Whiteman ($125m) vs Brown ($4m), can this be a fair contest?

[nyker96]

I have just read through a few recent sources indicating in CA,
Meg Whitman has spent $125million vs her opponent Jerry Brown $4million in campaign money.

I am just thinking, if one candidate can spent 2x or 3x more than another I'd say that probably will not skew the final election result by much, but when one is spending 30x his/her opponent, I wonder if a fair contest can be had here? What do you guys think?

of course, this is her money she can spent as much as she likes on herself, but I means with such a disparity in campaign spending, will the better actually candidate be elected?

 

[Carmen813]

Just another example of how those with wealth continue to accumulate and hold power, which prevents anything from actually changing. Hell, even $4 million is a sum of money that would probably be out of reach for most people.

 

[Schadenfroh]

It will be epic if she loses.

That being said, I recall something said by a "progressive" here during the Obama campaign, that since so little of her money is coming from special interests group, that her only loyalty will be to the people!

hahahaha

 

[Acanthus]

The candidate that spends the most on campaigning almost always wins.

You have to do something really really controversial to fuck it up.

 

[IamDavid]

In a state like California where nearly every local media outlet is pulling and campaigning for the Dem's then YES, it's fair.. Being born and raised in a place like California where your indoctrinated at birth requires a lot of in your face campaigning to even begin to break through..

The state is a complete and total disaster thanks to the wonderful mentality of the whack jobs on the left..
BTW, not saying the nut jobs on the right are much better... Brown is an old school politician, why go back to that?? More of the same...... Over the next 10 years we must have a epic shift in the way we select and vote for our Representatives.. They have ALL failed yet half of you brain dead political hacks don't care..

 

[boomerang]

Here's a short test. There is no reward for winning and no penalty for losing. Here's the question.

What is Jerry Brown's nickname?

 

[her209]

It will be epic if she loses.

That being said, I recall something said by a "progressive" here during the Obama campaign, that since so little of her money is coming from special interests group, that her only loyalty will be to the people!

hahahaha

Isn't that what Ahhhhhhnold said?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Here's a short test. There is no reward for winning and no penalty for losing. Here's the question.

What is Jerry Brown's nickname?

Moonbeam

 

[Slew Foot]

The state's losing money out the ass and the idiot democrats think the the thing that's going to help is to pander to the states labor unions. Un f'n believable.

 

[Moonbeam]

In a state like California where nearly every local media outlet is pulling and campaigning for the Dem's then YES, it's fair.. Being born and raised in a place like California where your indoctrinated at birth requires a lot of in your face campaigning to even begin to break through..

The state is a complete and total disaster thanks to the wonderful mentality of the whack jobs on the left..
BTW, not saying the nut jobs on the right are much better... Brown is an old school politician, why go back to that?? More of the same...... Over the next 10 years we must have a epic shift in the way we select and vote for our Representatives.. They have ALL failed yet half of you brain dead political hacks don't care..

My God, have you ever been brainwashed. What state did it happen in?

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

My God, have you ever been brainwashed. What state did it happen in?

What, you don't think things are totally fucked up? Just about all of our elected officials are horribly corrupt these days, Democrat or Republican. Get out of your fantasy land where the Democrats ride in on shining horses to challenge the evil GOP.

 

[nageov3t]

correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't wildly outspending your opponent only OK when a democrat does it?

 

[cubby1223]

correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't wildly outspending your opponent only OK when a democrat does it?

Democrats are always on the side of good, while the Republicans are always on the side of evil. It's only fair to win at any cost.

 

[BoberFett]

Goddam Republicans and their vote buying.

Oh wait...

 

[bfdd]

Just another example of how those with wealth continue to accumulate and hold power, which prevents anything from actually changing. Hell, even $4 million is a sum of money that would probably be out of reach for most people.

No it's because Meg Whitman has to spend 100+ million to even get people to listen to her. Jerry Brown doesn't have to spend jack fucking shit to get elected. Most the people I know are voting for Brown, the guy is getting his monies worth and then some here. Don't be so oblivious Carmen. Meg is a conservative WOMAN republican. I'm more amazed that it's only cost her 125m to get as far as she has.

 

[Jadow]

I think both candidates are pathetic and both are what California deserves.

Whitman is a hypocrite pig trying to buy the election.

Brown is a career politician from a family of career politicians who thinks he's entitled to the job.

Both are horrible, I can't believe in a state that large a better candidate didn't emerge.

Whitman will be marginally better for Cali than Brown, at least it's her money she's spending and I can't hold that against her, I just think she's power hungry.

Brown would do nothing special and not innovate at all, at least Whitman may have an idea or two.

Both suck, Whitman sucks a little less.

 

[BoomerD]

Yet surprisingly, they're about even in most polls...I think the average person has seen her flip-flop around on the issues since she decided to run and just isn't sure WHAT the hell she stands for...(if anything)

She can't make up her mind about illegal immigration, coming out mild and supporting amnesty at first, then getting tough on illegal immigration when she saw Poizner taking the lead, then backing off once she'd won the primary...and now, we hear about her "illegal immigrant housekeeper" and all the back & forth about that...

I don't like either candidate, but IMO, Meg is just a corporate whore who will sell out the working men & women in Kahleeforneeya to benefit her corporate friends.

 

[Moonbeam]

What, you don't think things are totally fucked up? Just about all of our elected officials are horribly corrupt these days, Democrat or Republican. Get out of your fantasy land where the Democrats ride in on shining horses to challenge the evil GOP.

That is your fantasy land, not mine, a box you created to put me in for your owm mental comfort.

 

[Moonbeam]

Goddam Republicans and their vote buying.

Oh wait...

Is the fact lost on you that Obama wasn't spending his own money but more money than is opponent because millions of more people gave him a little bit to spend and those little bits added up to way more than given McCain?

Do you understand that when somebody spends millions of their own money they are doing so to buy support that's not there? What do we really know about MG? She hasn't even voted most of her life. Why would anybody want to allow somebody to buy the governorship of the 8th largest economy in the world because she got a wild hair up her egotistical ass. She's California's Sarah Palin, a total nobody and completely unproven. If folk want the x factor over a know like Brown because they don't like what they know or think they know, fine, but it is going to be a risk, a big big risk.

 

[Acanthus]

correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't wildly outspending your opponent only OK when a democrat does it?

I really wasn't saying anything about the merits of campaign funding. However it is very statistically significant that the biggest spender almost always wins. A while ago i read a study that pegged it at 90%+ and the ones who lost were statistical anomalies like if say... Blagojevich ran after getting out of prison... I don't think it would matter how much he spent.

 

[Anarchist420]

I would vote for Brown because he's more fiscally conservative. I think of Whitman=Reagan. He'd get California back in the black without a whole lot of tax increase (if any). If only the Democrats had chosen him over Bill Clinton in 1992, we'd be better off today.

I kind of regret voting for the RINO last year in VA. I don't regret voting for the AG though.

 

[Craig234]

It will be epic if she loses.

That being said, I recall something said by a "progressive" here during the Obama campaign, that since so little of her money is coming from special interests group, that her only loyalty will be to the people!

hahahaha

Actually, the fact the money is coming from her own pocket and not the special interest groups IS a positive - if she's not taking much special interest money.

(Remember, I pointed out that Schwarzeneggar ran on the same thing, and then proceeded to take more special interest money than Gray Davis who was attacked for it.)

The problem with Whitman is that she has a bad agenda even without being bought off.

In contrast, JFK had a lot of family money to help win - but a better agenda.

He was a much better example of a rich person using their wealth and able to get around some of the 'donor corruption' problems.

(Some would argue he had other 'donor corruption' problems because the Chicago mob helped him, but his unprecedented war on the mafia showed he had a better agenda too.

It was the government before him where J. Edgar Hoover had denied there was a mafia in the US and it was allowed to gain huge power.)

 

[Craig234]

In a state like California where nearly every local media outlet is pulling and campaigning for the Dem's then YES, it's fair.. Being born and raised in a place like California where your indoctrinated at birth requires a lot of in your face campaigning to even begin to break through..

The state is a complete and total disaster thanks to the wonderful mentality of the whack jobs on the left..
BTW, not saying the nut jobs on the right are much better... Brown is an old school politician, why go back to that?? More of the same...... Over the next 10 years we must have a epic shift in the way we select and vote for our Representatives.. They have ALL failed yet half of you brain dead political hacks don't care..

Oh, the ignorance and ideology. I guess the communists are entitled to use any means to win, since the media is so unfairly against them, barely even mentioning them?

It can't possibly be that the Republicans are worse why the media doesn't endorse them, while being more than fair in coverage?

Funny how the state's good times are under Democrats, and things get worse under Republicans.

Funny how the big problems are related to Republicans, from passing a 2/3 budget vote giving radical Republicans a veto, to slashing the tax base by slashing commercial property taxes, to several Republican governors. But clearly, you say, the problem are the Democrats - without a word to back up your claim. Funny how they were balancing the budget a lot better with their 'big spending' before the Republicans got a veto.

 

[Craig234]

I kind of regret voting for the RINO last year in VA. I don't regret voting for the AG though.

Is that the jerk who is gutting gay protections?

 

[Craig234]

Yet surprisingly, they're about even in most polls...I think the average person has seen her flip-flop around on the issues since she decided to run and just isn't sure WHAT the hell she stands for...(if anything)

She can't make up her mind about illegal immigration, coming out mild and supporting amnesty at first, then getting tough on illegal immigration when she saw Poizner taking the lead, then backing off once she'd won the primary...and now, we hear about her "illegal immigrant housekeeper" and all the back & forth about that...

I don't like either candidate, but IMO, Meg is just a corporate whore who will sell out the working men & women in Kahleeforneeya to benefit her corporate friends.

Meg Whitman has the best marketing image money can buy, with nice music and voiceovers and reference to a vague job 'plan'.

This is why I am concerned when people suggest a short campaign cycle, where the ads can really be crammed down people's throat that polish up turds.

The longer campaigns seem good at letting people have a better chance at more than the polished marketing money bought. A small chance, but better.