Althouse: Democratic candidates are outspending Republicans...

October 26, 2010

Democratic candidates are outspending Republicans...

... contrary to what they would have us think — reports the NYT.

63 comments:

Sprezzatura said...: Ds are rich fat cats, so what if they want to pay more in taxes?; 10/26/10, 10:21 PM
Alex said...: 1pbj - then they are free to send checks to the IRS and not force everyone else.; 10/26/10, 10:36 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: It bugs me that my local paper also spends way more time and ink reporting on who has spent what versus reporting on the issues.; 10/26/10, 10:38 PM
The Drill SGT said...: "Democratic candidates are outs spending Republicans..."

but not by as much as normal, and that is soooo unfair....; 10/26/10, 10:39 PM
traditionalguy said...: That makes sense. Dems are like old women in need of several layers of cover-girl makeup and that stuff is high priced. The Repubs are being themselves like women with no makeup on. The style conscious cannot wait to see which look turns the most men's heads. This election is like a mini stimulus plan for Radio and TV. I wonder how Madame Colette's Cheri of Wisconsin is doing (i.e., Russ Feingold) Are his old wrinkled politics beating the youthful looking politics of Johnson?; 10/26/10, 10:42 PM
BJM said...: Hey, it takes a lot of vigorish to get Dems re-elected this cycle.; 10/26/10, 10:45 PM
Bender said...: Of course, a big reason why Obama tried to attack Republicans on the source of their campaign funds was to deflect attention from the Democrats - the old tactic of accusing your opponent of the very thing that you are guilty of.

The BIG question is, in this year in particular, just exactly who would be throwing their money away by giving it to Dem candidates??
Unemployment is high, those with jobs are holding onto their money and not even spending it on themselves, and every everyday common person is disenchanted with Obama at best, and thoroughly disgusted at worst. So the Dems' money is not coming from the common people.

But then that raises the question of just exactly how is it that all the leftist groups are always so well funded, funded enough that they can actually place want ads for rent-a-mobs.

How many Soroses are out there?; 10/26/10, 10:51 PM
Anonymous said...: Republicans spending more than the Democrats = Republicans are buying the election.

Democrats spending more than the Republicans = Democrats have more support, which is shown through better fundraising.

It's just like Althouse's point that every news article has to be spun as women=good, men=bad.; 10/26/10, 10:52 PM
BJM said...: @traditionalguy

Brilliant! I am so stealing your Collette analogy!; 10/26/10, 10:55 PM
Sprezzatura said...: tradguy,

Speaking of makeup: Do you know the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull?

You haven't always been against makeup.; 10/26/10, 11:06 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: Speaking of makeup: Do you know the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull?

Yes. Puppies are not known for their skating ability and are generally bad at organized team sports. Speaking of makeup, you could put makeup on a pit bull, and it would probably be rather amusing.; 10/26/10, 11:17 PM
BJM said...: 1jpb

Give it a rest man. The partisan hack shtick is becoming tedious, now you're just embarrassing yourself.

*Yawn*; 10/26/10, 11:36 PM
Synova said...: Who thought that Republicans were outspending Democrats?

Just how much did Obama have to spend in 2008 again?; 10/26/10, 11:41 PM
Chip Ahoy said...: You have an amazing eye, Hostess. Awesome how you found that giraffe in the woods camouflaged so well.; 10/27/10, 12:10 AM
former law student said...: According to the article, Republicans have spent 91% of what the Democrats have spent so far, when the third-party campaign expense is considered.

Spent so far
------------
Candidate Funds:

Democrats: $119 million
Republicans: 79 million

Third party ("Citizens United") Funds:

Democrats: $33 million
Republicans: 60 million (180% of Dems' 3P funds)

Total
Democrats: $152 million
Republican: 139 million

And Democratic candidates have significantly outspent their Republican counterparts over the last few months in those contests, $119 million to $79 million.

Republican-leaning third-party groups, however, many of them financed by large, unrestricted donations that are not publicly disclosed, have swarmed into the breach, pouring more than $60 million into competitive races since July, about 80 percent more than the Democratic-leaning groups have reported spending.; 10/27/10, 12:33 AM
BJM said...: @Chip

Kudos! An excellent concept and execution.; 10/27/10, 1:02 AM
Fen said...: Who thought that Republicans were outspending Democrats?

Not me. How can they when Republicans are being forced to donate to Democrat campaigns?

Its too bad the NYTs isn't reporting on Democrat tactics to steal the vote - 9th Circuit says illegals don't need an ID to vote, voting screens across the nation are pre-programmed to select the Dem, Dems are forging every absentee ballot they can get their hands on, Unions are trading gift cards for votes, etc.

Because if the Democrats get away with stealing this one, like they tried in Florida 2000, there will be violence.

And when the dust settles, there will no longer be a NYTs.; 10/27/10, 1:17 AM
Fen said...: 1jpb: Speaking of makeup: Do you know the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull?

Not 1 hour after claiming he thinks its wrong to attack women in the Valles thread.

Classic Libtardism.; 10/27/10, 1:19 AM
Chip Ahoy said...: Oh bloody hell. I put that link in the wrong thread.; 10/27/10, 1:53 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Of course, a big reason why Obama tried to attack Republicans on the source of their campaign funds was to deflect attention from the Democrats - the old tactic of accusing your opponent of the very thing that you are guilty of.

Its not an old tactic, its a classical liberal tactic. You know, like when we can't keep our thermostats at 70 degrees but Bambi can crank his up high enough to grow orchids in.; 10/27/10, 5:46 AM
Unknown said...: And what isn't coming from those e-e-e-vil banks the Demos bailed out is coming from the unions.

Hear about the NV voting machines that have Dingy Harry's name already checked?

Serviced by your faithful SEIU.; 10/27/10, 5:53 AM
ndspinelli said...: It's fascinating to watch Europe currently paying for their sins of bending over to government unions. The riots in Greece and France are something that won't happen here.

AFCSME is the group spending the most in this election and it's just going down a toilet. We are about to say "no" to the European government employee entitlement system before it gets to the point it is in Europe. Liberals never understand that @ the core of this countries values is capitalism...not socialism. They get their asses whupped, but they never learn.; 10/27/10, 6:16 AM
The Drill SGT said...: FLS said....Republican-leaning third-party groups, however, many of them financed by large, unrestricted donations that are not publicly disclosed, have swarmed into the breach, pouring more than $60 million into competitive races since July, about 80 percent more than the Democratic-leaning groups have reported spending.

But of the top 5 third party groups, the Dems have slots 1,4,5 and the three of them are greater that the total of GOP 2 and 3.

The Dem 3?
- AFSCME
- SEIU
- NEA

your tax dollars recycled to bring in more public spending and raise taxes; 10/27/10, 6:23 AM
KCFleming said...: "your tax dollars recycled to bring in more public spending and raise taxes"

This is like the final phase of a Ponzi scheme, just before it collapses.; 10/27/10, 6:35 AM
Chase said...: $4 billion total will be spent thus year on all campaign and political ads combined.

That is less than:

• half of what Proctor and Gamble will spend on ads

• what Americans will spend on Hostess and Entenmann's baked goods this year.

The single biggest political ad money spender? A Union. "American Federation of Government Employees" for Democrats.

Your tax dollars at work.

Democrats can now sit down and shut their hypocritical mouths about campaign spending.

The real surprise is: why do Americans spend so little on political ads?; 10/27/10, 6:45 AM
AllenS said...: Corporations spending money on ads for their products that they are trying to sell, goes on all year long. Year after year. Money spent on political advertising is spent in a very short period of time. After the election, political advertising will stop. Until the next election cycle.; 10/27/10, 7:07 AM
Anonymous said...: "..The single biggest political ad money spender? A Union. "American Federation of Government Employees" for Democrats. .."

As a side note..AFSCME is now the largest segment of unionized workers.
Far from representing the 'working man' (steelworkers, auto workers, etc.) the unions largest membership segment has a vested interest in expanding government and government spending.; 10/27/10, 7:44 AM
Opus One Media said...: Ann,

did you change addresses? you seem to be living out of context.

cordially,

hdhouse

.....liars and liars who use figures to lie....; 10/27/10, 8:09 AM
campy said...: Because if the Democrats get away with stealing this one, like they tried in Florida 2000, there will be violence.

Team Never-Waste-A-Crisis spurts into their tighty-whities every time they think about this prospect.

The mind boggles at what they'll do if it comes to pass.; 10/27/10, 8:13 AM
bagoh20 said...: It's always harder and more expensive pretending to be something your not, which is the entire Democrat platform right now.; 10/27/10, 8:16 AM
garage mahal said...: Because if the Democrats get away with stealing this one, like they tried in Florida 2000, there will be violence.

More like Republicans are employing a 50 State Southern Strategy, harassing voters, shrieking on about voter fraud in hopes of depressing turnout.; 10/27/10, 8:28 AM
Opus One Media said...: campy said...
"Because if the Democrats get away with stealing this one, like they tried in Florida 2000, there will be violence."

hey numbnuts...weren't those Tom DeLay's boys who stormed the Secretary of State's office that Saturday morning so the dutiful Ms.Harris had to close the recount office...but I digress. The issue here is you are making a threat of violence.

You did write that didn't you...and you are saying "either things work out the way I/we want them or there will be violence"...ok for whom against whom? are you threatening the office of the president or who? who do you represent?

puff out that little chest and howl at the moon you fool.; 10/27/10, 8:30 AM
TMink said...: Democrats are lying? Alert the press! Oh, wait. Nevermind.

Trey; 10/27/10, 8:36 AM
Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...: Cash isn't helping them in Wisconsin. Walker up by 10 and Johnson by 7 in latest poll.; 10/27/10, 8:44 AM
KCFleming said...: hdhouse,

it must be comforting to know that Nevada voting machines are preprogrammed to vote for Harry Reid.

It does make me wonder why we vote at all, however.

What's the point? Why the sham? We know you control the majority Secretaries of State (Thx, Mr. Soros!!) and ACORN is mailing in tons of fake votes, and now the machines themselves are voting D.

I get it. We don't live in a real republic anymore. "All your base" and all that.

That leaves people with no options, since voting does nothing.

No options save one.; 10/27/10, 8:46 AM
garage mahal said...: ACORN 2.0

You can't stop them, you can only hope to contain them!; 10/27/10, 8:49 AM
KCFleming said...: Paper ballots.
Picture ID require.
Fingerprint.

Strangely, Democrats oppose all such simple requirements to maintain the integrity of the voting system, though they require more stringent ID when you enter a gubmint building or buy some likker.; 10/27/10, 8:53 AM
KCFleming said...: Because Democrats are more worried you might buy some Coors at age 17 than vote illegally.

Actually, they prefer the latter.; 10/27/10, 8:54 AM
Anonymous said...: Cash isn't helping them in Wisconsin. Walker up by 10 and Johnson by 7 in latest poll.

Surely that's only because Johnson is (spit) a millionaire and Feingold is not. Not because people might be fed up with Russ "No bill is left enough" Feingold.; 10/27/10, 8:54 AM
Anonymous said...: Liberals are proud of their power to create subterfuge.

Anything for the win.

Anything.; 10/27/10, 8:54 AM
campy said...: Hey House, the stuff in italics (that's the slanty letters in case you're too stupid to know that word) is text I was quoting. The roman letters (the ones that go straight up-and-down) are my words.; 10/27/10, 9:04 AM
The Crack Emcee said...: How Much Money Do Liberals Have To Waste?; 10/27/10, 9:04 AM
bagoh20 said...: Watch in the next few weeks as Democrats fight to protect voter fraud from the citizen watchdogs . All you have to know is who wants honest elections and who does not.

Of course they will have all kinds of bogus excuses for why we should not have clean elections, but the effect is the same. One side wants only legal valid voting, and other does not want to restrict their constituency also known as the dead, the illegal, the fraudulent, the duplicates, and the zombies. All perfectly decent people, I'm sure, but not legal voters. Just a technicality, but still.; 10/27/10, 9:07 AM
Anonymous said...: Here's a nice little bit of liberal derring do.

"Court overturns Arizona's
proof of citizenship requirement"

http://azstarnet.com/news/blogs/pueblo-politics/article_3bbf4f4e-e12c-11df-b57f-001cc4c002e0.html

Is this about making America a better place? No, it's about socialist liberals winning.

No matter the cost.; 10/27/10, 9:08 AM
Michael said...: I have been reading again Whittaker Chambers' Witness, the powerful story of his escape from the Communist party. I wish that the smarter liberals on this blog, the ones with the good hearts and intentions and obvious intelligence, would read this book.; 10/27/10, 9:16 AM
Ankur said...: Too much emotion = Too little reason.

More seats to defend = More money spent in defending them.

And, as Synova said, who really believed democrats spent less?

Remember people - when you come across statistics, always ask yourself: Is the data normalized?; 10/27/10, 9:18 AM
KCFleming said...: Micahel,

For the left, Whittaker Chambers is the anti-Christ to the sainted Alger Hiss.

Even seeing proof from the Venona papers of Hiss's communist spying days did not change their view.

Reading Witness would be like reading Sowell or Buckley or Mises.
It just isn't done. Ever.; 10/27/10, 9:23 AM
former law student said...: it must be comforting to know that Nevada voting machines are preprogrammed to vote for Harry Reid.

It does make me wonder why we vote at all, however.

Shades of Ohio 2004, when in locality after locality, far fewer voting machines were placed in Dem precincts than GOP ones, meaning hours-long lines for people who lost wages for every hour they waited. Interestingly, executives from the machines' manufacturer, Diebold, had made sizable contributions to GW Bush in 2003, according to opensecrets.org.

In fact, with two exceptions, all of the contributions from Diebold employees went to Republicans.; 10/27/10, 9:23 AM
KCFleming said...: Michael; 10/27/10, 9:23 AM
KCFleming said...: Shades of Ohio 2004,

Excellent, then you agree on the remedy?

Picture ID, paper ballot.
Hey, add a fingerprint and we've achieved the level of voting integrity in Iraq.; 10/27/10, 9:25 AM
bagoh20 said...: You either want clean elections or you don't.

There is only 2 parts to a vote: Voter's identity, and voter's choice.

It should be easy if we really want it. It would take far less effort to guarantee a clean vote than it takes to fight about it when we don't. So do you want it or not?; 10/27/10, 9:31 AM
Anonymous said...: Shades of Ohio 2004, when in locality after locality, far fewer voting machines were placed in Dem precincts than GOP ones

Yes, and I bet you can tie tis assertion back to the White House!!!

Right?

You are a clown.; 10/27/10, 9:33 AM
Fen said...: Garage: shrieking on about voter fraud in hopes of depressing turnout

Put Garage down in favor of stealing elections.

HD House: hey numbnuts...weren't those Tom DeLay's boys who stormed the Secretary of State's office that Saturday morning so the dutiful Ms.Harris had to close the recount office...but I digress.

Damn you are ignorant. The recount "office" (all Dems) wanted to count ballots behind doors and with limited media access. Harris didn't "close" the recount office, your attempt to steal the election did.

"The Florida secretary of state, a Republican elected official, calls a halt. She notes that hand counts are called only when there have been charges of broken machines or vote fraud. Fraud and breakdown were not charged, and did not in fact occur. She says she will certify the election's outcome based on the original vote count and the recount that followed, plus overseas absentee ballots. Mr. Bush will be the victor."

SCOTUS upheld her decisiion 7-2.; 10/27/10, 9:35 AM
Anonymous said...: Diebold, had made sizable contributions to GW Bush in 2003,

Yawn.

I like how these silly posts = fraud in your mind.

hey, remember that oil pipeline that was going to run through afghanistan??? I bet you sat through F-911 at least 3 times...; 10/27/10, 9:37 AM
Fen said...: FLS: Shades of Ohio 2004, when in locality after locality -

Based on your comments the last two days, I don't believe a word of it. Provide proof, and not from some Soros-funded front group like Media Matters.; 10/27/10, 9:37 AM
Fen said...: For those that have forgotten what the Dems almost got away with in 2000:

In the most shameful and painful act of the hand counts, the Democrats on the ground, and their operators from the Democratic National Committee and the state organization and the Gore campaign, deliberately and systematically scrutinized for challenge every military absentee ballot, and knocked out as many as they could on whatever technicality they could find or even invent.; 10/27/10, 9:39 AM
Fen said...: "The hand counting continues. From the first it is completely open to mischief. In walks mischief.

Ballots for Mr. Bush are put in Gore piles. Scads of chads on the floor. Vote counters can count a partly removed chad, and then an almost-removed chad, and then a mark, a dimple, an indentation, a "pregnancy." Standards are announced, altered, announced and altered again. Questionable ballots are decided by Democratic-dominated canvassing boards."; 10/27/10, 9:41 AM
Fen said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 10/27/10, 9:48 AM
Fen said...: and you are saying "either things work out the way I/we want them or there will be violence".

No Libtard. I'm saying if you try to steal another election, expect violence. Its past time for an object lesson. We've tried to play inside the system, but DOJ and Eric Holder won't lift a finger to protect our right to vote.

So, if the system of peaceful resolution has become corrupted by Democrats, we will have no other choice but to go outside of it.

And if that means putting a bullet in the head of every fraudster, so be it.; 10/27/10, 9:50 AM
former law student said...: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=U.S._election_irregularities_in_2004; 10/27/10, 3:25 PM
traditionalguy said...: 1jpb...We all need a youth cream or a daily paint job after age 30, or 10 years raising kids,whichever comes first. Thank God that I was not born a woman. I look more distinguished as the years come off my calendar, with an added night wrinkle cream for skin moisture to hedge my bets. So Sarah Palin is out of her extended warranty, but her spirit is renewed daily by the God who started His Church on Pentacost.; 10/27/10, 5:33 PM
Kirk Parker said...: Tradguy,

You put moisturizer on your skin? How very metro! You can hardly get more non-traditional than that, buddy...; 10/27/10, 5:46 PM
dick said...: fls,

Only problem with your story of the election and voting machines in Ohio is that the county was Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) which is a Dem enclave and the head of the Cuyahoga County board of elections is a Dem and that is the group that places the machines and sets up the polling places. Any problems there were problems caused by Dems just like the butterfly ballot in Florida was designed and approved by the Dem head of the board of elections. In fact that is part of Dennis Kuchinich's district. And you really need to look at Pennsylvania which had far more electoral problems, especially in the district in Philly where the Republican congressman lost his seat in a contested election. Way more fraudulent votes there than in Cleveland even and also far more voting machine problems. That was never brought up by the MSM because of course it favored the Dems.; 10/27/10, 10:29 PM