From what I recall, anti amendment one people had more money, but still lost.

Five thirty eight is calling this year for Obama, despite Romney out spending him ths year, setting new records for fundraising.

8/27/2012 8:57:54 PM

What exactly is your question?

8/31/2012 11:26:22 AM

He's saying that everyone who thinks money buys elections isn't entirely accurate. It's just a big advantage in free elections. Unfortunately, elections are no longer chosen by the people, for the elections are rigged in every facet from electronic voting booth to nominating conventions.


Unfortunately, absolute power within the top tiers of the most powerful elite, will decide this year's elections.

Not money.

8/31/2012 11:51:27 AM

Five thirty eight is already saying Obama has won. I guess I don't need to vote then.

Money rules everything in the country. Obama had more money in 2008 and won. Romney has more money now but hasn't really spent a lot of it.

GeniuSxBoY you are naiive to think Conventions aren't totally scripted. They have been scripted for years. It was no secret Romney was the nominee, that was the purpose of Primaries. He won the most delegates.

8/31/2012 2:22:40 PM

AIDS was created by the government

8/31/2012 2:43:57 PM

Lets not act like Obama doesn't have money just because Romney has more. At that point, its more a matter of how efficiently they spend money than who has precisely more money. Its not like someone with virtually no money (ie 3rd parties, indies) could ever stand a chance at beating either of them.

8/31/2012 3:49:03 PM

Quote :

" GeniuSxBoY you are naiive to think Conventions aren't totally scripted. They have been scripted for years. It was no secret Romney was the nominee, that was the purpose of Primaries. He won the most delegates."

You are naive to think this type of behavior is condoned all because it's been going on for years.

You are naive to think this isn't the first time we have proof of fraud well documented on camera for everyone to see why things are worse and worse in this country.


It is so vial and blatant that they had to change the party rules into a dictatorship!

And THAT, my naive friend, is a first in this country.



[Edited on August 31, 2012 at 4:18 PM. Reason : .]

8/31/2012 4:15:44 PM

Quote :

"vial"

8/31/2012 11:52:40 PM

I get what Moron is saying, but its kind of ridiculous to think of either of the two major candidates as not representing "money".

Quote :

"Its not like someone with virtually no money (ie 3rd parties, indies) could ever stand a chance at beating either of them."

9/1/2012 12:07:26 AM

Obama's wealth compared to Romney's is like the difference between someone who makes 50k/yr and 250k/yr.

But yes, they both are well above where most people exist in the "real world." Obama didn't come from much though. Mitt has been rich his entire life. I think that counts for something.

9/1/2012 12:25:08 AM

we're not talking about wealth here. Obama raised scary amounts of money last time around. More than anyone ever. 745 million to mccains 368 million.

Not sure where your data is coming from anyway because Obama has raised 587 million while Romney has only raised a measly 524 million.

9/1/2012 3:20:57 AM

Quote :

"Obama didn't come from much though. Mitt has been rich his entire life. I think that counts for something."

You also forgot to mention how Mitt Romney is a slave owner. He owns slaves in China. I think that counts for something.

[Edited on September 1, 2012 at 8:54 AM. Reason : b]

9/1/2012 8:53:43 AM

Money plays a big part in elections, but I think the greater impact isn't on the Presidential but on smaller Congressional races. Both Obama and Romney get so much national press, have such massive coffers, that an additional few million here or there isn't going to massively disrupt the race. At the national level, both sides have large pools of resources they can tap. However, when you look at Bob the Congressman from some rural district in Nebraska, a sudden influx of just $500k could quickly upset the balance. There's just not enough resources they can draw from locally, and they certainly won't be able to raise that kind of money in a short period of time even tapping into larger national sources. That $500k can also have a much bigger impact.

9/1/2012 10:46:43 AM

^ This.

^^^ Well if that's what we're talking about, then you have to take into account where that money is coming from. In 2008, Obama's fundraising was unprecedented in the amount he raised from small donors. Regular people contributed so much money to his campaign. Of course he had some large backers, as well. But the difference was created by small donors.

Romney and Obama might seem like they're neck and neck in the money race. But it doesn't take into account money that Romney has benefited from private, anonymous donors who donate to the SuperPACs. Most of Romney's money comes from a small number or large donors.

9/1/2012 12:34:41 PM