Quote:
Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna
Not a big deal here, Richie. Walker won the election fair and square.
But to imply that he did so while overcoming a 'massive' effort by the Democrats is a wee bit disingenuous. The facts are that those contributing to Walker's campaign--who are unknown because of the Supreme Court decsion--outspent his opponent, buying mostly attack ads, to the tune of 7-to-1.
If you want to argue about the results of the election, from a money perspective, it wasn't really a fair fight.
|
I am not sure I understand this logic AT ALL !!!!
In 2008, Obama set all time record for getting and spending funds in the Presidential election. McCain, as I recall went broke at the end of the primary.
Yet, Obama was voted in NOT BECAUSE OF MONEY AT ALL. I am not suggesting that he was voted in because of money but I am struck by the opposite logic that is applied to Wisconsin and the 2008 election.
I mean, if money decides it in your mind totally, then lets just count our nickles the night before the voting or keep good track of it and just declare a winner, OR as you are suggesting money does it sometimes when your candidate wins, it was not money !!!
I guess I am just confused.
This entire thing was union motivated and anyone who has followed it unbiased and totally knows it. It was all about the unions...they are the ones who got the signatures......listen, the politicians themselves didnt want it...it was a loser coming in. This was all about the unions.
If everytime and election is lost the only reason is the money.....gee..that sure does make it easy.
I just do not buy this logic. Lots of money spent....lots of money from outside....but actually, fund raising and getting the money is often a precursor to who has the best message (or chance if you will)