Maine

luckyleftyme2

(3,880 posts) Mon Dec 9, 2013, 05:34 PM Dec 2013

how much super pac money did romney get

WASHINGTON -- Independent conservative groups are going to have to come to terms with the fact that they spent more than $700 million -- 70 percent of all of the reported independent spending in the 2012 election -- and walked away with little to show for it.

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney was supported by outside groups that outspent allies of President Barack Obama by $260 million. And yet he still lost.

This ultimately raises the question of whether the much-feared independent spending unleashed by the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United ruling was a dud. After all that money spent by independent groups largely financed by billionaires and millionaires, the government looks almost identical to the way it did before. Obama remains president, the Senate is firmly Democratic and the Republicans control the House.

As it turns out, you can't buy a different electorate, or a better candidate, no matter how much money you throw at it.

2 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

how much super pac money did romney get (Original Post) luckyleftyme2 Dec 2013 OP

I've always believed that... MarianJack Dec 2013 #1

I lack proof, but I don't agree with the conclusions or tone of this article. RickFromMN Dec 2013 #2

MarianJack

(10,237 posts)

1. I've always believed that...

Reply to luckyleftyme2 (Original post)

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 07:55 PM

Dec 2013

...since the entire republican strategy in dealing with President Obama has been one long repetitive negative commerciial, that by the time of last year's campaign came around, it was nothing but very expensive white noise.

PEACE!

RickFromMN

(478 posts)

2. I lack proof, but I don't agree with the conclusions or tone of this article.

Reply to luckyleftyme2 (Original post)

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 08:43 PM

Dec 2013

The tone of this article, I believe, is to imply money doesn't matter.

I have to disagree money does matter.

I believe Romney got the Republican Presidential nomination because of the ability of this Super PAC to overwhelm the likes of Gingrich, Santorum, and whoever else might challenge Romney for the nomination.

I believe Romney did as well as he did because of his Super PAC money in the general election.

Romney represented the "establishment" wing of the Republican Party, or should I say the business wing.

Romney should have done worse with the Christian Conservatives (Tea Party) than he did.

Forgive me for believing the Tea Party is an outflow of the Christian Conservatives.
I find it a surprise the Christian Conservatives accepted Romney and Mormonism.
The Christian Conservatives wouldn't have voted Democratic, but they might have stayed home in greater numbers.

The Libertarian Wing had no where to go, but vote for Romney or stay home.

Romney's Super PAC money did a good job getting his voters out to vote.
One can argue Romney lost by a huge margin, 47.2% to Obama's 51.1%), and I agree.

One can argue many of Romney's voters weren't voting for Romney.
They were voting against Obama. Again, I agree.

I would ask how large the margin might have been had Romney not had the Super PAC money.

This post focuses on the Presidential election, which we won.

We mustn't forget the Super PAC money that found its way into state politics.
The Republicans were able to control the redistricting of many states, much to our detriment.

I believe we will be lucky if we can wrest the House of Representatives away from the Republicans before the redistricting in 2020.

I can hope Republicans will come to love Obamacare, and get an "open mind", at least to listen to Democratic ideals.

At this moment I can't stand listening to Republicans and they can't stand listening to me.

As a person note, I consider myself a Liberal Democrat or even a socialist so my ideals might never be acceptable to Republicans.

I like the statement Robert Reich uses to describe himself.
He is a mainstream Democrat. It's the Democratic Party that moved to the right, not him.

Reply to this discussion