Skip to main content

Romney ad, with
Another Romney failure: Trying to make "OIW" into a catchphrase.
I culled the advertising spending in the battleground states, as compiled by the National Journal. I included the biggest spenders—the Obama campaign and Priorities USA for the Democrats, and the Romney campaign, Republican National Committee, the Romney Super PAC Restore our Future, Karl Rove's Crossroads, and the Koch Brothers' Americans for Prosperity.

Before we delve into some of the highlights, remember that spending and actual output were two different things. In fact, Republicans ended up paying up to five times the amount for the same ad that the Obama campaign was buying.

Thoughts and musings on these numbers, below the fold.

  • Florida, Ohio and Virginia all saw nine-figures in presidential advertising. Ohio came close to hitting $200 million. In all three states, Republicans significantly outspent Team Blue, all to no avail.
  • In fact, Republicans outspent Democrats in every state except for New Hampshire, where the good guys had a $100,000-edge. In all the battlegrounds combined, they outspent us by a crazy $115 million.
  • For all the talk about playing in Minnesota, those assholes lied. They didn't play in the state.
  • Ha ha ha! Look at Michigan! You can't say those idiots didn't try to make it competitive. But the Democrats didn't bite in a state that they won by 9.5 points.
  • Republicans doubled up Democrats in Wisconsin, which they then lost by by nearly seven points. The state was never close.
  • $900 million was spent in the battlegrounds. I couldn't readily find updated numbers on national ad spending, and there were smaller players here and there I didn't include in the totals, so the total number is closer to $1 billion.
  • This still cracks me up.
  • Republicans nearly doubled up Democratic spending in North Carolina, only to win the state by two points. Now some of you might think that Obama could've won it had he spent more money, but the numbers above (and in Senate races) show that all this money was absolutely wasted.
  • It makes me happy to think of all the conservative billionaires who pissed away hundreds of millions on this losing cause. It might be chump change for them, but they didn't become billionaires by pissing their money away.
  • Saying the money was wasted isn't the same as saying that it shouldn't have been spent. If one side has uncontested access to the airwaves, that side will win. However, as long as you can reasonably rebut the opposition, those ads just became an easy-to-ignore jumble of nastiness, and voters tune them out. And once they do that, you have to win on other grounds—your campaign's meta message, your ground game, and events that cut through the clutter like (as we learned this year) debates.
  • The proof for the above bullet point? The fact that the only thing that really moved the polling numbers were the conventions and the first three debates:

    Look at the Virginia trendlines, per HuffPost's polling aggregator:

    Virginia trendlines, Obama v Romney, showing Obama rise well before Hurricane Sandy.

Gazillions were being spent on television ads, but in the stretch run the numbers only budged after the first debate, when both Obama cratered and Romney consolidated his base, the vice-presidential debate, where Joe Biden stopped Obama's descent, and the second presidential debate, when the first-debate trends were reversed.

Heck, even the famed Obama statisticians were more concerned with their voter contacts and new voter registration numbers than whether this ad or that one was resonating with any target group.

There's no doubt that the Obama team was far smarter in how it spent its ad dollars than the other guys.

The [Obama] team’s calculations showed that it would get the most bang for its buck in some strange places: the Family Channel, the Food Network and the Hallmark Channel, among others. On broadcast TV, the campaign went for more daytime programs and late-night entertainment shows than Republican nominee Mitt Romney did.

The Obama team was on 60 channels during one week near the end of the campaign, compared with 18 for the Romney operation during the same period, according to cable advertising data.

In a close election, targeting (and winning) certain niche demographics could've very much made the difference. But on a macro level, it's clear that there were diminishing results with television advertising. DVRs and the ability to tune out attack ads will hopefully continue this trend. Elections shouldn't be decided by 30-second spots.

But in the short-term, that likely means even more advertising spending, even earlier in the cycle, as campaigns seek to squeeze out some advantage from what still remains the most glamorous (and lucrative, for consultants) of campaign activities.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  liberal & moderate voters tuned out the ads (18+ / 0-)

    We don't care what the Republicans claim. We know they are liars. We don't believe them.

    Republican ads failed because Republicans have no credibility.

    look for my eSci diary series Thursday evening.

    by FishOutofWater on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 06:20:10 AM PST

  •  Those state totals tell the story (11+ / 0-)

    The Obama team matched Romney in the close states they had to win.  Romney and Rove maxed out in lost-cause states like Michigan, and overspent to win NC.  Only Florida saw a big Romney advantage in a close state Obama won, and that's the one state where more Obama money might have been smart.

    I shudder to think what will happen in four years after the billionaires learn these lessons, but hope we'll do something to counter Citizens United during that time.  The ad buys in 2014 will be bad enough.

    Citizens United defeated by citizens, united.

    by Dallasdoc on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 06:21:05 AM PST

    •  You know there is now probably (8+ / 0-)

      a "K Street Campaign Lobbying Firm" that has set up shop to make sure those SuperPacs stay....  Paid for by the Media giants that like that extra money every 2 and 4 years....

      Our democracy..... Luckily is still in place.

      And I happen to think the people of Florida were pissed at the Voter ID laws they were implementing and fought back.

      -6.13 -4.4 Where are you? Take the Test!!!

      by MarciaJ720 on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 06:30:07 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  2 Years nt (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dallasdoc, Aunt Pat, Tamar, a gilas girl

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 06:30:49 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Both 2 and 4 years (15+ / 0-)

        Democrats need to learn the lesson of 2010 for the next midterm, and keep a good field operation in place.  OFA needs to transition into a permanent Democratic party infrastructure, one we haven't really had since Howard Dean was booted out of the party chairmanship.  This will require Obama to realize that he's the party's leader, not just the president, and make sure the party infrastructure is maintained.

        In 4 years we will very likely face a smarter and more capable Republican opposition, ready to spend their mountainous gobs of money more wisely.  We'll also have to defend a White House without an incumbent after two terms, which won't be easy.    The two elections pose different challenges, and we shouldn't rely on Republicans to be feckless and incompetent forever.

        Citizens United defeated by citizens, united.

        by Dallasdoc on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 06:35:44 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The unions are gearing up for 2014 now. We need (7+ / 0-)

          to support and grow them -- they're essential.
          Hearing about Hostess going under and taking 18,000 union jobs with them is very distressing. And of course, unions are being blamed for it (forget the puffed up salaries of incompetent executives).
          I will admit that I read an article that showed there were some arcane union practices that caused problems -- however, those were around the edges of the issue, not a central cause. Union pensions seemed to have been a big part of the financial problems -- but what do you do -- tell people who have worked all their lives with the promise of a decent retirement that for the good of the company and to keep executive salaries high they will need to sacrifice food and shelter in their golden years?

          We're not perfect, but they're nuts! -- Barney Frank

          by Tamar on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 06:52:51 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Selling horrible unhealthy products didn't help (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Rolfyboy6, a gilas girl, Tamar

            The baker of Twinkies and Ding Dongs didn't deserve to stay in business, if they didn't expand their line to include healthier products.  A badly run company shouldn't forever make its workers take the hit for incompetent management.  It's terrible that the workers are out of a job, but something tells me those factories will be back up and running before very long.

            I think it would be helpful if union shops were the rule rather than the exception.  Then bosses couldn't scapegoat the workers in rare union shops so easily, and might have to take responsibility for their own actions.

            Citizens United defeated by citizens, united.

            by Dallasdoc on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 06:57:48 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  People paid into pension -- by not taking (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Dallasdoc

            all the cash dollars they earned with work every week.  

            They thought they were doing what rMoney claimed to prize -- care for themselves.   If pension plans are not fully funded when that debt comes due --- it is a failure of MANAGEMENT to invest those funds wisely.

            A Canadian once scoffed at Florida Lotto 20 year payouts -- stating that all winners really got was the interest.  Bank saving account rates at that time were above 5 percent -- which over 20 years did pretty much double the principle.  So imagine if pension funds were banked in longer term & higher paid stuff like certificates of deposit, or bonds to fund city/state infrastructures which would also improve the company's ability to do business?    Pension plans should be flush.

            Some banks buy unpaid property tax debt --- which lets govt. have cash to function now.   These debts are auctioned off & go to "person" bidding the lowest interest rate --- which will be collected from whomever finally pays off the debt to own said property.    Over a decade ago when I was researching it --- rates were ranging from 12 to 18 percent.  If you can wait --- which banks and pension funds can --- it makes excellent sense & profit.   If no one "redeems" the debt --- they get the property.  All it takes is due diligence that  no other liens exist & that property exceeds value of your investment.    

            Bain et al got filthy rich stealing these huge pots of cash from people who earned it.  

            America is a co-op not a business.  We need to educate people to the difference.

            De fund + de bunk = de EXIT--->>>>>

            by Neon Mama on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 07:48:57 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  pensions vs retirement investing (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Neon Mama, Tamar

              iirc, tradeoffs are:
              pension was lower, but more reliable payout.
              401k, riskier, but higher payout if not unlucky

              -- the people are the leaders

              by in on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 08:29:24 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Social Security is MOST reliable. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Tamar, Dallasdoc

                That's why crooks hate it.  Moneychangers prefer to rob the rubes direct.  

                Pension not reliable if Mittsters can legally steal it.

                De fund + de bunk = de EXIT--->>>>>

                by Neon Mama on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 08:52:35 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  our financial advisor was all excited about (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Neon Mama

                  privatizing Social Security.
                  We aren't, exactly for the reason you say.
                  He knew he could make money off of all that money people put into Social Security. And while he's not evil or a thief, he is used to dealing with pretty wealthy people who aren't counting on Social Security for their old age. They'd rather gamble on getting a high rate of return in the stock market, and if it doesn't work out, they'll just rely on their other millions they have invested.
                  (we're not poor, but we're at the very low end of his clients in terms of income).
                  He just doesn't get that the security in Social Security needs to be preserved.
                  Our retirement is based on a combo of Social Security and money we've put away. Without Social Security, we would not have enough for a decent retirement even though we were scrupulous about putting money away and never spent beyond our means.
                  But for people like him, that doesn't make sense.

                  We're not perfect, but they're nuts! -- Barney Frank

                  by Tamar on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 09:35:49 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Yes. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Neon Mama

                  Teathugs haven't been able to bankrupt the government as easily as they bankrupt corporation, in order to renege on employment contracts.

            •  Have you seen the Rolling Jubilee -- the plan (0+ / 0-)

              (already has had some successes) of Occupy to buy up debt at pennies on the dollar, and as they say, poof, the debt is gone.
              Here's a column about it:
              http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

              and here's its website:
              http://strikedebt.org/

              We're not perfect, but they're nuts! -- Barney Frank

              by Tamar on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 09:31:08 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  "...forgive us our debts, as we forgive our (0+ / 0-)

                debtors...." gets repeated each sabbath by millions of people.  

                Too bad it is often a meaningless rote repetition rather than a "biblical family value" which we practice in THIS century.

                Rolling Jubilee is genius.  Side effect is calling the bluff of our era's cohort of publicly pious hypocrits.  

                 What if everyone who is pressured into xmas "gifts" in workplaces etc. ---->  gave that amount to Jubilee debt forgiveness instead.  

                Like when a family asks for a donation to charity instead of funeral flowers & such?   Maybe OWS could  offer a nice cheap recycled card printed by Mom & Pop shop with space to fill in blanks  ---- to notify the person who was supposed to be  "stuff gifted"  --- to let them know who gave debt forgiveness to others in their name.  

                Wonder how many would really be glad and give thanks because it IS the season of GIVING, not gorging.

                De fund + de bunk = de EXIT--->>>>>

                by Neon Mama on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 09:41:44 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  Also in 4 years (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Dallasdoc, Woody, IM

          we'll have a country that for better or for worse, will probably be looking for change at the top.  

          There's a reason why GW Bush 'won' in 2004.  There were enough people that wanted a change from the Clinton years.

          It will be very, very hard for us to win 2016 unless Obama just has an incredible 4 years.

        •  And deliver on their campaign promises (0+ / 0-)

          or show why they are not to blame for not delivering.
          One of Obama's worst mistakes was his modesty.
          In his first two years, he and Pelosi's House were quite successful, considering the explosive blivet they were left with. But The Whitehouse didn't trumpet their successes, they left the narrative up to other people (assuming that it was obvious). That allowed the extremists at both ends to define their accomplishments down. The GOP jumped right in, firing up the TeaBaggers with lie after lie, but on the left it was a little more subtle: every accomplishment was turned into a fail and if it was too positive to smear, the subject was immediately changed to some other fail of the Obama/Pelosi axis. No accounting for obstruction, no figuring in current situations and pre-existing conditions, just wall-to-wall FAIL.
          That self-fed, layered upon itself, until it was like a right-wing gallop, but from "True Progressives", bullsh!t coming so fast and thick there was no way to debunk it all and anyway, it didn't matter, the trolls wouldn't stay debunked, just come right back with the same lies and distortions.
          The overall effect was to depress Obama voters, young voters in particular, give them the feeling that their vote had been wasted, it wasn't worth bothering with electoral politics and they went snowboarding instead of voting in 2010.
          And you know how that turned out.
          This time Obama needs to brag more. He's doing great things, he needs to make sure people know it.

          If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

          by CwV on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 06:59:56 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Uhm, true progressives were right (4+ / 0-)

            Obama's triangulation, deficit wankery and endless compromising with an intransigent opposition coincided with the 2010 debacle.  Only when he decided he'd better sound like a true progressive did he regain his mojo and win re-election.  

            Same with Romney.  He jumped in the polls when he pulled out that Etch-a-Sketch and tried to sound moderate instead of like a Bircher.  

            People want more leftist policies.  And they want to hear their politicians sound like they're going to deliver them.  Let's hope Obama remembers that lesson.

            Citizens United defeated by citizens, united.

            by Dallasdoc on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 07:03:49 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yes, people want more Progressive policies (0+ / 0-)

              but most people realize that incremental action is the only way things get done, that nothing happens 100%, overnight. The extremists threw tantrums because they didn't get the full sparkly pony right away. It hurt the Progressive community quite a bit with the Administration, they proved themselves to be untrustworthy, bad partners in coalition, they abdicated and so made themselves irrelevant.
              The most blatant example of this was Jane Hamsher teaming up with Grover Norquist to kill Public Option as it was being fought for in the House. The Progressive Caucus put out a call to the Progressive community for backup, to counter the noise being made by the TeaBaggers, to bulk up their push for at least some form of public system.
              Crickets. Whimpering. Faint whining.
              Hamsher commanded a large following of activists who, basically de-activated. Norquist got what he wanted: No public option, what did Progressives get?
              Bupkis.

              If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

              by CwV on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 09:37:44 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  He's using OFA to lay the groundwork (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          zizi

          for his second term agenda.  Labor's also on it.  If the progressive blogosphere followed this lead OFA could be freed to work in 2014 & 2016.  

          The questions to ask are these:  are we the change we've been wishing for, and will Congressional Dems rally and support the second term agenda?  If not, OFA will probably continue as a community organizing program that changes local and state governments to the Blue side and plays the long game for change at national levels.  

          Obama doesn't really owe us anything after 2010.  We could have reduced the # of Tea Party wins by organizing.  Many Progressives chose disappointment and apathy and some chose punishing Democrats.

          Elections have consequences.  I think Obama was counting on Progressives to understand what governing entails, and to help educate a propaganda ridden electorate.  IIRC we spent most of our energy being angry that the impossible didn't miraculously become possible.  I'm waiting to see if that changes this time around.

          I'm not looking for a love that will lift me up and carry me away. A love that will stroll alongside and make a few amusing comments will suffice.

          by I love OCD on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 07:12:52 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  it's not their money (0+ / 0-)

          Republican opposition, ready to spend their mountainous gobs of money more wisely.
          they're spending our money

          We'll also have to defend a White House without an incumbent after two terms, which won't be easy.
          a good reason to choose a young (enough) VP.

          -- the people are the leaders

          by in on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 07:45:50 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  They don't want to learn the lessons, because (7+ / 0-)

      they all involve doing something harder than writing a check.  GOTV was really important, but how do you turn people on to the message of "those guys at the top really need lower taxes and less regulation"?  People volunteered for Obama and the Dems because they could relate to the message - vote for these people who want to do these things that are going to make your life better.  

      As for the impact of advertising, repubs couldn't fight back against many of the negatives because they were backed up by facts, not innuendo.  Romney really was a job-killing dick; all those anti-choicers really were extremists who think rape isn't a big deal.  If they want to win the air wars, they need to have a decent "product" to promote.

      •  I suspect they will (7+ / 0-)

        If there's one thing Republicans are usually good at, it's coming up with shiny new lines of bullshit to sell.  They haven't done it in recent years because they've been hypnotized by their fondness for the Fox bubble, but I don't think they'll make that mistake again.

        Democrats have to be aggressive in pushing progressive solutions to problems, and find ways to roll over House Republican obstructionism.  We'll need real accomplishments to point to, and will need to be in a good position to take credit for the economic expansion that will take place in the next four years.

        Citizens United defeated by citizens, united.

        by Dallasdoc on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 06:39:50 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  OFA's ground game was massive here. (10+ / 0-)
      [FL] the one state where more Obama money might have been smart.
      They figured it pretty much correctly and OFA worked their asses off. Sickeningly, though, my county (Brevard) turned redder. Lots of govt suppliers here.

      I ♥ President Obama. ~ Yes, we did. Again.
      NOW: Hands off SocSec, Medicare and Medicaid. NO Grand Bargain.
      Rich pay a bit more. DoD take a bit less. End war on Afghanistan sooner.

      by OleHippieChick on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 06:38:29 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  and they were fighting a battle against the (9+ / 0-)

        horrible voter registration and voting restrictions imposed by Republicans in Florida.
        They were very clever getting around the early voting cuts -- using the "in person absentee" method. But voters still had those absurdly and criminally long waits to vote.
        And registration went way down (and never quite caught up) when good government groups like the League of Women Voters dropped out of the voter registration efforts because of the ridiculous requirements and punishments in the law passed by an anti-democratic (yes, small d) governor and legislature.

        We're not perfect, but they're nuts! -- Barney Frank

        by Tamar on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 06:56:31 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Exactly. And OFA took up the registration slack, (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Tamar

          despite Gov Thief's increased (ridiculous time frame) restrictions. Koch-ALEC puppet Govs must go.

          I ♥ President Obama. ~ Yes, we did. Again.
          NOW: Hands off SocSec, Medicare and Medicaid. NO Grand Bargain.
          Rich pay a bit more. DoD take a bit less. End war on Afghanistan sooner.

          by OleHippieChick on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 07:46:38 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Yay...so all those weekends spent (21+ / 0-)

    calling voters in Florida paid off!

    "one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress" -- John Adams

    by blue armadillo on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 06:21:32 AM PST

    •  To clarify - we were grassroots teams in TX (18+ / 0-)

      broke our hearts to spend our energy out of state but we knew the stratgy, and the OFA organizers told us the plan was to win the ground game.

      Good plan. Well organized. Proud to have been a part of it.

      And...happy to see the GOP could not buy this election!

      "one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress" -- John Adams

      by blue armadillo on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 06:23:20 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Woulda been nice to get NC...but FLA hurts just (8+ / 0-)

      as bad.....;-)

      •  There were grassroots teams (9+ / 0-)

        in deeply red states that spent their energy phonebanking into all of the swing states. I worked on the ground in VA too, albeit briefly, and the organization at the ground level was truly impressive. OFA knew what it was doing...much lower key than in 08 but coldly effiecient in other ways....almost Republican in efficiency! LOL but on the correct side of course! :-)

        I really do love that we were able to do so much with so much less money!

        Next cycle...turning Texas blue (or...at least more purple in 2014!)

        "one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress" -- John Adams

        by blue armadillo on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 06:35:45 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  my husband made calls to Ohio & VA, since we live (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Rolfyboy6, blue armadillo

          in Blue Maryland (well, the densely populated parts of the state are blue, enough to give Obama and our Democratic Congresspersons big wins).
          We volunteered in VA on the morning of the election day, knocking on doors of Democratic and lean Democratic voters to remind them to vote and give them info if they needed it. This was in Arlington, VA and they had teams going in the morning and then going back to the same locations in the afternoon! Amazing organization!
          It was also uplifting since it's a very young and ethnically diverse area, full of Obama supporters. OFA told my husband that in 2008 (I think it was, not 2010) they got 80% turnout in that area! And of course, the higher the turnout in Northern Virginia, particularly areas like that, the higher the likelihood of Democrats doing well in Virginia since that part of Virginia is where most of the Democrats are.

          We're not perfect, but they're nuts! -- Barney Frank

          by Tamar on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 07:02:06 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I was canvassing in the Mount Vernon area (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            llywrch, Tamar

            the day before the election...the organization was being run out of a supporter's garage and the set up was very smooth and well run. And yes, the number of volunteers covering the area was IMPRESSIVE to say the least...we knocked on doors of people that had been contacted before to remind them of the election the next day and I know there were plans to have canvassers out on election day to make sure they GOT OUT TO THE POLLS!!!!

            I saw lots of MD teams heading into NoVa for this effort. I had originally intended to go further into VA to the Hampton Roads area to canvass but just couldn't arrange to get down there. The poor organizer in Newport News was on the phone saying "Northern VA is getting ALL the volunteers!!"  LOL...but I know it was just more accessible for folks to cross over for some daytime canvassing and get back home to MD.

            It was great...a real step up from the already impressive work of OFA in 08.

            I don't think the Dems give Howard Dean enough (ANY!) credit for building the original model with DFA and really pushing the grassroots 50-state strategy. With trained volunteers in every state, they can be, like a good army, deployed anywhere...and still be ready to work at home at any time.

            We need to keep this and nurture it for the next cycle.

            "one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress" -- John Adams

            by blue armadillo on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 08:43:27 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I give Dean credit. I wasn't a Deaniac, but I've (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              blue armadillo

              always liked him and thought his 50-state strategy was the reason we got Obama elected in the first place.
              And you're right -- we took the Metro into Northern Virginia, spent a few hours there, returned our materials, and took the Metro back. We could do that even though we had our 12-year-old with us (no school). We couldn't have gone farther away without trying her patience and ours beyond anyone's tolerance! (she's not a naturally political person. Although when her Hebrew School teacher asked the class the meaning of God sending a rainbow after the flood -- our clever daughter said "it meant that God thinks gay marriage should be legal everywhere." Needless to say, I was a proud mother!).

              We're not perfect, but they're nuts! -- Barney Frank

              by Tamar on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 09:41:38 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  Florida hurts more for GOP: 29 lost EVs v. NC's 15 (0+ / 0-)

        And a more restrictive registration and tricky Rick Scott. There was no path to the Presidency w/o Fla and Ohio.

    •  Grassroots is were the real power is (8+ / 0-)

      Media buys have diminishing returns. Being able to have your message directly communicated to voters and the ability to turn out the vote has the potential for much more influence.

    •  OFA volunteers in all state won this election (10+ / 0-)

      30k of us, working as hard as we could to push it over the edge.

      Little did we know that we didn't just push it over the edge, we threw it over the cliff and then dropped industrial grade semtex over the cliff with it and then blew the side off bullsh*t mountain.

      --Enlighten the people, generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like spirits at the dawn of day. - Thomas Jefferson--

      by idbecrazyif on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 06:39:19 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Just because "money is speech" doesn't guaranty (8+ / 0-)

    that anybody will be Listening to It.

    Notice: This Comment © 2012 ROGNM

    by ROGNM on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 06:24:16 AM PST

    •  I've been so torn over this. (8+ / 0-)

      On the one hand: We won, corporations lost.
      On the other hand: it completely validates Scalia's rationale for his decision, as he stated that the reasoning behind his decision was that the American voter was too bright to be taken in by ad inundation.

      Is this just math that you do as a Republican to make yourself feel better?

      by ConfusedSkyes on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 06:38:10 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I feel the same way and worry that money will make (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ConfusedSkyes, DianeNYS

        a difference when the Republicans get smarter about how to use it. But now the 5 conservajudges on the Supreme Court can point to this election and say "I told you so." It's not true, but it looks true, which is enough for Republicans. Colbert's truthiness comes to mind.

        We're not perfect, but they're nuts! -- Barney Frank

        by Tamar on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 07:04:07 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  So how to use the money smarter? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Tamar

          I think all of us would agree that the Romney camp threw advertising at the swing states in a way that mirrors how Generals threw foot soldiers into combatin WW I almost 100 years ago, & with about the same level of success.

          Political advertising works in limited doses, & I bet the advertising folks have done enough studies to know what size those doses should be. If not, then I bet they will be doing those studies in the next 6 to 12 months.

          So where else should campaign dollars be thrown, legally? Organizing? (Romney paid his staffers twice as much as Obama did: mercinaries will always cost more than motivated troops.) Improving the computer infrastructure of the campaign? (Unless things have changed over the last 15 years, 2/3s of all major software projects fail: that the computers systems for Obama worked as well as they did this election is a big achievement, which the GOP may not reproduce even by the 2020 election.)

          Okay, I don't really have a point here; just thinking out loud. But it seems to me that if you has a lot of cash on hand to run an election, & you can't spend it in legal ways to win, then it will be hard to resist the temptation to spend the cash in illicit ways to achieve victory.

          •  good point. Never thought about it that way. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            llywrch

            But also, spending to get local and way-down ballot candidates (legislators and judges and school board members) elected is probably going to be an even bigger target than it has been already. And that's yielded the Republican fairly big dividends on "business-friendly" legislation, on voter & registration suppression, on union-busting, and on making local government decisions opaque.

            We're not perfect, but they're nuts! -- Barney Frank

            by Tamar on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 09:45:01 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Scalia (0+ / 0-)

        validates Scalia's rationale for his decision, as he stated that the reasoning behind his decision was that the American voter was too bright to be taken in by ad inundation.
        Same rationale: "Hitler and Third Reich were Kool, because the Allies eventually won WW2"

        -- the people are the leaders

        by in on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 10:33:33 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Mitt Romney.........one awful politician. (7+ / 0-)
  •  Better everything really (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    koosah, lineatus, Aunt Pat

    From our GOTV efforts, to our messaging, we just had them on the ropes the entire time.

    And of course it doesn't help that when you nominate an insufferable assh*le, that you will find that assh*le hard to elect.

    What I find amusing is how many in the GOP are doubling down on being an assh*le despite the majority of the nation rejecting their assh*le nature.

    Reminds me of this clip

    --Enlighten the people, generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like spirits at the dawn of day. - Thomas Jefferson--

    by idbecrazyif on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 06:24:56 AM PST

  •  Oh my...Cherry picking season already? (0+ / 0-)

    Hmmm....

    A campaign + 5 PACS outspends

    A campaign + 1 PAC ?

    Yeah, sure. I can see that.

    How much did the campaigns spend?

    Contributors outside your "top" spenders?

    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

    by dinotrac on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 06:25:12 AM PST

    •  Except (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ConfusedSkyes, llywrch

      There weren't any limits on contributions to the outside groups, either by source or amount, so that we had one to their five didn't reflect greater fundraising ability on their part, but rather that Rove, Americans for Prosperity, and the RNC each wanted to do its own thing.

    •  Follow the links (0+ / 0-)

      and see for yourself. That's why links are included! Amazing how that works, huh?

      So if you're going to charge cherry-picking, you best prove it.

      And good luck with that, because you're wrong.

      As for how much did the two campaigns spend, it's in the chart. You know, the row that says "totals".

      •  I decided to do a spot check (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Smoh

        followed the link, and clicked on Ohio.

        The other spenders in the state:

        BLUE:
        Planned Parenthood: 2.2

        RED:
        American Future Fund: 0.9
        Americans for Job Security: 2.4

        Those are it. No one else spent on the presidential. So had I had the space to include them, the GOP spending disparity would've been even bigger.

        Let's do Florida.

        BLUE:
        Planned Parenthood: 0.4

        RED:
        American Future Fund: 0.8
        Americans for Job Security: 2.3

        An even bigger disparity.

        New Hampshire?

        BLUE:
        Planned Parenthood: 50K

        RED:
        Concerned Women for America: 0.8

        It's clear you think there's some big trove of Democratic Super PAC funding out there engaged in the presidential race, but there wasn't.

  •  I think they are still in "Reagan" mode, believing (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    koosah, Aunt Pat, Neon Mama

    that one superstar candidate can cut through the noise and get the message delivered.

    •  Romney a Superstar Candidate? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      llywrch

      Or are you referring to the Republicans still wishing they had Reagan.... Though Reagan is way too the Left for these bozos, heck, Obama is to the Right of Reagan.

      -6.13 -4.4 Where are you? Take the Test!!!

      by MarciaJ720 on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 06:32:54 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Romney is probably as 'Superstar" of a (0+ / 0-)

        candidate as the Republican party is going to get.

        •  If Willard is a GOP Superstar, that ain't saying (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          llywrch

          much. I think someone who had the exact same record as WM Romney probably would not have been such a colossal fuck-up and actually made this a real race. This was an artificially close race. That being said, no such GOP candidate exists in real life. They all suck which is why WMR won their nomination. And I don't think 2016 is much better: Jindal, Barber, McDonnell, Huckabee, Palin, Allan West, Thune, or Generic Republican TM are all terrible.

          The fact is 2016 is not so far off. Right now, I'm liking Martin O'Malley. He has executive experience as mayor and governor. He is good looking and articulate and was an excellent surrogate for the campaign. If Hillary Clinton does not run, and she has said she wouldn't, watch O'Malley.

          •  So soon we forget Big Bird's service? (0+ / 0-)

            Jindal
            has already looked stupid in public, but voters forget quickly.

            Barber
            zzz

            McDonnell
            who? (so, yes)

            Huckabee
            overripe

            Palin
            Mitt Romney fail, the wackier prequel.

            Allan West
            i don't think voters will forget (since they will be reminded) that he's a literally raving loony.

            Thune
            yes

            Generic Republican TM
            (besides Barber, McDonnell and Thune)
            yes

            -- the people are the leaders

            by in on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 10:41:37 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  "like Reagan" was Romney's tacit pitch (0+ / 0-)

        early on.  Nice suits, nice hair, talks tough about some or other.

  •  I thought (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    koosah, MarciaJ720, elmo, OleHippieChick, IM

    republicans were better at managing money.  :-)

    The Dem ground game really improved.  04 was long ago now but the Rove ground game really pissed me off.  Nice to be on the winning side now.

  •  Rachel Maddow did a wonderful (11+ / 0-)

    piece on her show a few weeks back about how much it costs to run ads for say, Obama and Romney directly and the SuperPacs.

    Apparently, there is some election laws that say that the TV Stations must give the actual candidates their LOWEST rates while the SuperPacs can be charged their highest if they want to, which with all this money, you know the TV Stations were LOVING the extra income (that part we can thank Rove, the Koch brothers, Adelson, et al).

    So, while Obama had many people contribute smaller amounts, he got a much, much bigger BANG for his dollar with direct ads versus the SuperPac Priorities, USA.

    BTW, I noticed you did not include the DNC in your numbers.  Were they insignificant?

    -6.13 -4.4 Where are you? Take the Test!!!

    by MarciaJ720 on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 06:26:37 AM PST

  •  Some overspending by R's was to buy favorable (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    koosah, Gooserock, CwV, MKinTN

    coverage, I'm sure.  If you're a station owner (or a network) and one guy is spending twice as much on ads, you're not going to be too harsh in your stories or editorials.

  •  DNC spending? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ConfusedSkyes, dougymi, OleHippieChick, IM

    I notice that Kos included Obama campaign and Priorities USA for team Blue, and included Romney campaign and various super pacs for team red, along with RNC. But no DNC spending is listed?

  •  Kos, you are such a numbers wonk...... n/t (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    idbecrazyif, llywrch

    If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. John F. Kennedy ( inaugural address, January 20, 1961)

    by Outraged Mom on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 06:28:20 AM PST

  •  Republicans cleaned our clock in North Carolina. (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    koosah, idbecrazyif, Aunt Pat, duha, Woody, Odysseus

    That's a sign. While we certainly have a great long term trend in our favor because of demographics, lets not forget that white people were still 72% of the electorate.

    If we really want to break the back of the GOP, we need to do better with white guys in the South.

  •  A history of being right also counts (4+ / 0-)
    DVRs and the ability to tune out attack ads will hopefully continue this trend.
    Yep, and the rise of objective analysis with a track record of being right, like that done by Nate Silver, will hurt partisan media from being able to set the narrative.

    It use to be that playing it safe by calling it a close race in the face of evidence to the contrary carried little cost. But now the pundits that avoided the facts are being ridiculed. "It's a tie" has become a meme. While there will always be spin in politics, that spin will have to move more towards the interpretation of the facts, rather than the facts themselves.

  •  Not Enough Schaudenfraude In the Universe (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    idbecrazyif

    Thank you sir, may I have another?

    HAHAHA!

    This post is dedicated to myself, without whom, I'd be somebody else. Though I'd still be an asshole. My Music: [http://www.myspace.com/beetwasher]

    by Beetwasher on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 06:31:07 AM PST

  •  Did he actually try to make "OIW" a catchphrase? (0+ / 0-)
    •  Yep. While he joked that he was unemployed. (0+ / 0-)

      While he lied claiming business acumen when his skill is robbing both private enterprises and dumping their debts on we taxpayers.    

      He earned Nobel Prize level award --- in finding, creating, and exploiting every loophole & weakness in both govt. & business.

      He should write a book titled how to steal money from everybody and avoid paying for being a shameless bully.

      De fund + de bunk = de EXIT--->>>>>

      by Neon Mama on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 08:07:34 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Question RE: NH (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Caoimhin Laochdha

    Did the source (or this analysis) take into account ad buys in MA at all? A significant chunk of southern NH is actually in the Boston/Northern MA media market (gets MA channels on their cable and satellite packages; picks up MA radio stations, subscribes to Boston Globe or Herald, etc.) and I'm pretty sure some of the ad buys in MA---if any---were aimed at this border area.

    It's considerably more expensive to buy airtime on WBZ (Boston station with biggest reach in New England) or Boston TV stations than it is to buy time on WMUR in Manchester or WHEB in Portsmouth. But since the Romney folks were based in Boston and considered NH and MA "home" did they focus ad buys in both places? MA was never in play, but I'm sure they thought NH was a near lock for a pick-up and they'd want to get all the eyeballs they could -- including those folks in the Seacoast or Nashua areas (de facto commuter suburbs of Metro Boston & North Shore MA) who watch MA TV and listen to MA radio.

    "When did it fall apart? Sometime in the '80s / When the great and the good gave way to the greedy and the mean." - Billy Bragg

    by Vacationland on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 06:32:25 AM PST

    •  same w/Vermont (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Woody, Vacationland

      Vermont media outlets saw huge ad buys that were aimed at upstate NY (congressional races) and the presidential race (congressional too) in New Hampshire.

      sláinte,

      cl

      Religion is like sodomy: both can be harmless when practiced between consenting adults but neither should be imposed upon children.

      by Caoimhin Laochdha on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 06:54:41 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  There is no NH media market (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Vacationland

      so NH spending was spending made in Vermont and Boston.

      Same as Minnesota. There was some much-heralded buys in Minneapolis the last week of the race, supposedly an "expansion" of the campaign. In reality, that market reached into western Wisconsin (and bleed into northern Iowa, as well). So it was categorized as a Wisconsin buy.

      •  Thanks for the explanation (0+ / 0-)

        Even before the advent of the web, NH never did have much home-grown media and the reach of the Boston market is pretty big (we got Boston media in Southern Maine growing up). Manchester with its one piddly commercial station and Right Wing mouthpiece newspaper never felt as influential.

        The situation with WI/MN seemed very familiar to me; I never bought that "expansion" argument. Good to see that confirmed!

        "When did it fall apart? Sometime in the '80s / When the great and the good gave way to the greedy and the mean." - Billy Bragg

        by Vacationland on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 10:57:29 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  i see where after (4+ / 0-)

    luke russert insulted nancy pelosi msnbc gave him a gig hosting the daily rundown, women have to prove themselves every minute to get a gig, russert proves he is insensitive and he gets an atta boy, glass ceiling is there for women as usual and men belong to the good ole boys club, things haven't changed in corporate america but the voters will force change for the better in all of society.

    •  Yes, rewarding bad behavior by the legacy child (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      koosah, PC, MJB, Neon Mama

      that they really don't think IS bad behavior. Disappointing, MSNBC.

      I ♥ President Obama. ~ Yes, we did. Again.
      NOW: Hands off SocSec, Medicare and Medicaid. NO Grand Bargain.
      Rich pay a bit more. DoD take a bit less. End war on Afghanistan sooner.

      by OleHippieChick on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 06:51:09 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Russert asked Pelosi a pointed question in an (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PC, llywrch

      insulting way.  Pelosi's response was just as pointed and supremely dignified.  

      Compare that to McCain's now-infamous response to a relevant question about why he didn't attend a classified debriefing about Benghazi, his current pet topic:  

      “I have no comment about my schedule and I’m not going to comment on how I spend my time to the media,” McCain said.

      Asked why he wouldn’t comment, McCain grew agitated: “Because I have the right as a senator to have no comment and who the hell are you to tell me I can or not?”

      This follows on the heels of McCain telling another reporter that his question about the Petraeus scandal was " one of the dumbest questions I've ever heard."    

      Metaphors be with you.

      by koosah on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 07:10:28 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  generally speaking (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        koosah, llywrch

        the dems always show respect to others no matter the situation, compare that to the gop and some of their aggressive responses by even so called even tempered members, the contrast is striking but the msm and some in the public can't differentiate between the two, why i have no idea, its puzzling to say the least.

  •  what this chart shows me is that (6+ / 0-)

    they knew they were lying when they were telling donors that they had it locked up and were "expanding their map".

    They can try to claim they weren't lying. That they were working with the data and polling they had. But their spending tells a completely different story.

    For the record, I am not a member of Courtesy Kos. Just so you know. Don't be stupid. It's election season. My patience is short.

    by mdmslle on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 06:34:11 AM PST

  •  I just love the fact that the SuperPacs had to (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OleHippieChick, Neon Mama

    spend up to 5 bucks to match every dollar that I donated to the Obama Campaign.

    Btw, it's nice to see you writing lots of high quality diaries again.

    "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

    by Lawrence on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 06:35:06 AM PST

  •  I have never been convinced by the meme that (0+ / 0-)
    Joe Biden stopped Obama's descent
    Biden did a good job, but I think it was  Ryan who single handedly stopped the descent.

    As my father used to say,"We have the best government money can buy."

    by BPARTR on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 06:36:51 AM PST

    •  'bounce' from debate #1 was finished. (0+ / 0-)

      -- the people are the leaders

      by in on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 10:58:07 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The charts (0+ / 0-)

        show otherwise. The trendlines are affected a couple of days after the debate, as the polling starts to reflect post-debate samples. Not just the Virginia chart I posted above, but several others I've included in past posts.

        •  I guess I didn't make myself clear (0+ / 0-)

          What I meant was that Biden's performance in the VP debate was excellent, but Ryan's lyin' was what I think changed the direction of the charts.  I think we agree that the VP debate was important- just whether Biden's performance or the fact that the media actually caught Ryan lying made the most difference.

          I agree that the Romney bump post debate 1 was already petering out.

          My take is that the loud backlash in the immediate post-debate period also resulted in the Romney campaign more or less keeping Ryan under wraps for the rest of the campaign.

          Anyway I'm thrilled to have a response from KOS himself!

          thank you.

          As my father used to say,"We have the best government money can buy."

          by BPARTR on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 06:34:42 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Better business people at Obama/Biden (12+ / 0-)

    Advetising Age:

    Bargain buying

    The Obama campaign was frank about expecting to be outspent in the fall. However, as the incumbent, and for lack of a primary challenger, it also had the luxury of time to plan for being outspent. That plan included 1) advertising heavily early in the race in order to define Romney before he defined himself, before the airwaves became saturated in the fall, and before ad rates really soared; and 2) laying down orders early. Not all of their early orders cleared at the original prices, but many did.

    Once Labor Day passed and stations were required to charge candidates lower rates to advertise, Obama's dollars stretched further compared not only with the Republican outside groups that paid premium rates, but also -- somewhat surprisingly -- to the Romney campaign, which chose to retain more flexibility in what they bought and more certainty in what they paid in exchange for skipping opportunities to pay less.[...]

    Obama's campaign ultimately won the air war by making the very most of its resources and deploying all the weapons in the advertising arsenal: timing, tiered rates and rates reserved for candidates, programming platforms, and the ad content itself. They short-circuited the party advertising apparatus to bring more ad dollars under their direct control; leveraged advances in local cable ad sales to balance out their cable advertising and played local and national against each other to get better rates; and for content, relied heavily on attacks designed for maximum impact on their desired targets.

    http://adage.com/...

    The choice of our lifetime: Mitt Romney, It Takes A Pillage or President Barack Obama, Forward Together.

    by FiredUpInCA on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 06:37:01 AM PST

  •  Emphasis on "Lucrative." Consultants make money (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MJB, Odysseus, DianeNYS, Neon Mama, llywrch

    by placing ads - they get commissioned on each buy.  The ads don't have to be placed smartly or effectively.  That's why Romney's people just threw money at TV, without regard to cost and placement.  With a fair amount of brainwork and planning, they could have spent less money to get the same (pathetic) result, but it would not have lined their pockets as well.  

  •  Also of note, Romney did better in battleground (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    koosah, MJB, Woody

    ...states than McCain did in 2008, and also beat Bush in 2004 among most of them, the lone exceptions being Ohio and Pennsylvania.

    Republicans didn't have a base problem.  Romney got 59% of white voters, more than McCain or Bush. What he didn't get was non-white voters.

  •  One cautionary note (5+ / 0-)

    I do fear that this money might move to down ballet races where it will have a much greater effect. We've already seen the influence being able to control school boards, judges and redistricting can have.

    •  It will be harder to trace down-ballot, too. (0+ / 0-)

      National and statewide elections get a lot of attention and donors, to some extent, enjoy taking some credit for their actions and enjoy the notion that they are "players" influencing the election.  At the level of municipal council seat or county commissioner, though, it becomes much more difficult to uncover the source of outside dollars and the real intentions of those donors.  

      Metaphors be with you.

      by koosah on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 06:50:51 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Romney's no businessman; not even a good manager. (3+ / 0-)

    He was born rich and used his connections to raise money for his little leveraged buyout schemes. But, that doesn't mean he has the skills to actually run a real business.

    I would be interesting to imagine what would have happened if Romney had been born into a family of modest means. In Obama's case, he rose from humble beginnings to become a law professor, best selling author, State Senator, US Senator, and President of the United States. If Romney had the same start, I doubt he'd have what it takes to run a burger shack, much less to become a multi-gazillionaire.

    Just doing my part to piss off right wing nuts, one smart ass comment at a time.

    by tekno2600 on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 06:39:32 AM PST

  •  That's republicans for you (0+ / 0-)

                        The (DON'T) TAX and SPEND party.

  •  The thing that worries me is that you would think (0+ / 0-)

    that making legal challenges to the price breaks given to public campaign buys versus superpacs and other private advocacy entities would be next on the list for conservatives.  And I can't imagine this Supreme Court upholding the idea that the campaigns should be given preferential financial treatment.  

  •  All of this stuff (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OleHippieChick

    is fancinating.

    And it really proves that our guys were so much smarter than their guys.

    I spent a lot of the election thinking that the Romney campaign couldn't possibly be as stupid as they appeared.  That they had to know something that I didn't know.

    Turns out they WERE just that stupid.

  •  The GOP is so inept that these (0+ / 0-)

    elections are not even close. We should spot them 2% in the next election just to make it less boring of a race.

  •  20th Century ROI concept in the 21st Century /nt (0+ / 0-)

    yksitoista ulotteinen presidentin shakki. / tappaa kaikki natsit "Nous sommes un groupuscule" (-9.50; -7.03) 政治委员, 政委‽ Warning - some snark above ‽

    by annieli on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 06:56:17 AM PST

  •  Targeted Economic Stimulus (0+ / 0-)

    Ironic. Republicans proceed with a strategy that stimulates the local economy with a billion bucks in exactly the markets where they most need to convince people that the the economy is doing badly.  

  •  WHERE'S THE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, MITT? n/t (0+ / 0-)
  •  Excellent work! (0+ / 0-)

    Mitt,

    You had all the money, power and privilege.

    Now you've managed to use it to make an ass of yourself on the national stage.

  •  Play Honest (0+ / 0-)

    Comparing the top 5 spenders on the GOP side to the top 2 on the dem side may well tell only a more dramatic story than finding the top 5 dem spenders but isn't really playing honest. If you include the RNC but not the DNC, Koch but not MoveOn, Rove but not SEIU/AFL-CIO, you might want to think about starting your own media bubble place. or maybe you already have.
    ;)

  •  Limiting Itemized Tax Deductions is a Ruse!!! (0+ / 0-)

    To allow the tax debate to be dictated by the losers tax plan (Mitt Romney's) the republicans are going to get their way and act as if they are creating a more fair taxing of the rich by saying (Eliminate the loopholes and limit the itemized tax deductions of the WEALTHY and broaden the tax base) = A ruse to not raise the marginal tax rate on people making $250,000 or more. And i'm afraid that Obama and the democrats we just elected have tried to open that door to try and look bipartisan.
       This is a serious mistake limiting tax deductions and broadening the tax base = GETTING MORE TAX REVENUE FROM THE MIDDLE CLASS. They throw in the word WEALTHY to complete the ruse.
       I f they don't do what we voted for ( Raise the marginal tax rate on $250,000 or more, make carried interest or capital gains to be taxed as regular income and take the cap off of Social Security to make it solvent for forever) The people we have just contributed to with money we don't have, canvassed for on time we could have  used for ourselves and voted for to win office. Will have effectively used us!!!!!!MARK MY WORDS!!!

  •  I love it that they wasted so much money! (0+ / 0-)

    I hope at least a few of the disdained 47% grabbed a few of those dollars; at least that heroic waiter!

  •  Similar to $713 Billion in Medicare "cuts" (0+ / 0-)

    So Republicans vastly overpaid for ineffective advertising that Democrats got for much less money.  The TV station owners made a profit at the price-point they charged the Democrats; the same TV station owners made obscene profits at the price-points they charged the Republicans.

    This is the same thing addressed by the so-called $713 Billion in Medicare "cuts" -- the "cuts" are mainly to the obscene profits being reaped by medical providers and insurers.

  •  Is the Red/Blue Comparison apples to apples? (0+ / 0-)

    From what I can see, the National Journal data on which this analysis is based does not differentiate between spending against the President and spending against Senate candidates. In states like VA & OH, the RW SuperPacs and 501(c)4s directed a lot of money towards defeating Kaine and Brown. Fortunately, they failed in this effort as well, so the general point about futile spending is not invalidated. However, to keep the analysis clean we should be adding the Democratic Senate candidates spending to the Blue side of the ledger, shouldn't we?

  •  Community Trumps Money (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    llywrch

    Let me repeat, for those that missed it the first few times, once the community has decided on a person or issue, no amount of money can change that. Citizens United was our opportunity to bankrupt these people. We just need to get them to spend billions like this.

    The Republicans are now crying for campaign finance reform and getting money out of politics.

    Well, no, they're not. They're not that smart. But they ought to be. Unlimited money hurt the Romney campaign and reinforced his loss.

    We need to continue to build the liberal American community and bring as many into the fold as possible. The Internet provides the means to have a truly national community. That's our key to victory, and we can use it to bleed the billionaires until they fade away.

  •  How much of that (0+ / 0-)

    GOP over and outspending is because of deliberate tactics by Dems to force them into that position (i.e. NC)??

    [Question inspired by comment up thread from Dallasdoc]

    Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

    by a gilas girl on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 07:30:59 AM PST

  •   (0+ / 0-)

    can elect to pay more in order to prevent their ads from getting preempted by other commercials
    locking out the locals is rough on local small businesses (but they're just the 47%).

    a counter-incentive to 501(c)(4)'s
    (the outside groups pay higher rates than campaigns do, so they get less bang for the buck).

    -- the people are the leaders

    by in on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 07:31:14 AM PST

  •  To me it was like the nuclear arms race... (0+ / 0-)

    remember the nuclear arms race in the 80s? How much fun it was to hear the USA had enough nukes to blow up the Earth X times but the Soviets had enough nukes to blow up the Earth X + Y times and we had to close that gap and who cares if you only really need enough nukes to blow up the world once before it all becomes more or less moot and who cares if it inspired other, smaller, perhaps more roguish nations, to work to get their own nukes? And after a while, you either shut it out as background noise or for a few people it kinda drove them batpoop crazy?

    To me the spending in this election was like that. You got their points after a while, and eventually it became noise you either shut down or (clearly based on some people's reactions to the election outcome) it drove you batpoop crazy.

    But also let's not kid ourselves, the left was "lucky" that Obama was the candidate (and here I'll pause so those who deservedly dislike Obama for his attitudes towards drone strikes, preventive detention and not holding financial "whizzes" accountable for the crash, among other equally valid reasons). He was still popular despite the nation almost cleaving in twain, the economy barely inching upward, unemployment still high and so on. We were also lucky that the Right was so inept in their messaging, because they were so sure they were winning. They let their all-anti-abortion-all-the-time, keep-cutting-government-jobs-and-blaming-the resulting-economic-downturn-on-Obama, keep-propping-up-the-one-percenters, keep-bashing-the-unions-and-cops-and-teachers-and-first-responders freak flags fly sky high, never imagining just how much those messages were not resonating and more importantly, mobilizing voters AGAINST them.

    If Citizens' United is allowed to stand, there's a good chance, they'll get more savvy. They'll find a guy who's all-Mitt-Romney-during-the-first-debate, all-the-time, and you'll never see the secret side, the side that fully embraces all the Stupid that the GOP embraces, until after Election Day. And our guy or gal might not be as popular as Obama, might not fight as forcefully, even if the agenda is solid. Unlimited spending could hurt a candidate like this, no doubt.

    The era of only giving a crap every four years is over. Think-globally-act-locally has to be the battle cry for the electorate, not just an Earth Day slogan. Republicans still kick our asses when it comes to city councils and school boards and it's there they influence the next gen Republicans. Hopefully that next gen will see through their horse crap in the way many kids have in seeing through grownups horse crap, but by then they'll have succeeded in changing the school books, disbanding local governments for emergency managers and silencing unions, so a partisan supervillain like Sheldon Adelson or the Koch brothers can do some real damage. I usually loathe "this is war" analogies, but this is the fight that never ends, it just goes on and on my friends, and it'll only take a couple of years of complacency for them to rise like kudzu and do some serious damage. We can never say "this is an off election year." We can never assume our vote is the extent of our civic duty. We must hold the feet of politicians to the fire constantly, always let them know they're being watched, never let them assume their job is fully secure if they think they can waver in their responsibilities to us without repercussions. The power we have is the power we refuse to let them take from us. How much power that is depends on us, always.

  •  my big notice here. (0+ / 0-)

    Rove's outfit took in over $300 million, right?  But only spent just over half ($157 million) on its proported task of advertising?

    How much would you trust a charity that has 47.67% overhead costs?

    We have no desire to offend you -- unless you are a twit!

    by ScrewySquirrel on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 07:37:52 AM PST

  •  Gods, I'm glad it's OVER! (0+ / 0-)

    I was getting sick of ALL the ads, even the ones on our side.

    As kos remarks, in this age of "mute" buttons and DVRs, it's so easy to skip commercials!  I've got to where I refuse to watch "Good Morning, America," it's so sex-scandal-sleazy.  Who needs it?  I read the newspaper instead, even though I don't believe a single thing in it.

    "Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

    by Diana in NoVa on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 07:49:18 AM PST

  •  Thank you rich repubs for pumping all that $$ (0+ / 0-)

    into the economy.

  •  This makes the election even better. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eric Nelson

    Let them outspend and get less in return.  Aren't these the "business" guys - who know about ROI and all that??

    Don't exactly seem too competent to me.

    "The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously." -- Hubert H. Humphrey

    by Candide08 on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 08:21:44 AM PST

  •  NH numbers (0+ / 0-)

    Even those aren't likely telling the $ story, since half the state gets its broadcasts from Mass. [Was anyone spending on the POTUS race in Mass??]

    "Milton Friedman's misfortune is that his policies have been tried."

    by el fuego on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 08:28:22 AM PST

  •  That Michigan differential is pathetic. Guess the (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eric Nelson

    trees just weren't that into Mitt.

    "A young man who wishes to remain a sound Atheist cannot be too careful of his reading. There are traps everywhere ". C. S. Lewis

    by TofG on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 08:37:00 AM PST

  •  They've already started on next election. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eric Nelson

    They are desperate to make Benghazi into embassygate scandal.    

    They are attacking Obama team as weak on defense  & projecting their big  mushroom cloud lies as equivalent to ---- (their tight fisted votes against diplomatic security funding) not having instant total detail on 4 dead in a CONSULATE not embassy.  

    They always attack what they perceive as enemy's strength.

    Don't doze & let them plant this garbage deep in voter minds.   Read up on how many dead at embassies --- even just under Reagan.  Counter with facts in LTE etc.  now.

    De fund + de bunk = de EXIT--->>>>>

    by Neon Mama on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 08:42:40 AM PST

  •  Being the "Patriots" they are, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Neon Mama, Eric Nelson

    surely they must have read, "Poor Richard's Almanac"?

    They wasted their pennies on bad intel, dummy polls and fire-breathing hate.  Sadly out of the three, the racism gained the most traction.  

    That alone makes one even more thankful that the GOP took a beating in this election.

    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin

    by politicalceci on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 08:51:51 AM PST

  •  State Senator Nina Turner is already (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eric Nelson

    fighting back -- against the Rs of her state going right back to
    war on women legislation.  Her T-shirt reframes GOP as

    Get
    Out of my
    Panties

    Photo & story at link:

    http://hinterlandgazette.com/...

    She said it more daintily than I do when I fume about their gonad governance.

    De fund + de bunk = de EXIT--->>>>>

    by Neon Mama on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 09:07:03 AM PST

  •  US Chamber spent a lot for Romney too n/t (0+ / 0-)

    Form follows function -- Louis Sullivan

    by Spud1 on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 09:07:19 AM PST

  •  The thing that's interesting to me in the graph (0+ / 0-)

    is that Romney's rise and Obama's fall in the polls didn't begin after the first debate but in the days before. That suggests to me that the wisdom of the crowd was that Romney would win that debate--and make the election a real race. Perhaps some voters wanted to hear Romney's voice, and he needed to be a plausible candidate to be heard.

    Then the swing for Obama and against Romney similarly began in the days before the second debate, not after. That suggests to me that Romney had failed to make his case when he was able to be heard, and that some voters decided that he should be tuned out again, a goal that Obama's successful second debate accomplished. Perhaps some voters anticipated that Obama would be back on his game, or wanted him to be so.

    Although this analysis may sound far out, look closely at the trendlines.

    It's not that expectations were determinative. I think that a palpably poor performance by Romney in the first debate or by Obama in the second could have changed the narrative. But it appears that voters were anticipating that what actually happened was what would happen. The epistemological framework was conducive to the narrative that emerged, thereby increasing the likelihood it would emerge and would become dominant.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site