Republicans don't have a monopoly on low information voters.
Republicans don't have a monopoly on low information voters.
But if it wasn't for those freedom-hating pinko liberals, they would have.Originally Posted by F*** My Aunt Rita
Well, a media ad-blitz in all the major states and on all the major networks costs between $10 and $20 million (this year's numbers for the Democrats). And that's just the cost for putting the stuff on the air basically.now that (combined) they're in the billions, i cannot help but wonder where that money goes.
i mean... TV commercials, some internet sites, a few speech/clothing consultants and the good ole flyers, signs, ballons e.a. can't cost that much.....?
even in lolamerica
But don't underestimate all the stuff that goes on behind the scenes. Although both sides have millions in volunteer networks, you still have to rent, setup, and staff offices in a lot of districts. Furthermore, although some small races can get away with a video of a guy walking down a dirt path for, say, $10k in production values, and Perry could get away with buying a new leather jacket and talking some nonsense (see how that turned out). But for Romney and Obama there will be the collecting and processing of massive amounts of polling data, extensive and expensive focus group polling for each clip, thousands of people writing speeches, setting up and arranging venues, opposition research etc. etc. etc. Together, there will probably be something like 3 billion spend on this election, and that is a massive amount, and it will get a massive amount of coverage all over the US, especially the battleground states. But I doubt either side will have any problem spending that money.
In the end it is all pretty silly ofcourse, but hey, public campaign funding is apparently the devil's spawn of communism ...
No gasoline until 5-year plan has finished comradei shall hand in the proper paperwork for the kolkhoz to grant me the required gasoline immediately!The Party Academy denies entrance into such frivolous courses until the applicant has burned a few churches and/ or american flags.Should apply to your Komintern for some courses in sarcasm at the party academy then.Social democrat, so even worse ( because we weren't polite enough to die out yetWhat are you, a fucking communist?Since when do Republicans care about the weak and the old?).
No but from an outside perspective it seems republicans can utilize them far better. Not just because they have a multiple times the budget for smearing, but they do it far better. "It", being of course, lying through their teeth smearing the opponent so their candidate can run against a fictional character which doesn't need to resemble the real life opposition.
Guns & Bibles are easy strings to pull on a rural demographic, and fear-mongering of communism, socialism have long traditions over there too.
WoT: Mike_Hammer
Tanks are like Pokemon, gotta collect 'em all.....
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
Arthur Schopenhauer
The whole thing's a farce anyway, Obama and Romney have broadly the same policies. It's like choosing between different coffees at Starbucks, they're all the same. It's the illusion of choice.
I like my coffee like I like my presidents: strong, black and socialist...
Since Mormon's are not allowed to drink coffee, I guess Romney would be... milk-and-toast? Milquetoast?
Ron Paul is obviously like drinking your own urine, it just as crazy, and you can't get it in Starbucks.
Whilst I agree (OMG I agree with Al on something) with what you said in general, I don't think it applies to the states. In the UK, sure, vote Labour or Conservative and whilst they say different things on the tin, what actually inside is largely the same. Not so in the states.
Obama has been dealt some pretty shitty cards for his term, but that's just the way it goes and you've got to play the hand you get. I think he does mean well, has done a good job internationally at repairing some of the damage Bush did, killed Osama Bin Laden (This alone should be enough to get him re-elected), pulled out of Iraq and has begun winding down the war in Afghanistan, introduced "Obama care", cut taxes to the middle class (and wants to extend them whilst removing the cuts for the wealthy) and kept the Government functioning despite two attempts by Republicans to force a shut down. Sure he wanted to close Gitmo, but couldn't due to the massive mess it would create.
The best that Romney and Fox news can throw at him is "he's a Muslim/not American/a commie/socialist" or "He hasn't fixed a global rescission". I doubt Romney would be able to fix it four years either, and while he may be an American citizen his tax history appears dodgy and his refusal to release any tax returns over two years old only makes it more likely that he has something to hide. Obama should have this in the bag, but the amount of dis-information being spread by Republican interest is extreme, and this does pull in people who are too stupid/lazy to check the facts. It amazes me that there are still people who believe that Obama was not born in the US.
yes, I am Le terribad at BF3
Thinking back on that CNN special about the Disabled Veterans National Foundation, and how less than $1 million out of over $65 million raised has actually gone to veterans... yeah, that money is going to a well-hidden place.now that (combined) they're in the billions, i cannot help but wonder where that money goes.
i mean... TV commercials, some internet sites, a few speech/clothing consultants and the good ole flyers, signs, ballons e.a. can't cost that much.....?
even in lolamerica
roh roh, fight da mirror powah
Federation Horticultural Corps
No I think it is exactly the same in the states. Both sides are awash with lobbyists and campaign contributions from moneyed interests, they decide the real direction the country goes in.
Whilst I agree (OMG I agree with Al on something) with what you said in general, I don't think it applies to the states. In the UK, sure, vote Labour or Conservative and whilst they say different things on the tin, what actually inside is largely the same. Not so in the states.
Obama has been dealt some pretty shitty cards for his term, but that's just the way it goes and you've got to play the hand you get. I think he does mean well, has done a good job internationally at repairing some of the damage Bush did, killed Osama Bin Laden (This alone should be enough to get him re-elected), pulled out of Iraq and has begun winding down the war in Afghanistan, introduced "Obama care", cut taxes to the middle class (and wants to extend them whilst removing the cuts for the wealthy) and kept the Government functioning despite two attempts by Republicans to force a shut down. Sure he wanted to close Gitmo, but couldn't due to the massive mess it would create.
The best that Romney and Fox news can throw at him is "he's a Muslim/not American/a commie/socialist" or "He hasn't fixed a global rescission". I doubt Romney would be able to fix it four years either, and while he may be an American citizen his tax history appears dodgy and his refusal to release any tax returns over two years old only makes it more likely that he has something to hide. Obama should have this in the bag, but the amount of dis-information being spread by Republican interest is extreme, and this does pull in people who are too stupid/lazy to check the facts. It amazes me that there are still people who believe that Obama was not born in the US.
As for Obama, I don't think you get to play the "got dealt a shitty hand" card four years in to your presidency. Maybe if things had improved at all economically, but they haven't. They have not begun pulling out of Afghanistan, that's tabled for 2014 but it's not like that's set in stone. Killing Bin Laden would have been a great opportunity to actually start pulling out now, not in some future date. He doesn't want to end the tax cuts to the wealthy, they're bound to get extended. "Obamacare" is a watered-down and terrible bill that still leaves all the power in the hands of insurance companies. Maybe they have to pay out a little more often.
Why should Obama have this in the bag? He's really been a pretty lousy president, just because the opposition is worse doesn't make him a good one. No, Obama can't fix a global recession, but you know that's always seemed something of a cop-out to me. The US could start fixing it's problems, but first it would have to own up to them and take some pain up front. But they don't want to do that, they would rather kick the can down the road and keep borrowing huge amounts of money and spending it.
For example that statistic that came out that Obamacare would pay for itself over ten years. What? You can't realistically project fiscal policy or what state the tax receipts are going to be in 2022.
Does anyone else get Al Simmons and Aurora (?) confused sometimes
no
Same. Aurora's posting has improved significantly in the past year. Though I do confuse Al Simmons and Pattern sometimes.no
roh roh, fight da mirror powah
Federation Horticultural Corps
More a comment on content, Specifically, Obama is bad because he hasn't saved the world and Ron Paul is our only hope, but then again this might entirely be just a gross conflation of one, or neither's, pov.
I appreciate Ron Paul because I think that if he was elected he would actually scale back federal power instead of just picking where to try and expand it, but about half of those areas are places where I am perfectly happy for federal power to be. Like, you know...civil rights.
Status of Babby: 100% Formed
He's cool because he has balls and appears to stand behind his ideals very openly (save for those old racist newsletters, heh). I think a lot of people think that about him. It doesn't offset the crazy though.
I wonder if it's too late for the US to steer itself away from what I see as a combination of social and economic decline, or if the only way really is to put someone like ron paul in charge.
I don't think he'd last more than a term if he got into power anyway. Protest votes like that don't survive the turmoil his shit disturbing would cause, even if his ideas were good. You'd have other politicians and businessmen doing everything they can to get him out of there.
Is there too much money and vested interests on both sides? Of course, but at least the Democrats try to make things better for everyone, and no government will ever be perfect.
Of course, because after gaining the Presidency of a country involved in two large(ish) wars and going down the shitter economically after years of mis-management and deregulation, he should have just waved his magic wand and fixed it overnight. If only he'd have returned to the gold standard and brought all the troops home from every country in the world in a week I'm sure things would be so much better right now.
Because everyone who ran for the republican nomination this year was terrible.
Agree's that he can't fix global recession, then claims it's a cop-out. Really? Really? Did you just do that?
The US could, and SHOULD start fixing it's problems. But you see the problem is there is lot's of people in the finance industry who don't want the problems fixed, and they buy politicians to ensure they don't act against their interests. Anytime someone tries to do something, they get blocked. It's a shitty situation, but I's trust Obama a lot more than "I'm a job creator (who created jobs overseas) with dodgy offshore accounts" Romney.
I take it you've never actually had to do, or been involved in forecasting. Companies, smart people, families and Government's all do forecasting to try and work out where they will be financially in 1-2-5-10-20-whatever years. It's quite easy, but far from perfect when you have access to the relevant data. I doubt they pulled those figures out of their asses, although they probably massaged them.
yes, I am Le terribad at BF3
I doubt Al have ever done anything that makes it possible for him to understand politics.
:TpTlk:
Coming soon(tm).
<3 Entrox.
Wallstreet Journal: Romney is both confused and politically dumb (in the way he dealt with the Supreme Court decision, Romneycare, and Obamacare).
The Wallstreet Journal you ask?
Apparently so ...
WSJ has a rather wide array of right, and even occasionally some left by my viewing (the left tends to be purely based in economics though, not in editorial/opinion)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks