Meh. It won't be enough.

I agree they won't be able to field a strong enough candidate to win, even with all the money in the koch's sock drawer

Soros is only an occasional donor at this point, and one whose infamy of multi million-dollar donations (to parties) is long behind him. No one knows what to expect in 2016 and beyond but his contribution history in the Obama era reads like just another run of the mill rich guy: cut a couple of $100k checks to the Congressional PAC of his choice before shutting down for the cycle.

Dumb Republicans sloppily invoking his name are the only thing keeping him in a conversation like this at this point. Now if DA were to grow, and importantly take on a larger and more integral role in the party's fundraising apparatus, then it's possible Soros could become a prominent donor and bundler again. That's not very likely though.

This post was edited by Pollster on Feb 16 2015 06:05pm

I'll take this as conceding the point. Your post was dumb enough in the first place that I'm surprised it took you this long to backpedal off "12:1."

In reality I just simply don't see any reason to continue chasing you as you recede that much further into your little bubble, where you can rely on the complexities of the subject matter to help you ignore facts that you don't like. I don't really see any point to furthering the discussion when you're obviously refusing to acknowledge large sums of outside money that are difficult to account for, but that exist nonetheless.

To be brutally honest: when you're not embarrassing yourself for the amusement of myself and others, I really don't see any reason to indulge you or your various delusions at all. When the laughter stops so do the replies, it really is that simple.

Right.

You're a fucking joke. You can pretend you know how much dark money is out there, but you can't actually prove it, so you PRETEND that the money ratio is 12:1 and expect us to believe your lying ass, when actual facts and data slam the fuck out of your blatantly stupid assertion.

Run along now, we know you've got nothing.

Look at the whole pie bro.

And the whole pie needs to be smaller. The market for elections is completely out of hand.

This post was edited by Skinned on Feb 16 2015 08:11pm

It's seriously painful to watch you recede, and unfortunately it's not even funny. No one's pretending to know how much dark money was spent. There remains a very accurate accounting that thoroughly documents the type of financial advantage that Walker had in the recall, to the extent that that can really be done. You need only click the link and scroll halfway down the page: http://www.wisdc.org/pro12-102575.php

It crucially includes some of the undisclosed expenditures that the pro-Walker side attempted to mask at the time, but it doesn't cover all of them and it doesn't cover the massive infrastructure advantage that the pro-Walker side built up over the duration. That advantage was significant, as everyone at this point should really understand, though there isn't a similar accounting of that information available because it's semi-private to the parties, campaigns, and the independent groups involved in buying and leasing those assets. That doesn't mean that each side doesn't know what the other spent though.

Naturally I don't expect you with your well-established history of ignoring data that you don't like to believe anything. The first set of data was provided at the outset, but predictably you chose to conflate or misconstrue what the other data presented said. That semi-private data will likely never be made available to you though, unless the pro-Walker side inexplicably decided to leak it, because you remain a totally irrelevant bystander who has demonstrated a hilariously-poor understanding of how campaigns operate. I can't say I see that type of information making its way into your eye-line any time soon.

This post was edited by Pollster on Feb 16 2015 08:43pm

What's painful is watching you spew source after source after source that ALL FAIL to make your initial lie NOT a lie. There is NO 12:1 ratio, derpaderp boy. Not even close. Not within a country mile. Your last source here is 3.7:1. Try as you might, you've been caught in your lying again.

You want to fucking talk about IGNORING DATA? You're IGNORING YOUR OWN! LOL!!!!!111!!!!!1111 Not a single source provided gets you better than 6:1, which was JUST on direct contributions while ignoring all else. Take your fucking lying somewhere it'll be believed. Hack.

I wish Colin Powell had the desire to be president. Exit polls suggested he would have destroyed Clinton in 1996. None of these idiots know what in the hell they're doing.