I suppose you overlooked the fact that this image does NOT hold a single Democrat supporting organization? Where is SCIU, Teamsters, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, CBS, The New York Times, Media Matters, the DNC, George Soros, etc..,etc..[/QUOTE]one of the many reasons I don't vote
It's almost like you haven't read anything I've written. My issue is with dark money mega-spending by billionaires and large multi-nationals. At this point I would settle for disclosure alone without limits, at least we would know who is bankrolling who. From what I can see these mega donations are helping the two party system turn into a single two winged plutocrat party rather than helping anyone run third-party. What third party candidates I can think of were still underfunded and still only got votes for "none of the above" rather than because they had anything of value to offer voters.
Lets be real here.
I would rather they spent their money telling me what they would do, if elected. As it stands now, the candidates seem obsessed with smearing their opponents.Money can buy advertisements, which brings the issues before the voters that aren't paying attention....Are the ones with the most money?
91% of the time the better-financed candidate wins
The chart analyzes 467 congressional races held in 2012. Its findings:
* Candidates who out-fundraised their opponents were nine times more likely to win elections in 2012.
* Winning congressional candidates outspent their opponents by about 20 to 1.
And in these latest midterms?
Money Won on Tuesday, But the Rules of the Game Have Changed
The real story of the election’s campaign finance chapter was not which side had more resources, but that such a large chunk of the cost was paid for by a small group of ultra-wealthy donors using outside groups to bury voters with an avalanche of spending. Both sides had plenty of support from outside spenders, but Republican and conservative outside groups outpaced the spending of Democratic and liberal ones. Democratic/liberal groups channeled most of their money through organizations that disclosed donors, while their more conservative counterparts relied heavily on secret sources funneling money through political nonprofits.
Some things seem never to change, and this year’s midterms reprised many of the same old stories. But there were also a handful of surprises, some of which may portend new dynamics in how elections are financed.
Every election since 1998 has been more expensive than the one before it, and predictably the 2014 election will follow that path, CRP has projected — though the total projected cost of $3.67 billion is only a slight uptick over the price tag of the 2010 midterm. Counting all forms of spending — by candidates, parties and outside groups — Team Red is projected to have spent $1.75 billion, while Team Blue’s spending is projected to ring in at $1.64 billion.
CRP’s analysis of last night’s results finds that in House races, the candidate who spent the most prevailed 94.2 percent of the time; the Senate figure is slightly lower, 81.8 percent. Despite several key upsets of Senate Democrats who, as incumbents, had the cash advantage, this is actually an increase from 2012, when 93.8 percent of higher-spending candidates in the House won, and just 75.8 percent of those candidates in the Senate could claim victory.
It also makes it possible for groups that support one candidate over another to lie about their opponent.
It's up to us to stay informed so we don't fall of the lies.
thats right.....if the guy's from the "parties" cant convince me to vote for them....thats on them.....
You're not going to see that. For a candidate to tell you what they actually plan to do in any detail would open themselves up to criticism. Condemning their opponent and speaking in generalities is a safe proven method for winning. If you say it loud enough and often enough, people will believe you and they will have absolutely no idea as what you really going to do.I would rather they spent their money telling me what they would do, if elected. As it stands now, the candidates seem obsessed with smearing their opponents.Money can buy advertisements, which brings the issues before the voters that aren't paying attention....Are the ones with the most money?
91% of the time the better-financed candidate wins
The chart analyzes 467 congressional races held in 2012. Its findings:
* Candidates who out-fundraised their opponents were nine times more likely to win elections in 2012.
* Winning congressional candidates outspent their opponents by about 20 to 1.
And in these latest midterms?
Money Won on Tuesday, But the Rules of the Game Have Changed
The real story of the election’s campaign finance chapter was not which side had more resources, but that such a large chunk of the cost was paid for by a small group of ultra-wealthy donors using outside groups to bury voters with an avalanche of spending. Both sides had plenty of support from outside spenders, but Republican and conservative outside groups outpaced the spending of Democratic and liberal ones. Democratic/liberal groups channeled most of their money through organizations that disclosed donors, while their more conservative counterparts relied heavily on secret sources funneling money through political nonprofits.
Some things seem never to change, and this year’s midterms reprised many of the same old stories. But there were also a handful of surprises, some of which may portend new dynamics in how elections are financed.
Every election since 1998 has been more expensive than the one before it, and predictably the 2014 election will follow that path, CRP has projected — though the total projected cost of $3.67 billion is only a slight uptick over the price tag of the 2010 midterm. Counting all forms of spending — by candidates, parties and outside groups — Team Red is projected to have spent $1.75 billion, while Team Blue’s spending is projected to ring in at $1.64 billion.
CRP’s analysis of last night’s results finds that in House races, the candidate who spent the most prevailed 94.2 percent of the time; the Senate figure is slightly lower, 81.8 percent. Despite several key upsets of Senate Democrats who, as incumbents, had the cash advantage, this is actually an increase from 2012, when 93.8 percent of higher-spending candidates in the House won, and just 75.8 percent of those candidates in the Senate could claim victory.
It also makes it possible for groups that support one candidate over another to lie about their opponent.
It's up to us to stay informed so we don't fall of the lies.
...Are the ones with the most money?
91% of the time the better-financed candidate wins
The chart analyzes 467 congressional races held in 2012. Its findings:
* Candidates who out-fundraised their opponents were nine times more likely to win elections in 2012.
* Winning congressional candidates outspent their opponents by about 20 to 1.
And in these latest midterms?
Money Won on Tuesday, But the Rules of the Game Have Changed
The real story of the election’s campaign finance chapter was not which side had more resources, but that such a large chunk of the cost was paid for by a small group of ultra-wealthy donors using outside groups to bury voters with an avalanche of spending. Both sides had plenty of support from outside spenders, but Republican and conservative outside groups outpaced the spending of Democratic and liberal ones. Democratic/liberal groups channeled most of their money through organizations that disclosed donors, while their more conservative counterparts relied heavily on secret sources funneling money through political nonprofits.
Some things seem never to change, and this year’s midterms reprised many of the same old stories. But there were also a handful of surprises, some of which may portend new dynamics in how elections are financed.
Every election since 1998 has been more expensive than the one before it, and predictably the 2014 election will follow that path, CRP has projected — though the total projected cost of $3.67 billion is only a slight uptick over the price tag of the 2010 midterm. Counting all forms of spending — by candidates, parties and outside groups — Team Red is projected to have spent $1.75 billion, while Team Blue’s spending is projected to ring in at $1.64 billion.
CRP’s analysis of last night’s results finds that in House races, the candidate who spent the most prevailed 94.2 percent of the time; the Senate figure is slightly lower, 81.8 percent. Despite several key upsets of Senate Democrats who, as incumbents, had the cash advantage, this is actually an increase from 2012, when 93.8 percent of higher-spending candidates in the House won, and just 75.8 percent of those candidates in the Senate could claim victory.
