American Billionaires are Dumb archived

How much money did people like Sheldon Adelson and Donald Trump and the Koch Brothers put up based on bad information? And if most rational regular people (you know, 538 readers) knew the information they were using was bad, how did these billionaires not know? Makes you wonder how they got so rich in the first place.

And think of how much money these people spent to not have to pay more in taxes. Maybe more than they would be taxed.

At least we got to see the public breakdown of Karl Rove, who probably isn't getting much more from these low-information billionaires...

They gambled they lost. But did they really lose anything? If u have 5 billion and now you have 4.9 is it really that painful? Pocket change forthese piranhas

It's not so much the money, their ego's and pride were crushed and defeated.


I wish I was dumb like the billionaires

phenixrising said:

It's not so much the money, their ego's and pride were crushed and defeated.

Notsomuch.

I think its a shame that so much $$ was spent and we pretty much ended up w/ the exact same government we have now. There were billions spent. And how much on Television Advertising? What is the mentality of someone who would change their vote because of a TV commercial? If you stop to think about these things, its actually quite terrifying. I'm assuming they are effective. Otherwise they wouldn't run so many.

RonwellQuincyDobbs said:

I think its a shame that so much $$ was spent and we pretty much ended up w/ the exact same government we have now. There were billions spent. And how much on Television Advertising? What is the mentality of someone who would change their vote because of a TV commercial? If you stop to think about these things, its actually quite terrifying. I'm assuming they are effective. Otherwise they wouldn't run so many.


As effective as any commercial for anything, I imagine.

ktc said:

How much money did people like Sheldon Adelson and Donald Trump and the Koch Brothers put up based on bad information? And if most rational regular people (you know, 538 readers) knew the information they were using was bad, how did these billionaires not know? Makes you wonder how they got so rich in the first place.

And think of how much money these people spent to not have to pay more in taxes. Maybe more than they would be taxed.

At least we got to see the public breakdown of Karl Rove, who probably isn't getting much more from these low-information billionaires...


This is why KTC remains one of my favorite posters...

A real moral triumph, IMO. Yes, moral. Bad guys lose; good guys win. Billions didn't buy them a Mitt. Also elated to hear folks like Gary Bauer defiantly calling for his party to put their "values" even more front and center. So some learn nothing as well. Gonna be a long period of soul-searching...and by that I mean searching to see if they can find a soul somewhere in their party.


If we had a time machine, Rove would appear as Wild Bill Hickock, running the carnival. Boehner would be George Armstrong Custer at Custer's Last Stand. Cantor would be Rasputin. Anne Coulter would be Marie Antoinette. (Cantor and Coulter will, I am certain, live long and prosper, unlike Rasputin and Marie.)

I said it would be a landslide. It was.

And if that sounds cruel, consider that millions of folks wanted a Mitt as POTUS. Raise your hand if you think either he or the GOP want to have anything to do with one another going forth. They needed a hollow man (soul-wise) and got one. He wanted to be POTUS and nothing less. Think he'll start a charity foundation to serve the people he wanted to serve as POTUS? Or will he go back to doing what he does best - making money to stuff in his various accounts.

windy said:

I said it would be a landslide. It was.


Well, a lot of the GOP said it would be a landslide too! For their side.

:-D

It wasn't a landslide. It was fairly close and Obama won, which was always the most likely scenario.

As to the efectiveness of TV advertising and all campaigning I may attempt to research what the polls were on Labor Day vis-a-vis the final results.

In the 2004 election, President Bush received 50.73% of the popular vote, and his electoral vote victory was 286 to 251.

He claimed that he had a "mandate". Specifically, at his post-election news conference he said, "And after hundreds of speeches and three debates and interviews and the whole process, where you keep basically saying the same thing over and over again, that when you win, there is a feeling that the people have spoken and embraced your point of view, and that's what I intend to tell the Congress, that I made it clear what I intend to do as the President, now let's work to -- and the people made it clear what they wanted, now let's work together. And it's one of the wonderful -- it's like earning capital. You asked, do I feel free. Let me put it to you this way: I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. It is my style. That's what happened in the -- after the 2000 election, I earned some capital. I've earned capital in this election -- and I'm going to spend it for what I told the people I'd spend it on ..."

In the 2012 election, President Obama has a 51% to 48% popular vote advantage as of this morning, and he's been declared the winner of 332 electoral votes, to 206.

LOST said:

It wasn't a landslide. It was fairly close and Obama won, which was always the most likely scenario.

.


332 to 206 looks like a landslide to me.


Have to confess I was once - not long ago - in favor of dumping Electoral College. It's abundantly clear now that the way to keep the right down on the farm is to let them vote 99% GOP as long as they do it in GA, MS, etc.

And I agree windy, it was a landslide where it mattered.

Meanwhile, the GOP needs to realize that BHO won Cuban-Americans and Asian-Americans as well as the usual suspects.

GL2: No way the current Republican Party is going to go into Hough Ave, Cleveland; Detroit, Chicago, Newark, Youngstown, etc etc and other inner cities rich, poor or otherwise, and make a dent in the numbers. Silver knew that. Anyone who has spent any time near inner cities in the north should have known that, whether the candidate is Black or White or Other..

windy said:

LOST said:

It wasn't a landslide. It was fairly close and Obama won, which was always the most likely scenario.

.


332 to 206 looks like a landslide to me.



The overall popular vote was close. The vote by which Obama won each of the "swing States" was close.

nohero said:




In the 2012 election, President Obama has a 51% to 48% popular vote advantage as of this morning, and he's been declared the winner of 332 electoral votes, to 206.


And yet the TV talking heads, the "punditocracy" are all talking about Obama "moving to the Center" and "reaching out" to the Republicans.

Of course for all his talk of "winning political capital" George Bush didn't accomplish much in his second term.


Obama will accomplish much.

The power of positive thinking.

LOST said:

windy said:

LOST said:

It wasn't a landslide. It was fairly close and Obama won, which was always the most likely scenario.

.


332 to 206 looks like a landslide to me.



The overall popular vote was close. The vote by which Obama won each of the "swing States" was close.

nohero said:




In the 2012 election, President Obama has a 51% to 48% popular vote advantage as of this morning, and he's been declared the winner of 332 electoral votes, to 206.


And yet the TV talking heads, the "punditocracy" are all talking about Obama "moving to the Center" and "reaching out" to the Republicans.

Of course for all his talk of "winning political capital" George Bush didn't accomplish much in his second term.



Obama won 272 electoral votes in states where he had at least a 4.7% margin over Romney. Throw in Virginia, and Obama won 285 electoral votes in states where his victory was bigger than the national average. Landslide or not, that's a pretty comfortable margin in the electoral college, the only contest that matters.

A "landslide" in electoral votes means little if not accompanied by a similar "landslide" in the popular vote. Actually, it means nothing.

I nice win but not a landslide. At all.

Go look up 1972 and you will see a landslide.

ctrzaska said:

A "landslide" in electoral votes means little if not accompanied by a similar "landslide" in the popular vote. Actually, it means nothing.


Could not disagree more. If you're Axelrod or Plouffe, you play the game by the established rules. That's the EC. There's no upside in running up the vote in Los Angeles, Chicago or New York or, even, in Atlanta, St. Louis or New Orleans.

Obama won 62-38 in the only election that matters. When the National Popular Vote initiative becomes the law of the land, we can then start worrying about the popular vote. Cf. Bush, G.W. [2000].

The electoral numbers count only to elect the president. And he won as a result.

Itself, the electoral college has no other impact other than that. It is not any gauge of overall public opinion, it is not any gauge of national divisiveness or unity, it is not any gauge of future presidential success or failure, it is not any gauge of congressional makeup, it is not any gauge of future congressional success or failure.

So, to recap... without any other factors considered it means nothing in the context of any silly and irrelevant conversations about "landslides" and "mandates". It didn't when Bush was elected and it doesn't now, regardless of the hilarious "If Bush can declare it so can we" argument.

ctrzaska said:

The electoral numbers count only to elect the president. And he won as a result.

Itself, the electoral college has no other impact other than that. It is not any gauge of overall public opinion, it is not any gauge of national divisiveness or unity, it is not any gauge of future presidential success or failure, it is not any gauge of congressional makeup, it is not any gauge of future congressional success or failure.

So, to recap... without any other factors considered it means nothing in the context of any silly and irrelevant conversations about "landslides" and "mandates". It didn't when Bush was elected and it doesn't now, regardless of the hilarious "If Bush can declare it so can we" argument.


"[N]o other impact than that." I'd say electing the president is a pretty big impact.

But, to respond to your other point, the same is true as to the "meaning" of the popular vote when the victor is determined by the electoral vote. When there is nothing to gain from winning the popular vote there's no incentive to maximize it outside of about a dozen [or fewer] battleground states. Thus, what the popular vote means outside the context outside of bragging rights is pretty limited.

No presidential candidate works on winning the popular vote. If that were the case, then we would be as sick of Romney and obama ads as the people in Ohio and Virginia.

Obama won the campaign he was fighting, just as Romney lost it. And he won most of those swing states.

Another gauge of public opinion is the Senate races. The dems gained seats where they were predicted to have lost them.

Most importantly, the Obama victory shows a generational shift. Obama won while losing heavily among white male voters. A dem candidate can get an electoral path to the white house without getting votes in a single red state below the mason Dixon line.

Doesn't matter whether you call it landslide or mandate. The victory is a huge turning point in this country.

Let me call it, then, a "huge victory" and a turning point. Time will tell if w are correct about that.

You can not reply as this discussion is Closed!