Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The link within YOUR LINK says 4.5x for OUTSIDE MONEY. My link didn't tally percentages but it is clear that most pac money and most pacs were on the right. Overall Obama had three negative ads directed at him for every one mittens had directed at him.
FYI, much of Obama's campaign funds were directed at operations not ads, he had nearly four times the offices in ohio as mittens did.
Again, the 'link within the link' includes primary spending--look at it. It includes spending by Ron Paul, Jon Huntsman, Rick Perry, and "mittens" (as you so childishly put it).
For purposes of Medved's argument, the ad spending that matters is post primary, prez campaign ads. I don't think we have those numbers yet. Wait till we get the numbers, then we can say whether pro-Romney spending was 3X, or 4.5X, whichever it is you are now claiming.
If either claim is right, then clearly Medved's argument collapses, and obammy beat mittens (as I'm guessing you would put it) just by being the superior candidate, and not by resorting to subterfuge.
The advertising avalanche by the Democrats highlighted Romney’s wealth, offshore bank accounts, job-exporting background at Bain Capital, expensive Olympics horse, bad singing voice, mistreatment of his dog, unpublished tax returns, murder-by-cancer of a steelworker’s wife, and general heartlessness and cluelessness.
This is not voter supression. This is simply the truth. Romney was born to huge wealth and has dedicated his life primarily to making even more of it. He has offshore bank accounts for the sole purpose of evading American taxes. He has not only sent American jobs overseas, he has also destroyed companies here at home. His wife's dancing horse and her condescending remarks to the public are simply fact. He has steadfastly refused to reveal his tax returns over the last ten years, leading to appropriate speculation about just what he was hiding. He still hasn't told us. His health care "plan" would deny many Americans access to treatment.
How is that not fair game? How the hell is pointing that out voter surpressing? Does Medved the Idiot even know what those words mean?
The Reps called Obama baby killing, communist Kenyan. There's an entire movement dedicated to arguing that Obama isn't even a US citizen. They have no right at all to whine about negative advertisements.
Again, the 'link within the link' includes primary spending--look at it. It includes spending by Ron Paul, Jon Huntsman, Rick Perry, and "mittens" (as you so childishly put it).
For purposes of Medved's argument, the ad spending that matters is post primary, prez campaign ads. I don't think we have those numbers yet. Wait till we get the numbers, then we can say whether pro-Romney spending was 3X, or 4.5X, whichever it is you are now claiming.
If either claim is right, then clearly Medved's argument collapses, and obammy beat mittens (as I'm guessing you would put it) just by being the superior candidate, and not by resorting to subterfuge.
Yeah, you just keep thinking that some other combination of data will suddenly reverse reality for you. By any standard the GOP leaner way out spent Obama and company. The numbers I saw on the television day before yesterday said 3 to 1. When you final find accurate data you see just how stupid medved's fairy tale is.
FACT, Mittens and company spent more on ads, ran far more ads and their ads were more negative yet they did not suppress dem turnout.
Republicans showing their true colors. When they win it's a mandate from god; when they lose they start stomping their feet and whining, "it's not fair, it's not fair, he took it, it's mine" like petulant children.
Still waiting for a coherent argument, an alternate theory to explain a) the depressed voter turnout of 2012; b)the 85% negative ad rate from Team Hope and change. Medved offers an explanation that fits. The only response from the left so far is a) namecalling; b)semantics.
We don't need an argument. The President will remain in office until January 2017, and possibly another Democrat will follow him. What the GOP really needs is a way to stave off its rapidly impending obsolescence.
Yeah, you just keep thinking that some other combination of data will suddenly reverse reality for you. By any standard the GOP leaner way out spent Obama and company. The numbers I saw on the television day before yesterday said 3 to 1. When you final find accurate data you see just how stupid medved's fairy tale is.
FACT, Mittens and company spent more on ads, ran far more ads and their ads were more negative yet they did not suppress dem turnout.
I'll wait for the accurate numbers, you keep thinking that "as seen on TV"=reality. BTW, what happened to the 4.5 to 1 figure. A FACT is a slippery thing, I gather....
For quite some time, Medved has been a relatively reasonable voice for the GOP. He was rational and spoke without spraying the room with hateful conspiracy theories and childish name-calling.
Looks like he's joined ranks with Limbaugh, Beck, and the rest of the crackpots.
It is interesting to me, that a proven liar is chosen to believe, than a man that liar is making claims against.
But it does make sense, that the majority identify with such a person, even though he has done more dammage to this country than any other man in office .
Is that the democrat hate free speach and other constitutional rights ? because that is in the ajenda of this administration.
For quite some time, Medved has been a relatively reasonable voice for the GOP. He was rational and spoke without spraying the room with hateful conspiracy theories and childish name-calling.
Looks like he's joined ranks with Limbaugh, Beck, and the rest of the crackpots.
"childish name-calling?" It seems to me your post is nothing other than name-calling. What is your argument? How do explain the the depressed turnout of 2012? Why did Obama get 7 million votes fewer than in 2008, and why did Romney get fewer votes than McCain?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Medved: Obama won by supressing the vote.
