anyone else think that all the money Bush is raising will backfire on him

[pruner]

$200 million is an obscene amount of money.

do you have any idea how much media that can buy?

I think the oversaturation of the markets that spending this money will result in is only gonna reinforce what a sickeneing amount of money it is.

[tedoll78]

1. I've been wondering that.

We should try to play-up the perceptions that:
1) Bush is attempting to buy the presidency. And
2) The GOP is exploiting the deaths of 3000 Americans for pure partisan political gain.

[WillyBrandt]

2. No, it will not.

More money is better than less money. Let's not kid ourselves.

[pruner]

3. I work in advertising

and market oversaturation is always a concern.

[WillyBrandt]

4. Negative attack ads, funding volunteers...

bribing journalists, getting mailing lists, targeting get out the vote efforts, hiring lawyers.

If they spend it very stupidly the amount might backfire. But we can't count on that. The more, the better: for them and us.

When primaries are over, I'm donating to the DNC early and often.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

17. YES! and did you hear?... Bush is getting his own "bat" for his web site.

:eyes:

[leftofthedial]

5. are you kidding? This is Murka!

Money rules!

There is NOTHING that money can not buy.

[critical_thinker2]

6. and who..

in the media is going to say "no dont spend that money on us"?

Ya think the corporate media is going to turn that money down? Nor will they attempt to try to stop anyone from spending the obscene amount of money both parties spend on media.

I wonder if trying to point out the amounts will only beg comparisons to President Clintons various fund raising drives.

[0rganism]

7. Depends on how he uses it

If it's all put towards "Bush for president" ads, yeah it'll backfire, or at least reach a point of severely diminished returns. But what's more likely is that the bucks will get spread around. The RNCC will put some into minor candidate support, some into funding lots of coattail tours, some into having gala "public" events, and some into "issue ads."

Whatever's left over will go into the Bush Family Nepotism Trust.

[AndyTiedye]

15. They Can Pay them NOT to Run Ads for Democrats

With the FCC's new Unfairness Doctrine, that is probably legal.

In many cases they may not even have to.

Clear Channel already indicated they may refuse all Democratic ads.
Has anybody seen or heard an ad for a Democrat on Clear Channel or Fox?

And we know that FauxNews is already a 24x7 free advertisement for Bush*.

[Silverhair]

16. It will get spread around

I have read somewhere in a newmagazine that Bush has already told his people that he doesn't want a "lonely election" in shich he wins by a super landslide with no coattails. He wants the money spent to buy coattails so his majority in congress will be higher. He needs a large enough majority in the senate to shut down the filibusters.

[Skittles]

19. is this

what you are wishing for?

[JVS]

8. No. Having wads O'Cash is good. Saying otherwise is sour grapes.

[opihimoimoi]

9. Money is good, money with wisdom is better

My take

[JVS]

13. George will always be dumb, but it is better for him to stay rich,

Although I'd prefer we not go into Boethius' argument about how honor, wealth and power shine a spotlight on the flaws of a bad man rather than obscuring them.

[corarose]

10. I think that It could backfire big time

People are broke and losing jobs. You look at Jr gathering up tons of cash and it makes people mad.

Could possibly backfire on the piece of shit!

[Ksec]

11. Not if we use it against him.

Show him as the evil rich guy using the middle class.

Its true

[corarose]

12. Bush will gather up enough money to buy every TV channel

Wait a second he already owns every network!

[On the Road]

14. The Only Way That Money Can Hurt Bush

is if he uses it really, really stupidly. There are many ways to use money to win elections, and the Republicans know all of them. Why do you think right-wingers win so often in Latin America?

It's a huge obstable to overcome. The candidate with more money wins something like 9 out of 10 congressional elections.

It can be done. But even if Bush is down in the polls, it will take a huge effort. I am guardedly optimistic, not because I think money will not matter, but because the moneyed classes are beginning to turn against Bush, and the gap in money is going to grow smaller the closer we get to November 2004.

[RummyTheDummy]

18. Absolutely. That's what happened in my state.

Last Nov. we had the fair haired Nazi canidate (Former U.S. Rep Steve Largent) running against a little known state senator.

Largent had a massive money advantage and plastered his mug on billboards and ran commercials non stop. The Democrat basically came up with a catch radio jingle and had modest TV buys.

Largent had a commanding lead in the polls right up until about 2 weeks before the election and it steadily declined from there.

Now Oklahoma, after eight years of an idiot Repuke gov, have a Dem. He won by less than 5,000 votes.

[Ksec]

20. you have to

show how his money has corrupted him and left him morally bankrupt. Put on a commercial pointing out the vast difference in amounts of money in the parties. Show how hes beholden to all the special interests who have bought his campaign and what that will mean to his presidency. Use it to villify him as the evil wretch with ungodly amounts of money he uses to smear anybody who gets in his way.