McConnell Allies Strike Back Against Cruz

[Relic]

But still they're elected by people in their states, like them or not.  McConnell for example ran against an alleged "true conservative" Matt Blevin in the primary as well as several other opponents.  He won and went against the Democrat Grimes and a libertarian in the general, and still won.  How does Cruz defeat people like McConnell who is apparently liked enough to keep reelecting in his state?

Why the over simplification?

McConnell had buckets of money compared to any challenger.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/01/31/mcconnell-has-substantial-fundraising-advantage-in-senate-race/

[bkepley]

Why the over simplification?

McConnell had buckets of money compared to any challenger.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/01/31/mcconnell-has-substantial-fundraising-advantage-in-senate-race/

What difference does it make?  You still have to beat them unless you try to take away the money using questionable laws.

[Relic]

What difference does it make?  You still have to beat them unless you try to take away the money using questionable laws.

He was making his argument based on people "liking" McConnell. Americans are stupid, with enough money, you could get Charles Manson elected president.

[bkepley]

He was making his argument based on people "liking" McConnell. Americans are stupid, with enough money, you could get Charles Manson elected president.

Money doesn't always win and the point is you still have to beat them.  If they were as despised as a lot of people here think they are they could be beaten easily.  I would think planned parenthood thing is a perfect chance to find a good opponent and raise a lot of money.  My personal interest is more in the deficit and big government etc. and I used to donate to a PAC that targeted soft, bug name Republicans and often beat them despite being outspent.  You just have to have enough money to get your message out...you don't have to outspend the other guy.

[Relic]

You just have to have enough money to get your message out...you don't have to outspend the other guy.

Unless you don't have a message, or you are FOS, then outspending will get you elected.

Look what Obama did to Romney. Did Obama have a better message? A better record? Major accomplishments? Was Obama universally loved because of his first term?

What Obama did was hammer Romney with stupid stuff, and had Romney playing defense all the time. College pranks, how he packed his dog for a trip, etc.

I still say, you could get Charles Manson elected president with enough money, and that isn't a compliment to the American public.

[bkepley]

I still say, you could get Charles Manson elected president with enough money, and that isn't a compliment to the American public.

I will believe it when we get a President Trump 

[Relic]

I will believe it when we get a President Trump 

President Obama's second term isn't convincing enough?

[Bigun]

[MACVSOG68]

He was making his argument based on people "liking" McConnell. Americans are stupid, with enough money, you could get Charles Manson elected president.

Don't get hung up on the term "like".  People here "like" Cruz and Trump, and Cruz is bringing in loads of cash while Trump already has $10 billion.  Who are the smart ones vs. the stupid ones?  Pick another term to use.

Unless you don't have a message, or you are FOS, then outspending will get you elected.

Look what Obama did to Romney. Did Obama have a better message? A better record? Major accomplishments? Was Obama universally loved because of his first term?

What Obama did was hammer Romney with stupid stuff, and had Romney playing defense all the time. College pranks, how he packed his dog for a trip, etc.

I still say, you could get Charles Manson elected president with enough money, and that isn't a compliment to the American public.

Spending on behalf of Romney was more than that for Obama.

[Relic]

Don't get hung up on the term "like".  People here "like" Cruz and Trump, and Cruz is bringing in loads of cash while Trump already has $10 billion.  Who are the smart ones vs. the stupid ones?  Pick another term to use.
Spending on behalf of Romney was more than that for Obama.

Don't get hung up on words. It depends on what the meaning of the word is, is.

Obama: $1.123 billion vs. Romney: $1.019 billion
http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/barack-obama-mitt-romney-both-topped-1-billion-in-2012-84737.html

And that doesn't count all the free coverage Obama got from a fawning media and cows like Candy Crowley.

[EdinVA]

Don't get hung up on the term "like".  People here "like" Cruz and Trump, and Cruz is bringing in loads of cash while Trump already has $10 billion.  Who are the smart ones vs. the stupid ones?  Pick another term to use.
Spending on behalf of Romney was more than that for Obama.

I think Relic has a point.  Not totally on board with the Americans are stupid part, but for the most part people are busy living their lives.
Going to work, raising kids, taking care of the house, all that stuff and are not watching the minute by minute goings on in DC.
They have representatives that are supposed to be watching their backs and so they focus on other things.

I was like that for the most part.  I did watch but more like a monthly review kind of thing... yes, guilty..

[MACVSOG68]

Don't get hung up on words. It depends on what the meaning of the word is, is.

Obama: $1.123 billion vs. Romney: $1.019 billion
http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/barack-obama-mitt-romney-both-topped-1-billion-in-2012-84737.html

And that doesn't count all the free coverage Obama got from a fawning media and cows like Candy Crowley.

No problem.

Obama: $1,107,114,702  Romney: $1,238,097,161
https://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/#out

That was total spending related to the presidential race.

But I do agree that Obama had free ride with the media or much of it.  Nor do I disagree that a lot of people vote with little to no research or understanding of issues.  The problem is that there are just as many on the left who feel the same way.   But politics has pretty much always been that way...IMHO of course.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

Concise and to the point.  Good post.

Thank you, Sir.  I've been enjoying your posts too.  You should work in media, if you don't already.  You have a natural (or maybe developed) talent for asking probing questions.  Those questions often bring out a clearer, and more complete, picture of what a poster is trying to convey.  I also admire your calm and dispassionate demeanor, even when talking about inflammatory material...and I think you are pretty smart too. 

You bring a lot of value to this forum 

Thank you for the time you share with us.

[MACVSOG68]

Thank you, Sir.  I've been enjoying your posts too.  You should work in media, if you don't already.  You have a natural (or maybe developed) talent for asking probing questions.  Those questions often bring out a clearer, and more complete, picture of what a poster is trying to convey.  I also admire your calm and dispassionate demeanor, even when talking about inflammatory material...and I think you are pretty smart too. 

You bring a lot of value to this forum 

Thank you for the time you share with us.

Thank you for the kind words Once-Ler.  I don't always succeed in staying dispassionate or calm, but when that happens I put myself in time-out for a while.  Buckley taught me that debate should exchange facts, ideas, and that logical conclusions, not insults,  should be the result.  Luis is no doubt one of the best writers in this forum, and I've tried to pick up a few pointers from his style.  We don't always agree, but he is a very effective and skilled opponent in any debate.  Nor do I even come close to his abilities. 

And thank you for also being here, and for your contributions.  This is a small forum but it's made up of a lot of good people, even if we differ on issues.  Some no doubt have me on ignore, but they're still good people nonetheless. Without that difference, we'd just be a small sewing circle, drinking tea and exchanging anecdotes about the grand-kids.