I'm confused about how spending defeated Feingold and Grayson

[Duer 157099]

And here's why: here in California Meg spent more $$$ than anybody anywhere and yet she lost. So, while money clearly figures in, it is NOT the only factor.

I'm just confused.

[robinlynne]

1. perhaps the ads whipped up the repugs to go out and vote. while the dems stayed home.

You would have to know the turn-out and who turned out in those 2 races to get the answer. Not to forget what company is counting the votes!

[treestar]

2. It's just an dodge to avoid admitting that Grayson's way is

not so effective after all.

Feingold and Grayson losing does not fit the theme that the Democrats are being punished for not being progressive enough. So some outside factor must be introduced.

In short it says those who sent a progressive before can change their minds with enough money spent on the opponent, so I'm not so sure why it's seen as such a good argument anyway.

[JamesA1102]

7. Well said nt

[BeFree]

9. Eh?

You think Grayson was not effective?

You've no grounds for that proposition, do you?

[treestar]

14. He lost

Claiming it was just money that caused that loss does not cut it.

At least, not from people who continually claim he is doing the right thing.

[BeFree]

20. It was the big money

Grayson was highly effective. That's why they spent big money to defeat him.

[treestar]

26. He was not effective

He was the incumbent. Mere money could not overcome that. If you think that, then what you really need to do is raise money, first and foremost, for any party you support.

[JackRiddler]

25. When was the last time any Democrat won that seat before Grayson?

[Peacetrain]

3. Two kinds of funders there.. self funders..like Whitman and shadow money

It is easy to fight self funders..people can see all that money coming out.. but the Koch brother..corporations, anyone was given the go by the supreme court to put out as much money as they want and they do not have to be identified. They cover themselves in patriotic and family friendly names and people have no idea that billions are pouring in from outside sources

[elleng]

19. Exactly. Thanks, Peace.

[CJCRANE]

4. Transparency....

In California it was obvious where the money came from, in the other races it was below the radar.

[PeaceNikki]

5. Sometimes the loudest voice is the only one heard. Coupled with the economy here,

it worked for the gold-digger Johnson. Ron Johnson (a corporate machine in the guise of a human being) spent $8 million of his personal fortune on the Senate race. It took 18 years but the corporations killed Russ Feingold — beaten by the very same virus he attempted to eradicate in his campaign finance legislation.

He’s been replaced by a walking, talking corporation. A like-minded individual. A fucking drone. What further proof is needed that this country and this government have spun completely off their axes? Reason and logic have been lost in a cloud of static, a rabble. The reality field has been distorted again by forces who would have us believe Feingold’s defeat was an expression of the public will. Fuck the distortion.

http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/35208/maverick-senator-russ-feingold-felled-by-corporate-dollars/

[Uzybone]

6. its pretzel logic

the same kind of thought process leads one to believe that tax cuts for the rich will trickle down.

[gateley]

8. I think they blanketed the airwaves with FEAR spots, and that's what got the

people out to vote. I honestly don't understand, though, how two such beloved representatives could be cut loose.

They not only shot their own states in the foot, they hurt the entire country with the loss of those two.

[AnArmyVeteran]

10. It doesn't work everytime but it does most of a time.

If money didn't buy elections billions wouldn't be spent on elections.

[Ozymanithrax]

11. Democrats in their states simply did sufficiently support them.

The whole money issue is a red herring.

[grahamhgreen]

12. The last ad for Brown was devestating against Whitman.

But let there be no doubt that advertising works.

[ProudDad]

13. Because a majority of Californians who vote aren't bat-crap crazy -- and

and Meg spent most of it in her primary...

Whereas, Jerry saved his money for when the voters were actually paying attention...

And whitman underestimated Jerry and WAY overestimated herself (as rich fucks who didn't EARN it always do)...

And whitman should have been more careful in her choice of maids...

And Wisconsin and FLORIDA are NOT California... :evilgrin:

[elleng]

15. Repug pros targetted Grayson and Russ, used their $ 'wisely,'

Rich Meg (+ others) didn't have the 'benefit' of the Repug pros, imo. Correct that 'throwing' $ won't win horseraces.

[spanone]

16. florida ain't california by a long shot....with all due respect to florida

[JI7]

17. Grayson lost because of that Taliban Ad, Feingold refused help from the DSCC

[sally cat]

18. It's true in their case but not in hers.

[elocs]

21. I live in WI and spending did not defeat Feingold. He got caught in an anger tsunami

and he was a national target with a bullseye on him. It would have happened to any Democratic senator up for election at this point in time. The electorate was pissed. Money did not defeat him.

[BeFree]

23. Doesn't sound right

Heard that they spent twice as much to defeat him.

[Bitwit1234]

22. EXAMPLE--

I live in Minnesota and we have the same cable system at Wisconsin...now I counted about 35 ads in ONE DAY for Johnson. He told all the wonderful things he was going to do and how Feingold single handedly ruined the country and ran up the debt. He blamed everything Bush did on Feingold. I did not see one ad from Feingold. He probably didn't have the money to compete. Imagine those ads run all over Wisconsin courtesy of the Chamber of Congress. And the Chamber of Congress picked up the ads for the guy who beat Oberstar. I did not see one ad for Oberstar and he lives in our district. But Chiperoo ran ad after ad after ad after ad...Oberstar was too old he was out of touch he didn't represent us any more. that's what the Chamber of Congress money did.

[BeFree]

24. well

Feingold was their enemy. He was very popular nationwide and he was predisposed to cost them lots of money.

Thanks for the example, Bit