d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > Presidential Primaries
Prev12345613Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Views: 2621Replies: 129Track Topic
Member
Posts: 35,291
Joined: Aug 17 2004
Gold: 12,730.67
#31
Jun 8 2015 10:46pm
Quote (Santara @ Jun 8 2015 08:44pm)
What, you need a list of candidates who were outspent but won?


In the primaries, sure.
Member
Posts: 53,538
Joined: Mar 6 2008
Gold: 11,407.33
#32
Jun 8 2015 10:53pm
Quote (thundercock @ Jun 9 2015 12:46am)
In the primaries, sure.

For recent examples:
McCain wasn't even close to having raised the most money.(distant third)
Obama raised slightly less than Hillary.
Dean raised more than Kerry.
Member
Posts: 63,054
Joined: Jul 15 2005
Gold: 152.00
#33
Jun 8 2015 10:53pm
Quote (Santara @ Jun 9 2015 12:44am)
What, you need a list of candidates who were outspent but won?


That would be interesting.
Member
Posts: 38,317
Joined: Jul 12 2006
Gold: 20.31
#34
Jun 8 2015 11:11pm
Quote (thundercock @ Jun 8 2015 08:53pm)
He's right in this case though. In this day and age, in order to win, you need a billion dollar campaign.


It's significant that Paul has practically no big-dollar donors. Almost the entire GOP primary is about money. It's one thing to strike out with the Kochs and Ellison and Adelson because everyone is courting them but Paul can't even land people who allegedly fit his narrow network: he got nothing from Peter Thiel or Sean Parker (who's backing Clinton, LOL), and he didn't even get anything from Joe Caoft, one of the largest donors from his home state.

Quote (Santara @ Jun 8 2015 08:51pm)
Yes, yes, we all know that anything short of billion-dollar campaigns with legions of door-knockers, call centers, and ad execs in every CD falls far short of "substantial" in your world.

Candidates skip states all the time. It's all about maximizing your efforts and you know that.

Looks like you're doing the polling wrong then.


Thanks for the laugh. Look, you don't skip a state if you have a substantial organization in place there, which would be the case if one possessed that country-wide. Paul obviously does not have anything even remotely approaching it at this point, and it's not a mark against him because only 2 candidates do have the semblance of a network like that (Rubio is approaching). Bush inherited all of his and it's really only a fundraising network, and Clinton inherited much of hers. She did have her own 2008 apparatus that she just had to revive but she also inherited the 2008/12 Obama infrastructure, and has spent the last 2 years building on top of it.

The only reason you skip a state is because you lack resources to meet expectations. If Paul had a substantial infrastructure in SC he'd compete there. While smart campaigns prioritize, they all compete everywhere they actually can.
Member
Posts: 35,291
Joined: Aug 17 2004
Gold: 12,730.67
#35
Jun 9 2015 12:21am
Quote (cambovenzi @ Jun 8 2015 08:53pm)
For recent examples:
McCain wasn't even close to having raised the most money.(distant third)
Obama raised slightly less than Hillary.
Dean raised more than Kerry.


Fair enough. I guess my point is that Paul doesn't have a chance unless he starts raising some big bucks.
Member
Posts: 10,566
Joined: May 31 2013
Gold: 0.76
#36
Jun 9 2015 05:28am
Quote (thundercock @ 8 Jun 2015 22:53)
He's right in this case though. In this day and age, in order to win, you need a billion dollar campaign.


Quote (thundercock @ 9 Jun 2015 01:21)
Fair enough. I guess my point is that Paul doesn't have a chance unless he starts raising some big bucks.


Quote (thundercock @ 8 Jun 2015 23:35)
When does it not win?



Someone mentioned in another topic that an idiot ignores the power of the social network, A candidate's core issues can be laid bare and examined in the social media arena much better than all of the 30-60 second sound bites that are bought and paid for. If more and more of today's voters are becoming educated by what they learn via. forums and sub forums. Maybe they are getting a deeper glimpse of potential candidates than mere money can buy?

Look at what we discuss here on a sub-forum of a gaming site there are some pretty strong opinions expressed many times solid if not agreed upon reasons offered and links posted. The average American voter could be in some chrysalis like stage where dollars spent on a campaign won't necessarily guarantee a win rather platform and record will carry more weight. Sure the information highway's number one purpose still is the uninterrupted stream of quality Asian bdsm porn, but what if the education of the American voter becomes a wonderful by-product?

Member
Posts: 64,732
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Gold: 260.11
#37
Jun 9 2015 06:14am
Quote (Santara @ Jun 8 2015 10:44pm)
What, you need a list of candidates who were outspent but won?


Those candidates were still competitive because they had their own billion dollar campaigns though. Rand is second tier, but the only top tier are probably bush and rubii

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Jun 9 2015 06:15am
Member
Posts: 38,317
Joined: Jul 12 2006
Gold: 20.31
#38
Jun 9 2015 06:18am
Quote (Thor123422 @ Jun 9 2015 05:14am)
Those candidates were still competitive because they had their own billion dollar campaigns though. Rand is second tier, but the only top tier are probably bush and rubii


And Walker. He has the potential to be an exceptionally weak general election candidate but at the same time he could be an incredibly strong primary candidate.

Quote (cambovenzi @ Jun 8 2015 09:53pm)
For recent examples:
McCain wasn't even close to having raised the most money.(distant third)
Obama raised slightly less than Hillary.
Dean raised more than Kerry.


Obama outraised Clinton and by a mile, especially when you factor in her initial $10 million came via Senate transfer, her $11 million in personal loans, tens of millions in exclusive G.E. funds she didn't get to use, and all the personal debt she incurred. Remember that Clinton didn't drop out until June and by 2008 Obama was outraising her by $10-20 million per month. In April when it was realistically over he had 6x the COH she did (38m) and a fifth of the outstanding debt.

The other two examples had a nominee who raised less money true, but neither is a great comparison for Rand. You can probably throw out the 2004 case too because it's so historically unique. The recent frontrunners have proven that they acclimate much better to their fundraising prowess: Obama's 2008 model, and Bush today with his decision to outsource most traditional campaign functions to his Super PAC which has full control over the $100 million. Bush might fall but no one has ever chased a guy with $100 million in the bank the summer before. Not even Obama could have caught Clinton with that kind of head start and Paul isn't in the same league as Obama.
Member
Posts: 44,628
Joined: Feb 12 2007
Gold: 1,444.13
#39
Jun 9 2015 06:23am
Quote (cambovenzi @ Jun 9 2015 12:19am)
Small umbrella compared to what? The single file democrats? hardly.
There are in fact massive differences in the Republican party. There are strong libertarian leaners like Rand and Amash, religious/social conservatives like Huckabee and Santorum(who are very different in their own right), other fiscal conservatives/tea partiers(cruz, walker), warmongers/neocons, and a variety of 'moderates' from Christie to Romney to Bush.. Its one of the reasons there are so many candidates. To deny the very significant differences in their views is ludicrous.
Rand vs Graham or McCain is practically night and day.



Yes lets look at the facts and his history.
Heavily libertarian leaning Rand Paul, son of "mainstream republican clone" :rolleyes: Ron Paul just got through filibustering the Patriot act and broader NSA surveillance while getting publicly condemned 6 ways to Sunday by members of his own party, many of which are running against him on very different platforms.
He also regularly works together with Democrats on criminal justice reform, speaks out against unnecessary unconstitutional wars and filibustered Obama's drone policy(do I even have to mention the difference between him and the warhawks here?), etc etc.

Examinations of his voting record like the freedom index(which he scored #1 among Senators), and ratings from various organizations like AFP, Freedomworks, etc indicate very different views than his counterparts

Lets be real here. You are making up garbage and denying reality to pretend hes a regular republican bad guy to push your pro-Bernie Sanders agenda.


do you even know what filibuster means? sure doesn't look like it.
so you reference heavy conservative/libertarian resources as an indicator of what this guy is about?
the scary thing is nut jobs like you actually think he is different than all the other GOPs, but again the simple fact and the simple record indicates that his ideals all fall right smack in the middle of crackpot town. Anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-womens rights, anti-african american rights, raise retirement age, more corporate tax cuts, anti-environmental protection, anti-climate change, pro-big oil, wants to pull the USA from the United Nations, stop people from traveling to combate Ebola? LOL.
One of the only stances he has that is different is that he doesn't want us to start a preemptive war
Member
Posts: 53,538
Joined: Mar 6 2008
Gold: 11,407.33
#40
Jun 9 2015 07:35am
Quote (Caulder10 @ Jun 9 2015 08:23am)
do you even know what filibuster means? sure doesn't look like it.

Are you really going to split hairs over the technicalities of one of the 'filibusters' to distract away from the point that was made? Pathetic.

Quote
so you reference heavy conservative/libertarian resources as an indicator of what this guy is about?

When various metrics and analyses of his voting record and stances indicate heavily libertarian leaning, pro-liberty and non-establishment Republican positions significantly different than the other candidates its evidence against your false claims of him being the same as the others.

Quote
the scary thing is nut jobs like you actually think he is different than all the other GOPs, but again the simple fact and the simple record indicates that his ideals all fall right smack in the middle of crackpot town.

Right you ignore all the evidence and reality and stick with lies while claiming its a 'simple fact'.
Rather than debating a point on its merits, or honestly acknowledging that he has very significant differences with which you simply disagree, its you "nutjobs" and a string of non sequiturs and other fallacies.

Quote
Anti-gay, anti-abortion,anti-womens rights, anti-african american rights, raise retirement age, more corporate tax cuts, anti-environmental protection, anti-climate change, pro-big oil, wants to pull the USA from the United Nations, stop people from traveling to combate Ebola? LOL.
One of the only stances he has that is different is that he doesn't want us to start a preemptive war

Most of those are outright shameful lies and/or large misrepresentations of his positions.(especially the bold)

You merely stating his other positions, like tax cuts and questioning the merits of our participation and funding of world governmental organizations, and then disagreeing with him doesn't make those bad or crazy positions.


This post was edited by cambovenzi on Jun 9 2015 08:04am
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev12345613Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll

© 2003-2024 d2jsp  Contact