Now you guys can stop saying elections are being bought

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Cruz in Texas was outspent 3 to 1 and still soundly defeated the establishment opponent. 57/43

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

And he's not an old white man

 

[elvis]

As a rule, they're bought. That doesn't mean every single time....

 

[thanatos144]

Okay..... Now why should I care?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Okay..... Now why should I care?

I just thought it was relative to all the accusations that Romney is buying the election.

 

[hjmick]

The best that could be said is that this particular election was not bought.

 

[sfcalifornia]

One election out of how many proves your theory?

Show us 50 elections where this happened and maybe we'll believe it.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Your logic....isnt

 

[Sinjorri]

Christie won despite being out spent by the NJEA. Its a sign all elections cannot be bought.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Okay..... Now why should I care?

I just thought it was relative to all the accusations that Romney is buying the election.

I think it would be more accurate to say; "The Election is being bought for him".

 

[thanatos144]

Okay..... Now why should I care?

I just thought it was relative to all the accusations that Romney is buying the election.

Lets not pull each others leg shall we? Obama and Romney will try and buy our support through ads and throwing charities events....This isnt a bad thing cause this is what freedom of speech is all about. Now I am betting Obama would try to use welfare to buy votes and Romney the promise of less regulation to do the same.......But again thats free speech.....No buying votes should truly ONLY mean someone giving money cash to someone to vote. Progressive use this not conservatives so I dont worry about it.


Now how you should have answered my question having looked up the race now is that a Establishment tool lost even though he had money and that shows that Maybe the people are ready to vote for other reasons then a kick ass commercial.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

You libbies are funny. When one gop member does or says something it is applied to the entire party. I then apply that same logic to something with a positive outcome and you throw a fit.

Of course this doesn't pertain to every election. I didn't say it did. The fact is he could have outspent his opponent and still won on his message. There is almost know way to tell what impact cash vs message has.

 

[The Infidel]

Hate to say it, but not one modern eletion has ever been won without being able to pay for a good campaign.

It takes money to win...

 

[thanatos144]

Hate to say it, but not one modern eletion has ever been won without being able to pay for a good campaign.

It takes money to win...

It takes money to do anything.....Why would getting elected be different?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Hate to say it, but not one modern eletion has ever been won without being able to pay for a good campaign.

It takes money to win...

It does take money to play but I think it's the message that usually carries a victory.

 

[The T]

Hate to say it, but not one modern eletion has ever been won without being able to pay for a good campaign.

It takes money to win...

The real interesting thing is to pay attention to who's going to buy voters with taxpayer's money with promises to do for voters things they should be doing for themselves.

 

[The Infidel]

Hate to say it, but not one modern eletion has ever been won without being able to pay for a good campaign.

It takes money to win...

The real interesting thing is to pay attention to who's going to buy voters with taxpayer's money with promises to do for voters things they should be doing for themselves.

Sounds like the Democratic circle jerk.... Can you say stimulus money??

 

[Shelzin]

Cruz in Texas was outspent 3 to 1 and still soundly defeated the establishment opponent. 57/43

Tea party republican, vs "true" republican. Outspent 3 to 1?

If that doesn't suggest that he republican platform is outdated and needs to be changed I'm not sure what does.

 

[sfcalifornia]

You libbies are funny. When one gop member does or says something it is applied to the entire party. I then apply that same logic to something with a positive outcome and you throw a fit.

Of course this doesn't pertain to every election. I didn't say it did. The fact is he could have outspent his opponent and still won on his message. There is almost know way to tell what impact cash vs message has.

If you're stating here that what happened with Cruz is the exception and not the rule, then yes, you are correct. It can happen. But it is an exception.

 

[ClosedCaption]

You libbies are funny. When one gop member does or says something it is applied to the entire party. I then apply that same logic to something with a positive outcome and you throw a fit.

Of course this doesn't pertain to every election. I didn't say it did. The fact is he could have outspent his opponent and still won on his message. There is almost know way to tell what impact cash vs message has.

Oh, the liberal made you do it. :-/