies (a reserved parking spot and a cafeteria that serves school cafeteria style food, for example), cut their pay, require blind trusts for all investments, etc. Don't grandfather anyone in. Make them all learn to live within their means.

[obumazombie]

I do see your point that it's for the people to decide. How about we make "service" in Congress actually mean service? Minimal perks and bennies (a reserved parking spot and a cafeteria that serves school cafeteria style food, for example), cut their pay, require blind trusts for all investments, etc. Don't grandfather anyone in. Make them all learn to live within their means.

Did you say live within your means ? Like water to a wicked witch.

[Zeus]

I do see your point that it's for the people to decide. How about we make "service" in Congress actually mean service? Minimal perks and bennies (a reserved parking spot and a cafeteria that serves school cafeteria style food, for example), cut their pay, require blind trusts for all investments, etc. Don't grandfather anyone in. Make them all learn to live within their means.

Certainly some of the perks of the job could go. Their pay isn't really all that fantastic,it's the vested retirement benefits that Rock.

Rank-and-File Members:
The current salary (2011-2012) for rank-and-file members of the House and Senate is $174,000 per year.

Senate Leadership
Majority Party Leader - $193,400
Minority Party Leader - $193,400

House Leadership
Speaker of the House - $223,500
Majority Leader - $193,400
Minority Leader - $193,400

[rich_t]

Certainly some of the perks of the job could go. Their pay isn't really all that fantastic,it's the vested retirement benefits that Rock.

Rank-and-File Members:
The current salary (2011-2012) for rank-and-file members of the House and Senate is $174,000 per year.

Senate Leadership
Majority Party Leader - $193,400
Minority Party Leader - $193,400

House Leadership
Speaker of the House - $223,500
Majority Leader - $193,400
Minority Leader - $193,400

That is about 100K too high.  And way too high for Speaker.

Cap their salaries at about $75K and see how many instantly bail.

[vesta111]

y'all are too jaded. Money doesn't buy elections .ideals do. Money helps get the ideals spread but think about it,If you don't like what you hear will hearing it a couple more time win you over. If it does then maybe you shouldn't be voting.

Case in point, Bill Clinton never made more than 35K/yr in his life until he was elected President but he convinced enough people of his ideals until he had the backing to run a successful bid.

I don't think there should be any financial restrictions on elections. If some fool wants to spend all his money backing someone for political office more power to the 1st amendment.

Zeus, ideals went out a long time ago, people in America are so spoiled that the the only IDEALS they have now is self preservation and how to get more of what they think they want or need.

The wealthy seldom complain about any of their rights being taken away, they can just buy themselves out of any hole they fall into, no fear for them. It is you and I that have to obay the law and ignorence of it is no excuse.

Few vote on matters that do not involve themselves personally, I know of no one in the Midwest that gets outraged about the governments intrusion into the salt water fishing industry. { unless they own stock in the fish mark

Somewhere we have lost National pride, we think only about our own State and the laws we live under in it.

Our country is so large that few can understand the problems of other States and realise their problem can come to their front door.  Border states and the illegals, what do people in upper Maine know of their problems.???

With enough money anyone can buy the presidency qualified or not.  They just have to flood each State with individual promisses to them and convince all of voting age that a vote for them is to benefit themselves.

Money can twist public records or skew statics, like Obama showing graphs of all the people that are working and not mentioning those that gave up looking for a job.  No where do the graphs show part time jobs, or the number of unemployed that can no longer collect unemployment.  Have yet to see Obama say a word about the huge rise in food stamps or public relief of those that cannot find work or live in an area with no public transportation.  If you can not afford food, how to pay for a car and gas to get to work ????

People vote for their IDEALS that suite themselves,  they no longer vote for something to benefit their neighbors or strangers living 1,200 miles away in a State they know Little about.

Got Money, buy the Presidency of America.  Hate to do this guys but  " read my lips, no new taxes"   or, " I have a secret plan to end the war if reelected"  

Few will vote for any other IDEAL that may cause hardship to themselves.  Those days are gone this is not the 1760's
or the days of the Civil War.  

Hide and watch your 401k make money this quarter, Oh this is because of Obama, sure, will not seem odd when the price of gas and heating oil goes back down or taxes are cut, Just Obamas remarkable skills to benefit the voters.

What the heck else can Obama spend a billion bucks on if not to Buy another 4 years.??

My wonder is if Obama is just the front man to who comes after him in the Democratic party.  He paves the way for some one else that will really do us in as the Home of the Free and the brave.  

 Rant ended.