Yes, absolutely. And, obviously, so do the candidates as both campaigns have full-time, highly compensated pollsters who give the candidates polling results state by state on a daily basis.

Easy And Not So Easy
 

Politico.com, which covers politics in general, on a pretty much bi-partisan basis....on several occasions leading up to the Wisconsin election...."the media buys in Wisconsin for pro-Walker ads are outstripping ads for his Democratic opponent by 7 to 1."

As far as quantifying the cost of the strikes and demonstrations, certainly you must be kidding. What's that got to do with the effect of advertising on he outcome of elections anyway?

Are You?
 

I must not be on the mailing list for the GOP talking points for the day. In watching Jeb Bush interviewed on "Morning Joe" this morning, he used exactly that same argument you made in an earlier post...exactly, almost word for word.

Riche, you're not Jeb Bush, are you?

RichieLion does often seem to get most of his talking points from various Republican websites. Breitbart

I personally do not believe that the more money spent party is the eventual winner. Of course after an event like WI it is the argument of the day.

Can any amount of money spent on ads and commercials incent any of you to vote for the opposition?

If the end result is that because one spend more they ultimately reach more people and hence increase voter turn out, then what is wrong with that....nothing.

And last year when Obama had over a $100 million in his re-election war chest there was never a word about the un-fairness of spending too much.

It is just a convenient red herring to keep the spot light off the fact that the people are fed up with what is going on politically....fed up with talk and no action....and there certainly is never any discussion about the Dems who are crossing over because you know what....they are in the pot with the rest of us getting screwed, they just happen to have a D behind their name.

I would like to hear more about why the people voted like they did VS the how much was spent smoke screen.

btk

I never heard Jeb speak on this issue, or really anyone else for that matter. It's nice to know I'm on top of things, if what you say is true.

The ramifications of this futile fight isn't hard to deduce.

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)

With the middle class shrinking, how on earth were working people in Wis. convinced to cut down other working people, to the joy of those that control these working people? As an old farm girl, I can see that the chickens are already coming home to roost about the lives of working people. In time we will see that union or nonunion, it will make no difference, this is bad for all working people. And sadly too many of us who are okay financially don't care about coming generations of working people.

My son was the last person hired for his job when there was a union. He is a full time employee with a decent wage, health benefits for his family and other benefits. How his fellow workers were convinced to leave the union, causing it to fold up, I cannot imagine. What pressure they must have been put under, there too it was a matter of turning worker against worker, to the betterment of the pockets of the company owners. What I learned from him is that now, EVERY employee who is hired is part time at minimum wage and NONE of them receive health benefits or any other benefit. This is building a strong America? We should be ashamed of what we are doing.

I do understand the post that was quoted--simply to not just look at the spending of one side but to look at the spending of both sides--but I don't understand this response. Can you make it clearer?

Speaking of McCain, its important to see why he might have been broke after the primary. It is rare for me not to vote Republican, and the ONLY reason I didnt was because of his running mate Sarah Palen. I could not even count how many Republican women said the same thing. Maybe just maybe THIS is why he was broke after the primary?

What I was trying to respond to was the emphasis put on the spending and the money and quotes such as this as a reason for the results.....

"If you want to argue about the results of the election, from a money perspective, it wasn't really a fair fight. "

"...The 2nd was that money talks louder than anything else."

Using this kind of logic, then why is that logic not applied to the 2008 Presidential election as Obama spend a record amount of money and dwarfed what McCain spent. I am not suggesting that is why he won, just questioning how that logic is applied in such a "selective" manner.

so you voted against Palin by voting for Obama. Maybe that satisfied your prejudice against Palin for what ever reason. But just look at what you decided to help get elected.

Maybe this time you will vote against Obama by voting for the Romney team. Right thing to do (this time) for the wrong reasons.....again.

btk

Romney has now leaped into the lead. Obama "is melting, he's melting"

Election 2012: Wisconsin President - Rasmussen Reports™

Obama still has the lead in most of the polls. RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - General Election: Romney vs. Obama

my post was in reference to Wisconsin, the "formerly blue state", that liberals pointed out was still an "Obama State" even though Scott Walker kicked Democrat behind up and down Main St. Milwaukee.

Obama's losing ground everywhere though, and across all demographics. By November...................

LOL - well ok - if you say so ........... WI is blue, has been for the last 5 presidential elections, and will certainly stay blue. Had we listened to Scotty in '08, the old guy would be POTUS now, and The Wasilla Quitta would be in charge of the Senate.

RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - Wisconsin: Romney vs. Obama