Was it a failure from the point of view of the Democrat side? Yes. One would be a fool to argue otherwise. The pro-recall side raised money from out of state sources and tried to buy the election, just as much as the other side did. Walker happened to raise more money from out of state sources and bought the election before the other guys could buy the election. It doesn't mean that the other side didn't try to buy it any less, but he still bought it.
You can go on all the Skybird-length rants you want about how I don't have a clue what I'm talking about, blah blah blah. But the candidate who outspent the other 10-1 won. And that candidate raised the majority of his money from out of state donors who couldn't vote for him.
If you'd care to read what I posted instead of strawmanning away and putting words in my mouth, you'd see the only argument I was making is that anyone can buy an election if they raise more money than the other guy.
Quote:
|
Tell me, Mookie, what part of Barrett's plan did you like?
|
You're rebutting an argument I made
that exists only in your head.
The candidate who raises more money will most likely win. Candidates who raise money from people that can't vote for them are buying the election. I don't care to debate with someone who's so arrogant enough to dismiss anyone else's point of view with "oh you don't live here so you don't have a clue." I'm really tired of being assigned every liberal argument and opinion as if I were the designated representative for every crackpot left-wing idea ever. If you want to debate someone that said the things that you're rebutting, I'd suggest you actually you know....
find that person and rebut them.
Quote:
|
Mookie, can you link me to your complaint about Obama outspending McCain by insane margins?
|
I can tell you that this chart is a bad thing, regardless of who's outspending who:
