|
|
May 18, 2013
|
|
|
|
 In Politics, Money Isn’t EverythingPosted on Nov 10, 2010
Much has been made of the $4 billion spent in the midterm elections, including $140 million of Meg Whitman’s own money, but spending, as Ms. Whitman found out, does not equal victory. Sharron Angle spent more per voter than any other candidate—about $97—and still lost.
Advertisement TAGS:
|
How the IRS’ Nonprofit Division Got So Dysfunctional
Email 
Print
Share
Email to a friend
Newsletter 
Like Us
Follow Us
Get Our Feed
Tags|Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation | Google+
© 2013 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.
By Leefeller, November 11, 2010 at 9:28 am Link to this comment
Money isn’t everything, but how would I know what everything is? From what I have observed of politics, money helps as does having the ethics of a cock roach!
Report thisBy gerard, November 10, 2010 at 4:44 pm Link to this comment
— “the most expensive midterm election in U.S. history - estimated to come to $4 billion”—
820,000,000 people live on 50 cents a day or less.
Report thisBy Peter Z. Scheer, November 10, 2010 at 3:53 pm Link to this comment
It’s true, there’s a danger with news stories like
this that they falsely imply that money is
unimportant in politics. That certainly is not true -
- now more than ever. Sorry if we added to that
perception.
But it is refreshing that some of the best funded
candidates were not able to buy the election. Sharron
Angle said a lot of strange things, but Meg Whitman
was very carefully managed and the media largely
signed off on her “moderate” label. Still, the voters
of California refused to be bought off (by her, at
least).
Tangent: The Senate is so horribly unrepresentative
of the citizenry that whatever interests were trying
to buy the election on Angle’s behalf were getting a
steal (if only they had pulled it off). As the Post
article points out, Whitman spent much more, but she
was reaching millions of voters.
Angle lost the Nevada vote with 320,998 votes to
Harry Reid’s 361,656. http://goo.gl/TEMCe
In California, Carly Fiorina lost with 3,728,712
Report thisvotes to Barbara Boxer’s 4,502,037.
http://goo.gl/6zXiI
By skulz fontaine, November 10, 2010 at 12:21 pm Link to this comment
In politics, money isn’t everything. Money is the ONLY thing. Jeez Truthdig, you’d
Report thisquote the Washington Post? Journalism’s equivalent of a rancid crack whore.
By Big B, November 10, 2010 at 8:41 am Link to this comment
I have always loved to hear from people who have never been without money how unimportant it is.
Just because a couple of lunatics couldn’t buy a seat in politics, doesn’t really speak to all the other seats that were purchased with the money and influence of the rich.
But that’s our democratic system, eh?
Report thisBy ardee, November 10, 2010 at 6:25 am Link to this comment
I admit to reading only part way through this apparent excuse for the excesses of election money buying votes. That the author emphasizes two really unsuitable candidates who lost, Whitman the viscious and Angle the moronic, really doesnt excuse the amounts of money poured into our election process.
That money keeps otherwise highly qualified candidates from running, that, thanks to the Supremes, we aren’t even allowed to know from where the money comes, that money helps keep party members in line and obeisant to the wishes of the national organizations which hold the purse strings, has no place within this article ( at least within the two pages I managed to read).
To what point does this author bend?
Report this