Money bought California gubernatorial race despite Whitman's loss

[ilaughatrightwingers]

Run time: 01:03 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reE3nNQpiZ0   Posted on YouTube: November 15, 2010 By YouTube Member: mr1001nights Views on YouTube: 7   Posted on DU: November 15, 2010 By DU Member: ilaughatrightwingers Views on DU: 760

 
Money buys elections, no matter what people tell you.

[dsc]

1. that is a kind of silly argument

Certainly it is better to have money than not to have money if you are seeking election. But to equate the value of a name with money is kind of silly. The problem with money is that it comes with strings attached. Name recognition doesn't.

[ilaughatrightwingers]

3. It's more than that

Political elections are based on money. Brown may have won because he serves the interests of certain businesses which are very strong in the state, such as high-tech industries.

[dsc]

8. that is a completely different argument

and maybe even valid. I have no idea how he raised his 30 million. If it was in small donations from people, then no problem. If it was from corporations then it would be more of a problem. That though, isn't the argument the maker of the tape made.

[Mz Pip]

2. Oh bullshit.

Brown was Governor decades ago. Probably half the voting population of CA weren't even around at that time.

And if name recognition trumps money then surely John McCain, who everyone on the planet had heard of, would be President today.

Sometimes it doesn't matter how much money you put into an election. If you suck, you suck. We all got to know NutMeg very well. Her name was everywhere. Seriously there was an ad every 15 second for her on TV. She just sucked and money couldn't fix it.

If anyone bothers to look at this race - NutMeg was way ahead in the polls until her money couldn't fix her problems. It could have been Jerry Brown, it could have been Larry Lipschults. Meg lost because she sucked not because people recognized the name Jerry Brown.

[Iggo]

4. 'If you suck, you suck.' You got that right.

I don't remember who said it, but I think it was some TV head who summed it up by saying that with 160M spent on the campaign, if Meg had EVER done ANYTHING good for ANYBODY, we'd've heard about it.

We never did.

[Kajsa]

6. Isn't that the truth?

Imagine how much good she could have done
here with a fraction of that $140 million.

[Kajsa]

5. I don't think so.

Jerry Brown was more capable of taking over the
mess in Sacramento than Megabucks ever will be.

Megabucks had lots of money, business experience
and a record of screwing over her employees, just
like Carly.

Both condoned massive layoffs and/or outsourcing
of jobs while they gave themselves huge
bonuses.

THAT didn't sit well with us here in CA.

[TheeHazelnut]

7. Makes sense to me -- think Schwarzenegger.

He leveraged all the money Hollywood had invested in his image as a macho dude who solves problems. Total bullshit, of course, but the money had been spent. It's another form of advertising.