Point Four: The difference between 'surviving' and a 'land slide'

[TheGreatGatsby]

Remember how virtually every media outlet called Obama's victory a 'land slide.' And that was before the final tally was even completed. He won by 7.3 percent.

But according the front page of the Washington Post, Scott Walker merely 'survived' a 'close' election. Don't you just love the liberal press's blatant double standards.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Remember how virtually every media outlet called Obama's victory a 'land slide.' And that was before the final tally was even completed. He won by 7.3 percent.

But according the front page of the Washington Post, Scott Walker merely 'survived' a 'close' election. Don't you just love the liberal press's blatant double standards.

In 2005, when I was on another board, Democrat Tom Kaine won the Virginia governorship.

The conservatives' brilliant take on that win was that it really wasn't a win because the Democrat Mark Warner had been the governor up until that election, so the Democrats really didn't gain anything.

It's always different when it's your guy.

 

[Peach]

Remember how virtually every media outlet called Obama's victory a 'land slide.' And that was before the final tally was even completed. He won by 7.3 percent.

But according the front page of the Washington Post, Scott Walker merely 'survived' a 'close' election. Don't you just love the liberal press's blatant double standards.

In 2005, when I was on another board, Democrat Tom Kaine won the Virginia governorship.

The conservatives' brilliant take on that win was that it really wasn't a win because the Democrat Mark Warner had been the governor up until that election, so the Democrats really didn't gain anything.

It's always different when it's your guy.

And this was not a scheduled election, it was a RECALL. Walker won -0-, he lost 47% of the state's voters, outspending Barrett 5-1. He is not the same caliber of man as Mitt Romney, by a LONNNNNG shot.

 

[Ragnar]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kS0Dqz2P1sk]Recall - YouTube[/ame]

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Remember how virtually every media outlet called Obama's victory a 'land slide.' And that was before the final tally was even completed. He won by 7.3 percent.

But according the front page of the Washington Post, Scott Walker merely 'survived' a 'close' election. Don't you just love the liberal press's blatant double standards.

In 2005, when I was on another board, Democrat Tom Kaine won the Virginia governorship.

The conservatives' brilliant take on that win was that it really wasn't a win because the Democrat Mark Warner had been the governor up until that election, so the Democrats really didn't gain anything.

It's always different when it's your guy.

And this was not a scheduled election, it was a RECALL. Walker won -0-, he lost 47% of the state's voters, outspending Barrett 5-1. He is not the same caliber of man as Mitt Romney, by a LONNNNNG shot.

Actually one needs to compare this election with the one before. And Walker got MORE votes this time then last time. Further you have been linked in another thread to the fact that Unions spent 21 MILLION on Barret. It was hardly 5 to 1.

But lets run with this theme you and the rest of the liberals have going, that if one out spends their opponent it does not mean more people support you it means you stole an election, shall we? Lets revisit 2008.

Who outspent whom in that election? Did he steal the election? Or was that different? Who claims they will have a billion dollar this time? Is that also different? Who illegally received fund from foreign sources and had to return them then quit accounting for them?

 

[American Horse]

Remember how virtually every media outlet called Obama's victory a 'land slide.' And that was before the final tally was even completed. He won by 7.3 percent.

But according the front page of the Washington Post, Scott Walker merely 'survived' a 'close' election. Don't you just love the liberal press's blatant double standards.

In 2005, when I was on another board, Democrat Tom Kaine won the Virginia governorship.

The conservatives' brilliant take on that win was that it really wasn't a win because the Democrat Mark Warner had been the governor up until that election, so the Democrats really didn't gain anything.

It's always different when it's your guy.

And this was not a scheduled election, it was a RECALL. Walker won -0-, he lost 47% of the state's voters, outspending Barrett 5-1. He is not the same caliber of man as Mitt Romney, by a LONNNNNG shot.

Walker got 34-million in contributions, and we don't know for sure what part of that he had time to spend. The unions actually did spend 21 million on Barretts behalf, and untold numbers of union members donated time to knock on doors and spend time on the campaign, also worth millions, and Walker still won by 9 percentage point.

If we ignore the money and time expended by the unions (about 40 percent of regular members voted for Walker), based on simple arithmetic - if Walker got 34-million in contributions, and Barrett only got 4-million, and of his four million 70% were from inside the state, and of Walker's 34 million 38-percent were from inside the state, then Walker got ($12.92-Mil divided by $2.8-Mil) almost 4.6 times the in-state contributions that Barrett got.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

In 2005, when I was on another board, Democrat Tom Kaine won the Virginia governorship.

The conservatives' brilliant take on that win was that it really wasn't a win because the Democrat Mark Warner had been the governor up until that election, so the Democrats really didn't gain anything.

It's always different when it's your guy.

And this was not a scheduled election, it was a RECALL. Walker won -0-, he lost 47% of the state's voters, outspending Barrett 5-1. He is not the same caliber of man as Mitt Romney, by a LONNNNNG shot.

Walker got 34-million in contributions, and we don't know for sure what part of that he had time to spend. The unions actually did spend 21 million on Barretts behalf, and untold numbers of union members donated time to knock on doors and spend time on the campaign, also worth millions, and Walker still won by 9 percentage point.

If we ignore the money and time expended by the unions (about 40 percent of regular members voted for Walker), based on simple arithmetic - if Walker got 34-million in contributions, and Barrett only got 4-million, and of his four million 70% were from inside the state, and of Walker's 34 million 38-percent were from inside the state, then Walker got ($12.92-Mil divided by $2.8-Mil) almost 4.6 times the in-state contributions that Barrett got.

So Barret had 25 Million by that accounting to the 34 million Walker had. With another 3 or 4 million unaccounted for. Hradly 5 to one, 7 to one or even 2 to 1.

How much did Obama outspend McCain by in 2008 again? According to the lefties in these threads if you collect more money and outspend your opponent you stole the election from stupid people. So Obama must have stolen the election in 2008 using their logic and with him claiming he will have a billion for this year he must be planning to steal it again, using their own logic.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Remember how virtually every media outlet called Obama's victory a 'land slide.' And that was before the final tally was even completed. He won by 7.3 percent.

But according the front page of the Washington Post, Scott Walker merely 'survived' a 'close' election. Don't you just love the liberal press's blatant double standards.

In 2005, when I was on another board, Democrat Tom Kaine won the Virginia governorship.

The conservatives' brilliant take on that win was that it really wasn't a win because the Democrat Mark Warner had been the governor up until that election, so the Democrats really didn't gain anything.

It's always different when it's your guy.

And this was not a scheduled election, it was a RECALL. Walker won -0-, he lost 47% of the state's voters, outspending Barrett 5-1. He is not the same caliber of man as Mitt Romney, by a LONNNNNG shot.

Maybe those six figure bus drivers should have contributed more? Oh. They already got there's. No sense in giving it back. If people outspent Barret then it's b/c they believe in liberties, lower taxes and capitalism. I hope it's 10-1 next time. We need to get past the phony narrative that spent money is a bad thing.