Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    22 Aug '16 21:02
    http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/21/donald-trumps-campaign-is-still-spending-remarkably-little.html?__source=yahoo%7Cfinance%7Cheadline%7Cheadline%7Cstory&par=yahoo&doc=103882451&yptr=yahoo

    By all accounts, the fat cat Dims outspend their GOP opponents and the results speak for themselves.
  2. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    23 Aug '16 03:146 edits
    http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/senate-block-campaign-finance-amendment-110864

    "Senate Republicans unanimously rejected a constitutional amendment sought by Democrats that would allow Congress to regulate campaign finance reform."

    “Senate Democrats want a government that works for all Americans — not just the richest few. Today, Senate Republicans clearly showed that they would rather sideline hardworking families in order to protect the Koch brothers and other radical interests that are working to fix our elections and buy our democracy”.

    Conservatives block limitations proposed by Democrats on campaign spending, and then complain about how much Democrats spend on campaigns. Hilarious.
  3. Behind the scenes
    Joined
    27 Jun '16
    Moves
    1407
    23 Aug '16 06:48
    By all accounts, the fat cat Dims outspend their GOP opponents and the results speak for themselves.

    I think this is an oversimplification. Money can buy advertising, and raise awareness, but cannot reverse opinions, or directly put votes in a ballot box.
  4. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    23 Aug '16 12:202 edits
    Originally posted by mchill
    By all accounts, the fat cat Dims outspend their GOP opponents and the results speak for themselves.

    I think this is an oversimplification. Money can buy advertising, and raise awareness, but cannot reverse opinions, or directly put votes in a ballot box.
    It should also be pointed out that Trump doesn't need to spend money on advertising. He's constantly getting free publicity. There's not a day that goes by in the media or on the internet, where Trump isn't the number one topic.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/upshot/measuring-donald-trumps-mammoth-advantage-in-free-media.html

    According to the NY Times, Trump has received 2 billion dollars in free in advertising. No other candidate (Republican or Democrat) can boast that. The only reason Trump doesn't spend more on campaigning is because he doesn't have to.
  5. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52853
    23 Aug '16 13:001 edit
    Originally posted by vivify
    It should also be pointed out that Trump doesn't need to spend money on advertising. He's constantly getting free publicity. There's not a day that goes by in the media or on the internet, where Trump isn't the number one topic.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/upshot/measuring-donald-trumps-mammoth-advantage-in-free-media.html

    According to the NY T ...[text shortened]... st that. The only reason Trump doesn't spend more on campaigning is because he doesn't have to.
    Fortunately I think voters will see through his scam.

    But of course, for Whodey, it is all about finding ways to attack Democrats, as long as a rebub gets in the white house and controls congress, it matters little how much or how little is spent doing that.

    The main point for Whod is to stop Democrats, and thereby stop democracy. Install government by the company and of the company and for the company.

    Screw the people.
  6. SubscriberSuzianne
    Misfit Queen
    Isle of Misfit Toys
    Joined
    08 Aug '03
    Moves
    35848
    23 Aug '16 13:151 edit
    Originally posted by vivify
    http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/senate-block-campaign-finance-amendment-110864

    "Senate Republicans unanimously rejected a constitutional amendment sought by Democrats that would allow Congress to regulate campaign finance reform."

    “Senate Democrats want a government that works for all Americans — not just the richest few. Today, Senate Republicans ...[text shortened]... on campaign spending, and then complain about how much Democrats spend on campaigns. Hilarious.
    Actually, I don't see anything "hilarious" about this.

    Whodey might. But I don't.
  7. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    23 Aug '16 13:49
    Nearly $100 million has been spent on general-election TV advertisements in the presidential race since the primary season ended, but Donald Trump's campaign still hasn't spent a single cent on one of them.

    This lack of advertising is all more striking given Trump's deficit in the polls -- as well as the recent influx of campaign contributions he's reportedly raked in.

    Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign has now spent $52 million on ads, and pro-Clinton outside groups have chipped in an additional $39 million, according to ad-spending data from Advertising Analytics. (That's the new name of the company NBC News partners with on this data.)






    By comparison, the Trump campaign itself has spent $0, with pro-Trump outside groups adding $8 million over the airwaves.





    In total, that's $91 million for Team Clinton, versus $8 million for Team Trump.

    What's more, the Trump campaign ($0) is also being outspent on ads by Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson ($15,000) and the Green Party's Jill Stein ($189,000).

    Total Team Clinton: $91.1 million
    •Clinton campaign: $52.3 million
    •Priorities USA Action: $37.1 million
    •Vote Vets: $1.1 million
    •Women Vote!: $616,000





    Total Team Trump: $8.2 million
    •Trump campaign: $0
    •Rebuilding America Now: $5 million
    •NRA Victory Fund: $3.2 million
  8. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    23 Aug '16 13:522 edits
    Originally posted by vivify
    http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/senate-block-campaign-finance-amendment-110864

    "Senate Republicans unanimously rejected a constitutional amendment sought by Democrats that would allow Congress to regulate campaign finance reform."

    “Senate Democrats want a government that works for all Americans — not just the richest few. Today, Senate Republicans ...[text shortened]... on campaign spending, and then complain about how much Democrats spend on campaigns. Hilarious.
    It is curious that the very people who claim to want finance reform are the best at raising revenue for themselves.

    Is it double speak or is it all a plan to simply strip the revenue from the way their opponents raise money?

    Looking at how the Clinton Foundation operates, I can only image all of the nefarious ways Dims will continue to fix elections
  9. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    23 Aug '16 14:04
    Hillary is a Wall Street darling.


    It’s official: Hillary Clinton is the preferred presidential candidate of Wall Street.


    As it looks more and more like the 2016 presidential election will be between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, Wall Street is making it clear which side it’s on.

    Wall Street has raised nearly $23 million for Clinton this election. At least $4.2 million from Wall Street has gone into Clinton’s presidential campaign, and another $18.7 million has gone to the super PAC backing her, The Wall Street Journal reported Sunday.

    In March alone, Wall Street raised $344,000 for Clinton — more than all other candidates combined.

    Clinton received 53 percent of Wall Street donations in March, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of fundraising data gathered by the nonpartisan non-profit research organization the Center for Responsive Politics.

    In 2015, roughly one-third (32 percent) of Wall Street donations went to Clinton’s campaign. From January through February, Clinton’s campaign continued to take in 33 percent of campaign contributions from financial-services executives
  10. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    23 Aug '16 14:061 edit
    The corporate media is also for Hillary

    The liberal media are doing their best to feed the street fight that the GOP primaries have become, pushing for greater, and fiercer, attacks on Republican front-runner Donald Trump. At the same time the media are doing their best to protect Hillary Clinton in many different ways: by minimizing her legal and ethical troubles, avoiding discussions of her foreign policy record, and deliberately ignoring the close ties between the media and the Clintons. After her resounding primary victory in South Carolina, the relief is palpable that Mrs. Clinton appears well on her way to wrapping up the nomination in the next few weeks, avoiding a protracted battle. We’ll see.

    But in the meantime, the mainstream media are clearly trying to help her. For example, Maria Cardona appeared on air 50 times between August 2015 and February 2016. Yet, according to Lee Fang of the left-wing website Intercept, 40 of those appearances “presented her as a neutral Democratic strategist or CNN contributor.”

    In reality, Fang writes, “…in none of her appearances was it disclosed that [Cardona’s] firm, the Dewey Square Group, has been retained for consulting work by the Clinton Super PACs or that her colleagues at the firm are working on behalf of the Clinton campaign.” Cardona has many reasons to support the Clintons, yet her loyalty to Hillary is not being regularly disclosed.

    Last May, when news broke about ABC’s George Stephanopoulos’ secret contributions to the Clinton Foundation, we called for greater transparency from reporters, to disclose their conflicts of interest—as called for in the Society of Professional Journalists’ code of ethics. Fang lists five pundits who have not properly divulged their connection to Republican or Democratic campaigns. There are many more in the media establishment with conflicts of interest that we could list here.

    Rupert Murdoch is attending a $2,700-a-plate fundraiser for Hillary Clinton in the United Kingdom. Does this mean that Fox News is also supporting Clinton? Not necessarily, and he’s certainly not the only network executive or owner to donate to politicians. Yet when the head of the cable news network viewed by most conservatives makes such a donation, it raises concerns.

    We have reported again and again on how news organizations, such as The Washington Post, exonerate Clinton’s apparent potentially criminal behavior in an attempt to smooth her way to the White House. Media bigwigs have orchestrated love-ins for their favored candidate, and have largely restricted themselves to softball questions that ignore the real issues.

    And it is the media that have helped promote the Trump phenomenon. He has shown that he can garner unlimited free media, so why pay for ads, and why build the ground game? Trump can just use the media—and they will use him right back.

    Now that the media have helped establish Trump as the runaway frontrunner, these reporters and news organizations are starting to have buyer’s remorse, comparing him to Hitler, Kim Jung Il, and Stalin.

    Harvard professor Danielle Allen penned a column for The Washington Post entitled, “The moment of truth: We must stop Trump.” “I believe that Hillary Clinton will win the Democratic nomination, and I intend to vote for her, but it is also the case that she is a candidate with significant weaknesses, as your party knows quite well,” writes Allen. “The result of a head-to-head contest between Clinton and Trump would be unpredictable. Trump has to be blocked in your primary.”

    Allen wrote, “I have spent my life perplexed about exactly how Hitler could have come to power in Germany. Watching Donald Trump’s rise, I now understand.”

    When Michael Smerconish, who has a Saturday morning show on CNN, asked her to defend her Hitler reference, she replied, “I wasn’t actually making a straight comparison between the two individuals, just a comparison about the political situation and the political realities…” No doubt.

    As a Clinton supporter herself, is Allen offering this advice altruistically? Certainly not. By attempting to stoke an “anyone-but-Trump” backlash, Allen joins the rest of the media in a full-out attempt to practically guarantee, as they see it, Hillary Clinton’s electoral chances.

    The Washington Post has made its own position clear, with a February 24 editorial, “GOP leaders, you must do everything in your power to stop Trump.” “If Mr. Trump is to be stopped, now is the time for leaders of conscience to say they will not and cannot support him and to do what they can to stop him,” writes the Post’s editorial board, mirroring Allen’s exhortations.

    These opinion pieces are not actually intended as friendly advice designed to shore up the Republican Party’s chances in the general election. Rather, they are calculated to sow dissension and ensure that the Republican Party is so badly damaged during the primary and caucus process that they will have little chance against Mrs. Clinton in November. If they thought Trump would be easy to beat, they would be delighted to see him get the nomination.

    It should not be surprising, then, that the mainstream media have been salivating over the spectacle of last Thursday night’s no-holds-barred attack on Trump by Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Marco Rubio (R-FL). And Trump gave as good as he got, punching back hard at his opponents.

    “Neither Rubio nor Cruz has relished going after Trump in the past, perhaps fearing the blowtorch counterattacks that were leveled at others who are now on the political sidelines,” writes Dan Balz for The Washington Post. “But by Thursday night, they had no choice. Amid a rising Republican chorus urging them to go after the front-runner, the two answered the calls.”

    Meanwhile, the Democrats are stacking the deck for Clinton by allocating superdelegates in her favor.

    Fifteen percent of the Democratic Party delegates, or 712 votes, are set aside for current and former leaders in the Democratic Party, according to the Post. “These so-called superdelegates are not required to support a particular candidate,” it reports. “They may ignore voters’ preferences if they wish.” Such a policy allows the leadership of the Democratic Party to help select the candidate that they feel would perform better in the general election. Those 712 superdelegates represent about one-third of the total number of delegates needed to win the nomination.

    In contrast, the Republican Party selects its nominee based on primary and caucus voting results.

    Allen’s column pushed for the Republicans to rally around Senator Rubio in a last-ditch effort to rid the party of Trump. Similarly, The New York Times is pushing a long-shot theory where Rubio loses in all Super Tuesday primaries, yet has enough delegates to challenge Trump in a contested convention.

    The media are out to destroy the Republican Party’s chances of winning in November. They realize that a new attorney general, under any of the three leading Republican contenders, may very well have the appetite to look into, for example, the corruption and politicization of the IRS under the Obama administration, and take another look at Mrs. Clinton’s mishandling of classified information.

    The media were thrilled to promote Donald Trump for president when he meant good ratings and lively discussions. But now that he is the clear frontrunner to get the nomination, panic has set in that against a scandal-plagued candidate like Mrs. Clinton, with more baggage than a train station and the cloud of an FBI investigation hanging over her head, Trump could actually win.

    But there are a lot more twists and turns likely to come in this unparalleled presidential election cycle. What happens if the Justice Department indicts Hillary for mishandling classified materials? What happens if they don’t? What happens if the Democratic race is close, and super-delegates start shifting to Bernie? Would that be the cue for former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg to enter the race? And on the Republican side, what happens if Cruz or Rubio start to gain momentum, and everyone drops out except for Trump and either Cruz or Rubio? How would Trump do one on one with either of them? Stay tuned.
  11. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    23 Aug '16 14:08
    Many in the GOP are publically supporting HIllary

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/30/heres-the-growing-list-of-big-name-republicans-supporting-hillary-clinton/
  12. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    23 Aug '16 14:09
    So with the Wall Street and the Media and the GOP for Hillary as she outspends Trump on every turn, how can she lose?

    I know Trump was quoted as saying he could kill someone and still win the GOP nomination, but now I think Hillary could do the same and still win the general election

    There is literally no way she can lose.
  13. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    23 Aug '16 14:24
    The Dim party has now become the party of the wealthy, replacing the GOP.

    http://www.vox.com/polyarchy/2016/6/3/11843780/democrats-wealthy-party
  14. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    23 Aug '16 15:012 edits
    Originally posted by whodey
    It is curious that the very people who claim to want finance reform are the best at raising revenue for themselves.
    http://freebeacon.com/politics/hillary-clinton-spent-three-times-money-primary-donald-trump/

    Hillary Clinton Has spent $180 million on her campaign as of June, and announced her candidacy in April 2015. That's rounds out to 12 million a month.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/us/politics/jeb-bush-campaign.html

    Jeb Bush spent $130 million dollars by February. He announced his candidacy in June 2015; that's 16 million a month.

    So which party is trying to buy elections again?
  15. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    23 Aug '16 15:28
    Originally posted by vivify
    http://freebeacon.com/politics/hillary-clinton-spent-three-times-money-primary-donald-trump/

    Hillary Clinton Has spent $180 million on her campaign as of June, and announced her candidacy in April 2015. That's rounds out to 12 million a month.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/us/politics/jeb-bush-campaign.html

    Jeb Bush spent $130 million dollars by ...[text shortened]... acy in June 2015; that's 16 million a month.

    So which party is trying to buy elections again?
    So Hilary has spent $50 million more than Jeb did.

    Thanks for that.

    And no, I'm in no way trying to defend the GOP who is now in the tank for Hillary.
Back to Top