- 17,661
- 7,947
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2005
Exactly. As far as the presidency goes, there's a difference between wanting something to be yours and outright demanding and requesting that something be yours.
***Official Political Discussion Thread***
- Thread in 'General' Thread starter Started by rico x hood,
- Start date
- 29,014
- 4,130
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2004
Would you be in tears and saying you may not have kids now because of it?Thing is...I'd be pissed if Romney won.
- 70,049
- 24,221
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2004
Nothing different then superbowl teams both having championship merchandise before
A single pass is thrown.
And MSNBC is HORRIBLE, their "we're VICTIMS!" Schtick gets old fast. Left wing ding bats
Are alot more conniving in their agenda thou so gotta understand hipster liberal bleeding heart
Lingo to catch how they lean. Remember, da M.O. of liberals is "create a problem, regulate it, & steal
On da rich to pay for it" cut spending on da left is like raising taxes on da right.
At least with FOX you can have fun with da "diabolical evil doers" & watching em
Talk about their world wit da rich old war mongering white male audience they cater to.
BBC, NPR, Rueters, and to a lesser extent CNN is about as "middle" as you can get.
A single pass is thrown.
And MSNBC is HORRIBLE, their "we're VICTIMS!" Schtick gets old fast. Left wing ding bats
Are alot more conniving in their agenda thou so gotta understand hipster liberal bleeding heart
Lingo to catch how they lean. Remember, da M.O. of liberals is "create a problem, regulate it, & steal
On da rich to pay for it" cut spending on da left is like raising taxes on da right.
At least with FOX you can have fun with da "diabolical evil doers" & watching em
Talk about their world wit da rich old war mongering white male audience they cater to.
BBC, NPR, Rueters, and to a lesser extent CNN is about as "middle" as you can get.
al audi
Banned
- 29,810
- 4,562
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2009
Thing is...I'd be pissed if Romney won.
i wouldnt be pissed id just be like.............it is what it is
were &$^%*#
futuremd
Banned
- 6,448
- 1,433
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2012
futuremd
Banned
- 6,448
- 1,433
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2012
Oh, not at all... I'm not THAT emotional about it...but i'd be lying if I said I wasn't gloating yesterday.Would you be in tears and saying you may not have kids now because of it?Thing is...I'd be pissed if Romney won.
All my people were hitting me saying how sad all the white people they knew were just TRIPPING yesterday. Like straight up sad and ignoring everyone else.
The reaction to this has been WILD.
- 36,213
- 11,036
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2008
Ninjahood your uninformed opinion of politics makes Niketalk die a little inside every time you post something that stupid.
Last edited:
- 29,014
- 4,130
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2004
Yea that's what I'm getting at... At the end of the day I don't believe it makes THAT much of a difference who's calling the game from the Oval Office... It'll take a full group effort to get anything done.Oh, not at all... I'm not THAT emotional about it...Would you be in tears and saying you may not have kids now because of it?Thing is...I'd be pissed if Romney won.
futuremd
Banned
- 6,448
- 1,433
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2012
[h5]GO BACK[/h5][h5]PRINT THIS PAGE[/h5]
November 7, 2012
[h1]The Malia Generation[/h1]
Posted by Amy Davidson
[article=""]
It gave a person a start when, at close to 2 A.M. on Election Night, Sasha and Malia Obama walked across the stage in Chicago with their mother and father. Four years ago, when Barack Obama was first elected President, the girls were small children—they are still just eleven and fourteen—and now Malia is about as tall as her mother. If the quarrels and deliberations associated with politics are, as Obama said in his speech, “a mark of our liberty,” then his daughters were a mark of the passage of time. Mitt Romney had tried to win the election, in part, by making people a little ashamed of how they’d felt back in 2008—that their hopes had gone bad, like adult children living in rooms and lives too small for them with, as Paul Ryan, his running mate, put it, fading Obama posters on the wall; or, at best, that they’d taken part in a noble failure. And yet some things hadn’t faded, it turned out. Obama won, and will still be the President when Malia is old enough to vote for his successor.
The hour was so late because Mitt Romney had taken so long to concede that he had lost. The interval included some transfixingly odd moments on Fox News, involving Karl Rove and reports that the Romney campaign might want to contest just about everything; then they realized that there was nothing practical to contest. Romney came out onstage alone. He said that his wife would have been a wonderful First Lady, that he would pray for Obama and his family, and that he believed in America. For this, he was praised afterward in the effusive way a person often is when others are done with him. He sounded like a man who had no idea why he’d lost.
One reason had to do with women, and with the Republican Party’s failure to address their concerns. This was a campaign in which Romney attempted to pass off an extreme position on abortion—a ban that would leave exceptions only when a woman was the victim of rape or incest, or if her life was at stake—as a moderate one. The slim logic was that he was not as extreme as Senate candidate Todd Akin, of Missouri, who talked about the pregnancy-preventing powers of “legitimate rape” while running against a woman he said wasn’t “ladylike”; or Richard Mourdock, of Indiana, who ruminated, in a debate, about God’s plan for women who became pregnant as a result of rape; or his own running mate, Paul Ryan, who only wanted to permit abortions if it was very clear that the woman would otherwise die. The Romney team was put in the position of trying to use the unscientific illusions of some of its more eccentric nominees as camouflage for the actual policies of its standard bearers. Either way, it was all too conspicuous. Both Akin and Mourdock lost badly.
But Ann Romney and her husband were correct when they said, by way of dismissing the issue of reproductive rights, that women had other things to worry about, including issues of jobs and taxes. Romney just wasn’t able to persuade women that his economic plans, at this fiscal-cliff moment, were the right ones for them as wage-earners, as securers of health insurance for children and health aides for elderly relatives, as illusion-free members of the forty-seven per cent. These issues are intertwined, and not only because women’s health is also an economic issue. When you are insulted, when you are told that endless conversations about liberty do not include control of your own body, when it becomes clear that a politician views the crisis of a woman who has just been raped as an abstraction, you begin to think about sympathy, and its limits. And you begin to think about trust.
Obama spoke to a very different impulse in his victory speech, which was better than anything we’ve heard from him for a long while. He finally brought up climate change. He spoke about an America “open to the dreams of an immigrant’s daughter who studies in our schools and pledges to our flag.” He used the word “love” a half dozen times, both when he spoke about the responsibilities that come with freedom—“And among those are love and charity and duty and patriotism”—and when he said, “Michelle, I have never loved you more.” Around the time their daughters were small, there was also an idea that Michelle Obama might be divisive—the angry black woman out of place in the White House. That has been thoroughly dispelled. Michelle Obama’s first term was undoubtedly a success.
“We are greater than the sum of our individual ambitions,” Obama said, in what may have been the speech’s most direct retort to Mitt Romney. He said that our wealth didn’t make us rich, though we are wealthy: “What makes America exceptional are the bonds that hold together the most diverse nation on Earth…. It doesn’t matter who you are or where you come from or what you look like or where you love. It doesn’t matter whether you’re black or white or Hispanic or Asian or Native American or young or old or rich or poor, abled, disabled, gay or straight.” Sasha and Malia are part of a generation for whom respect for gay marriage is not an act of rebellion, but a homily—a change reflected in four different ballot initiatives.
Around the time that Obama spoke, Tammy Baldwin, of Wisconsin, defeated Tommy Thompson to become America’s first openly gay senator; and a woman in Hawaii named Tulsi Gabbard, a combat veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, became the first Hindu to be elected to Congress. These results speak to the problem of “demographics”—a word that, on Wednesday morning, was repeated so often by distraught Republicans as to form a single unbroken whine. But what does it mean, beyond the observation that in America there are people who are black, Hispanic, gay or lesbian, or are women—not exactly an obscure minority—or who are simply young? That is not a dilemma; that is a matter of children getting older. And they do.
[/article]
Read more http://www.newyorker.com/online/blo...?printable=true¤tPage=all#ixzz2BelM9CFH
November 7, 2012
[h1]The Malia Generation[/h1]
Posted by Amy Davidson
[article=""]
It gave a person a start when, at close to 2 A.M. on Election Night, Sasha and Malia Obama walked across the stage in Chicago with their mother and father. Four years ago, when Barack Obama was first elected President, the girls were small children—they are still just eleven and fourteen—and now Malia is about as tall as her mother. If the quarrels and deliberations associated with politics are, as Obama said in his speech, “a mark of our liberty,” then his daughters were a mark of the passage of time. Mitt Romney had tried to win the election, in part, by making people a little ashamed of how they’d felt back in 2008—that their hopes had gone bad, like adult children living in rooms and lives too small for them with, as Paul Ryan, his running mate, put it, fading Obama posters on the wall; or, at best, that they’d taken part in a noble failure. And yet some things hadn’t faded, it turned out. Obama won, and will still be the President when Malia is old enough to vote for his successor.
The hour was so late because Mitt Romney had taken so long to concede that he had lost. The interval included some transfixingly odd moments on Fox News, involving Karl Rove and reports that the Romney campaign might want to contest just about everything; then they realized that there was nothing practical to contest. Romney came out onstage alone. He said that his wife would have been a wonderful First Lady, that he would pray for Obama and his family, and that he believed in America. For this, he was praised afterward in the effusive way a person often is when others are done with him. He sounded like a man who had no idea why he’d lost.
One reason had to do with women, and with the Republican Party’s failure to address their concerns. This was a campaign in which Romney attempted to pass off an extreme position on abortion—a ban that would leave exceptions only when a woman was the victim of rape or incest, or if her life was at stake—as a moderate one. The slim logic was that he was not as extreme as Senate candidate Todd Akin, of Missouri, who talked about the pregnancy-preventing powers of “legitimate rape” while running against a woman he said wasn’t “ladylike”; or Richard Mourdock, of Indiana, who ruminated, in a debate, about God’s plan for women who became pregnant as a result of rape; or his own running mate, Paul Ryan, who only wanted to permit abortions if it was very clear that the woman would otherwise die. The Romney team was put in the position of trying to use the unscientific illusions of some of its more eccentric nominees as camouflage for the actual policies of its standard bearers. Either way, it was all too conspicuous. Both Akin and Mourdock lost badly.
But Ann Romney and her husband were correct when they said, by way of dismissing the issue of reproductive rights, that women had other things to worry about, including issues of jobs and taxes. Romney just wasn’t able to persuade women that his economic plans, at this fiscal-cliff moment, were the right ones for them as wage-earners, as securers of health insurance for children and health aides for elderly relatives, as illusion-free members of the forty-seven per cent. These issues are intertwined, and not only because women’s health is also an economic issue. When you are insulted, when you are told that endless conversations about liberty do not include control of your own body, when it becomes clear that a politician views the crisis of a woman who has just been raped as an abstraction, you begin to think about sympathy, and its limits. And you begin to think about trust.
Obama spoke to a very different impulse in his victory speech, which was better than anything we’ve heard from him for a long while. He finally brought up climate change. He spoke about an America “open to the dreams of an immigrant’s daughter who studies in our schools and pledges to our flag.” He used the word “love” a half dozen times, both when he spoke about the responsibilities that come with freedom—“And among those are love and charity and duty and patriotism”—and when he said, “Michelle, I have never loved you more.” Around the time their daughters were small, there was also an idea that Michelle Obama might be divisive—the angry black woman out of place in the White House. That has been thoroughly dispelled. Michelle Obama’s first term was undoubtedly a success.
“We are greater than the sum of our individual ambitions,” Obama said, in what may have been the speech’s most direct retort to Mitt Romney. He said that our wealth didn’t make us rich, though we are wealthy: “What makes America exceptional are the bonds that hold together the most diverse nation on Earth…. It doesn’t matter who you are or where you come from or what you look like or where you love. It doesn’t matter whether you’re black or white or Hispanic or Asian or Native American or young or old or rich or poor, abled, disabled, gay or straight.” Sasha and Malia are part of a generation for whom respect for gay marriage is not an act of rebellion, but a homily—a change reflected in four different ballot initiatives.
Around the time that Obama spoke, Tammy Baldwin, of Wisconsin, defeated Tommy Thompson to become America’s first openly gay senator; and a woman in Hawaii named Tulsi Gabbard, a combat veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, became the first Hindu to be elected to Congress. These results speak to the problem of “demographics”—a word that, on Wednesday morning, was repeated so often by distraught Republicans as to form a single unbroken whine. But what does it mean, beyond the observation that in America there are people who are black, Hispanic, gay or lesbian, or are women—not exactly an obscure minority—or who are simply young? That is not a dilemma; that is a matter of children getting older. And they do.
[/article]
Read more http://www.newyorker.com/online/blo...?printable=true¤tPage=all#ixzz2BelM9CFH
futuremd
Banned
- 6,448
- 1,433
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2012
Tuesday was a MASSIVE milestone around the country...forget Obama.
Even my state might become a swing state in the next 4 years.
Even my state might become a swing state in the next 4 years.
powerballin
Banned
- 3,756
- 2,706
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2012
everybody has the right to speak politics. But if you dont know what you are talking about you can't try to "drop knowledge". Rappers go on ESPN First Take all the time but you dont see them speaking on the details of NFL play calling or the defensive rotations of the Miami Heat. Just speak on what you know and if thats a small amount thats cool. Save yourself the embarrassment.
- 1,341
- 271
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2012
Sometimes I feel like everything is a scehme and it's all a puppet show but then i see things like this
[h1]Little to Show for Cash Flood by Big Donors[/h1]
At the private air terminal at Logan Airport in Boston early Wednesday, men in unwrinkled suits sank into plush leather chairs as they waited to board Gulfstream jets, trading consolations overMitt Romney’s loss the day before.
Enlarge This Image
[img]http://graphics8.nytimes.com/i...BjpDONATE/SUBjpDONATE-articleInline.jpg[/img]
[h6]Patrick T. Fallon for The New York Times[/h6]
Sheldon Adelson and his wife, Miriam, in February. Mr. Adelson, the biggest single donor in political history, supported eight candidates through "super PACs." All of them lost on Tuesday.
[h6]Multimedia[/h6]
Slide Show
[h6]After Hard-Fought Campaign, a Victory for Obama[/h6][h6] [/h6]
[h3]Related[/h3]
[h3]Readers’ Comments[/h3]
“All I can say is the American people have spoken,” said Kenneth Langone, the founder of Home Depot and one of Mr. Romney’s top fund-raisers, briskly plucking off his hat and settling into a couch.
The biggest single donor in political history, the casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson, mingled with other Romney backers at a postelection breakfast, fresh off a large gamble gone bad. Of the eight candidates he supported with tens of millions of dollars in contributions to “super PACs,” none were victorious on Tuesday.
And as calls came in on Wednesday from some of the donors who had poured more than $300 million into the pair of big-spending outside groups founded in part by Karl Rove — perhaps the leading political entrepreneur of the super PAC era — he offered them a grim upside: without us, the race would not have been as close as it was.
The most expensive election in American history drew to a close this week with a price tag estimated at more than $6 billion, propelled by legal and regulatory decisions that allowed wealthy donors to pour record amounts of cash into races around the country.
But while outside spending affected the election in innumerable ways — reshaping the Republican presidential nominating contest, clogging the airwaves with unprecedented amounts of negative advertising and shoring up embattled Republican incumbents in the House — the prizes most sought by the emerging class of megadonors remained outside their grasp. President Obama will return to the White House in January, and the Democrats have strengthened their lock on the Senate.
The election’s most lavishly self-financed candidate fared no better. Linda E. McMahon, a Connecticut Republican who is a former professional wrestling executive, spent close to $100 million — nearly all of it her own money — on two races for the Senate, conceding defeat on Tuesday for the second time in three years.
“Money is a necessary condition for electoral success,” said Bob Biersack, a senior fellow at the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign spending. “But it’s not sufficient, and it’s never been.”
Even by the flush standards of a campaign in which the two presidential candidates raised $1 billion each, the scale of outside spending was staggering: more than $1 billion all told, about triple the amount in 2010.
Mr. Obama faced at least $386 million in negative advertising from super PACs and other outside spenders, more than double what the groups supporting him spent on the airwaves. Outside groups spent more than $37 million in Virginia’s Senate race and $30 million in Ohio’s, a majority to aid the Republican candidates.
The bulk of that outside money came from a relatively small group of wealthy donors, unleashed by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which allowed unlimited contributions to super PACs. Harold Simmons, a Texas industrialist, gave $26.9 million to super PACs backing Mr. Romney and Republican candidates for the Senate. Joe Ricketts, the owner of the Chicago Cubs, spent close to $13 million to bankroll a super PAC attacking Mr. Obama over federal spending.
Bob Perry, a Texas homebuilder, poured more than $21 million into super PACs active in the presidential race and the Senate battles in Florida and Virginia, where Democrats narrowly prevailed. A donor network marshaled by Charles and David Koch, the billionaire industrialists and conservative philanthropists, reportedly sought to raise $400 million for tax-exempt groups that are not required to disclose their spending.
Mr. Adelson’s giving to super PACs and other outside groups came to more than $60 million, though in public Mr. Adelson did not seem overly concerned about the paltry returns on his investment.
“Paying bills,” Mr. Adelson said on Tuesday night when asked by a Norwegian reporter how he thought his donations had been spent. “That’s how you spend money. Either that or become a Jewish husband — you spend a lot of money.”
Flush with cash, Republican-leaning groups outspent Democratic ones by an even greater margin than in 2010. But rather than produce a major partisan imbalance, the money merely evened the playing field in many races.
In several competitive Senate races, high spending by outside groups was offset to a large extent with stronger fund-raising by Democratic candidates, assisted at the margins by Democratic super PACs. For much of the fall, Mr. Obama and Democratic groups broadcast at least as many ads, and sometimes more, in swing states than Mr. Romney and his allied groups, in part because Mr. Obama was able to secure lower ad rates by paying for most of the advertising himself. Mr. Romney relied far more on outside groups, which must pay higher rates.
[h6]Multimedia[/h6]
Slide Show
[h6]After Hard-Fought Campaign, a Victory for Obama[/h6][h6] [/h6]
[h3]Related[/h3]
[h3]Readers’ Comments[/h3]
Haley Barbour, a former Mississippi governor who helped Mr. Rove raise money for American Crossroads and its sister group, Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies, said that without a blitz of coordinated anti-Obama advertising in the summer, the campaign would not have been as competitive.
“I believe that some of that money actually kept Romney from getting beat down by the carpet-bombing he underwent from the Obama forces,” Mr. Barbour said. “I did look at it more as us trying to keep our candidates from getting swamped, like what happened to McCain.”
Some advocates for tighter campaign financing regulations argued that who won or lost was beside the point. The danger, they argued, is that in the post-Citizens United world, candidates and officeholders on both sides of the aisle are far more beholden to the wealthy individuals who can finance large-scale independent spending.
“Unlimited contributions and secret money in American politics have resulted in the past in scandal and the corruption of government decisions,” said Fred Wertheimer, the president of Democracy 21, a watchdog group. “This will happen again in the future.”
But on Wednesday, at least, the nation’s megadonors returned home with lighter wallets and few victories.
As the morning wore on at Logan Airport, more guests from Mr. Romney’s election-night party at the Boston Convention and Exhibition Center trickled in, lugging garment bags and forming a small line at the security checkpoint.
“It’s going to be a long flight home, isn’t it?” said one person, who asked not to be identified.
The investor Julian Robertson, who held fund-raisers for Mr. Romney and gave more than $2 million to a pro-Romney super PAC, arrived with several companions. Mr. Robertson spotted an acquaintance: Emil W. Henry Jr., an economic adviser and a fund-raiser for Mr. Romney, to whom Mr. Robertson had offered a ride on his charter.
“Aww, group hug,” Mr. Henry said.
[h1]Little to Show for Cash Flood by Big Donors[/h1]
At the private air terminal at Logan Airport in Boston early Wednesday, men in unwrinkled suits sank into plush leather chairs as they waited to board Gulfstream jets, trading consolations overMitt Romney’s loss the day before.
Enlarge This Image
[img]http://graphics8.nytimes.com/i...BjpDONATE/SUBjpDONATE-articleInline.jpg[/img]
[h6]Patrick T. Fallon for The New York Times[/h6]
Sheldon Adelson and his wife, Miriam, in February. Mr. Adelson, the biggest single donor in political history, supported eight candidates through "super PACs." All of them lost on Tuesday.
[h6]Multimedia[/h6]
Slide Show[h6]After Hard-Fought Campaign, a Victory for Obama[/h6][h6] [/h6]
[h3]Related[/h3]
- [h6]Back to Work, Obama Is Greeted by Looming Crisis (November 8, 2012)[/h6]
- [h6]For Mormons, a Cautious Step Toward Mainstream Acceptance(November 8, 2012)[/h6]
- [h6]News Analysis: Obama Wins a Clear Victory, but Balance of Power Is Unchanged in Washington (November 8, 2012)[/h6]
- [h6]Long Quest for Presidency Concludes With a Concession Speech (November 7, 2012)[/h6]
[h3]Readers’ Comments[/h3]
“All I can say is the American people have spoken,” said Kenneth Langone, the founder of Home Depot and one of Mr. Romney’s top fund-raisers, briskly plucking off his hat and settling into a couch.
The biggest single donor in political history, the casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson, mingled with other Romney backers at a postelection breakfast, fresh off a large gamble gone bad. Of the eight candidates he supported with tens of millions of dollars in contributions to “super PACs,” none were victorious on Tuesday.
And as calls came in on Wednesday from some of the donors who had poured more than $300 million into the pair of big-spending outside groups founded in part by Karl Rove — perhaps the leading political entrepreneur of the super PAC era — he offered them a grim upside: without us, the race would not have been as close as it was.
The most expensive election in American history drew to a close this week with a price tag estimated at more than $6 billion, propelled by legal and regulatory decisions that allowed wealthy donors to pour record amounts of cash into races around the country.
But while outside spending affected the election in innumerable ways — reshaping the Republican presidential nominating contest, clogging the airwaves with unprecedented amounts of negative advertising and shoring up embattled Republican incumbents in the House — the prizes most sought by the emerging class of megadonors remained outside their grasp. President Obama will return to the White House in January, and the Democrats have strengthened their lock on the Senate.
The election’s most lavishly self-financed candidate fared no better. Linda E. McMahon, a Connecticut Republican who is a former professional wrestling executive, spent close to $100 million — nearly all of it her own money — on two races for the Senate, conceding defeat on Tuesday for the second time in three years.
“Money is a necessary condition for electoral success,” said Bob Biersack, a senior fellow at the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign spending. “But it’s not sufficient, and it’s never been.”
Even by the flush standards of a campaign in which the two presidential candidates raised $1 billion each, the scale of outside spending was staggering: more than $1 billion all told, about triple the amount in 2010.
Mr. Obama faced at least $386 million in negative advertising from super PACs and other outside spenders, more than double what the groups supporting him spent on the airwaves. Outside groups spent more than $37 million in Virginia’s Senate race and $30 million in Ohio’s, a majority to aid the Republican candidates.
The bulk of that outside money came from a relatively small group of wealthy donors, unleashed by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which allowed unlimited contributions to super PACs. Harold Simmons, a Texas industrialist, gave $26.9 million to super PACs backing Mr. Romney and Republican candidates for the Senate. Joe Ricketts, the owner of the Chicago Cubs, spent close to $13 million to bankroll a super PAC attacking Mr. Obama over federal spending.
Bob Perry, a Texas homebuilder, poured more than $21 million into super PACs active in the presidential race and the Senate battles in Florida and Virginia, where Democrats narrowly prevailed. A donor network marshaled by Charles and David Koch, the billionaire industrialists and conservative philanthropists, reportedly sought to raise $400 million for tax-exempt groups that are not required to disclose their spending.
Mr. Adelson’s giving to super PACs and other outside groups came to more than $60 million, though in public Mr. Adelson did not seem overly concerned about the paltry returns on his investment.
“Paying bills,” Mr. Adelson said on Tuesday night when asked by a Norwegian reporter how he thought his donations had been spent. “That’s how you spend money. Either that or become a Jewish husband — you spend a lot of money.”
Flush with cash, Republican-leaning groups outspent Democratic ones by an even greater margin than in 2010. But rather than produce a major partisan imbalance, the money merely evened the playing field in many races.
In several competitive Senate races, high spending by outside groups was offset to a large extent with stronger fund-raising by Democratic candidates, assisted at the margins by Democratic super PACs. For much of the fall, Mr. Obama and Democratic groups broadcast at least as many ads, and sometimes more, in swing states than Mr. Romney and his allied groups, in part because Mr. Obama was able to secure lower ad rates by paying for most of the advertising himself. Mr. Romney relied far more on outside groups, which must pay higher rates.
[h6]Multimedia[/h6]
Slide Show[h6]After Hard-Fought Campaign, a Victory for Obama[/h6][h6] [/h6]
[h3]Related[/h3]
- [h6]Back to Work, Obama Is Greeted by Looming Crisis (November 8, 2012)[/h6]
- [h6]For Mormons, a Cautious Step Toward Mainstream Acceptance(November 8, 2012)[/h6]
- [h6]News Analysis: Obama Wins a Clear Victory, but Balance of Power Is Unchanged in Washington (November 8, 2012)[/h6]
- [h6]Long Quest for Presidency Concludes With a Concession Speech (November 7, 2012)[/h6]
[h3]Readers’ Comments[/h3]
Haley Barbour, a former Mississippi governor who helped Mr. Rove raise money for American Crossroads and its sister group, Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies, said that without a blitz of coordinated anti-Obama advertising in the summer, the campaign would not have been as competitive.
“I believe that some of that money actually kept Romney from getting beat down by the carpet-bombing he underwent from the Obama forces,” Mr. Barbour said. “I did look at it more as us trying to keep our candidates from getting swamped, like what happened to McCain.”
Some advocates for tighter campaign financing regulations argued that who won or lost was beside the point. The danger, they argued, is that in the post-Citizens United world, candidates and officeholders on both sides of the aisle are far more beholden to the wealthy individuals who can finance large-scale independent spending.
“Unlimited contributions and secret money in American politics have resulted in the past in scandal and the corruption of government decisions,” said Fred Wertheimer, the president of Democracy 21, a watchdog group. “This will happen again in the future.”
But on Wednesday, at least, the nation’s megadonors returned home with lighter wallets and few victories.
As the morning wore on at Logan Airport, more guests from Mr. Romney’s election-night party at the Boston Convention and Exhibition Center trickled in, lugging garment bags and forming a small line at the security checkpoint.
“It’s going to be a long flight home, isn’t it?” said one person, who asked not to be identified.
The investor Julian Robertson, who held fund-raisers for Mr. Romney and gave more than $2 million to a pro-Romney super PAC, arrived with several companions. Mr. Robertson spotted an acquaintance: Emil W. Henry Jr., an economic adviser and a fund-raiser for Mr. Romney, to whom Mr. Robertson had offered a ride on his charter.
“Aww, group hug,” Mr. Henry said.
Last edited:
- 70,049
- 24,221
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2004
LOL
Yeah, corporate responsibility and social equality is childs play.
Says mr. Liberal himself.
I can appreciate a bad guy tellin me to my face "eff you punk, i got mine, i dont care about how u get urs" cuz
Its genuine and in ur face. Da left? Lulz its like "i want everything & have someone else pay for it" which is lowly
Rock you to sleep scum.
Its no wonder why as higher ur income gets da more conservative you become.
All da way left is JUST as bad as all da way right. Partisan right is way more entertaining on TV though, villians usually
Make da movie better.
- 5,172
- 27
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2008
- 24,036
- 1,926
- Joined
- May 18, 2005
hey future (or anyone), what do you think about Jesse Jackson Jr.s reelection?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs.../reports-jesse-jackson-jr-in-plea-deal-talks/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs.../reports-jesse-jackson-jr-in-plea-deal-talks/
Last edited:
futuremd
Banned
- 6,448
- 1,433
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2012
Actually, I don't want someone else to pay for my wellbeing.Says mr. Liberal himself.
I can appreciate a bad guy tellin me to my face "eff you punk, i got mine, i dont care about how u get urs" cuz
Its genuine and in ur face. Da left? Lulz its like "i want everything & have someone else pay for it" which is lowly
Rock you to sleep scum.
Its no wonder why as higher ur income gets da more conservative you become.
All da way left is JUST as bad as all da way right. Partisan right is way more entertaining on TV though, villians usually
Make da movie better.
I just want to remove the barriers to equality...much like your inability to understand gay rights, but context is something you still struggle with embracing.
I look forward to you continuing to straw-man everyone elses position as "rock you to sleep scum"
You have the diction of a 18th century vagabond.
Nike Jordan
Supporter
- 32,469
- 76,721
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2002
Cable news in general is terrible.
I think we can all agree on that.
I think we can all agree on that.
- 13,347
- 6,545
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2007
Wayne Gretzky's daughter on instagram
- 25,831
- 15,061
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2011
Anyone catch Fox's Megyn Kelly ask rove if the math he does as a republican to make him feel better when he was disputing Ohio as an Obama win? That ish was sooo funny...
a baboon cow
Banned
- 581
- 76
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2012
And whats wrong with that? Doesn't appear negative in anyway except her middle finger which I'm sure is for Instagram StuntinWayne Gretzky's daughter on instagram
futuremd
Banned
- 6,448
- 1,433
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2012
That was one of the most embarrassing things i've ever seen on TV. That whole walk of shame down the hallway will go down as one of Fox's lowest moments.
lobotomybeats
Supporter
- 9,181
- 18,481
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2004
Any thoughts on why liberals are typically more intelligent?
- 17,661
- 7,947
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2005
They were saying the same in regards to Texas as well, which to me is truly shocking. For Texas they said it might take 8-10 years at the rate it it currently at.
- 25,831
- 15,061
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2011
I'm wondering if there will be any repercussions because of that. I'm pretty sure the management team doesn't like that kind of comment especially hurled at rove the way it was. My jaw actually dropped & after a moment passed I couldn't help but chuckle in dis belief that I just saw that...
- 3,581
- 811
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2006
This is INDISPUTABLE
