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

[AznAnarchy99]

That (and PingSpike's response) pretty much sums my thoughts on her.
That and her support of Prop 8 and being against Prop 19 (MJ Legalization) sealed the deal.

If Poizner had won the primary it would be a tougher choice between him and Brown.

125 million on all smear campaigning on TV. Its her commercials every break pretty much. Im voting against her.

 

[dank69]

Good, because you know what corporations do when they get rich and do well? They hire, expand their operations, spend money, do research and did I mention hire?

I'd rather that than my money going to some welfare nut case who has no motivation to ever become a contributing part of society.

US corporations hiring more Asian labor doesn't help us in the slightest bit.

 

[KIAman]

US corporations hiring more Asian labor doesn't help us in the slightest bit.

That's an open ended statement of obvious. Now, is Jerry Brown going to do something about that?

 

[trenchfoot]

Good, because you know what corporations do when they get rich and do well? They hire, expand their operations, spend money, do research and did I mention hire?

I'd rather that than my money going to some welfare nut case who has no motivation to ever become a contributing part of society.

They hire - illegal aliens

They expand their operations - overseas

They spend their money - on lobbyists, kickbacks and among themselves.

They do research - on how to corrupt the politicians in their district.

Your ideology is creating all those welfare nut cases to begin with.

 

[woolfe9999]

The $125 million vs. $4 million stat posted by the OP is misleading. There are outside groups spending millions funding anti-Whitman TV ads. Also, Brown has a war chest of some 20 odd million he hasn't spent yet, but will spend it down the final stretch no doubt. There a huge mismatch, but by the end of it, when all spending is considered, it will be nowhere near 30:1. Probably more like 4:1.

- wolf

 

[BoomerD]

One thing that folks keep overlooking...Meg isn't "spending her own money," she's "loaning it to her campaign" with the expectation of being repaid...

 

[Moonbeam]

ZOMG! False attack! call a moderator!111!!one!!11!
Please post where I made ANY claim in this thread, let alone the one you claim I made. All I did was paraphrase your 95%/5% post. You yourself stated that you forgot any good arguments you may have seen from the right. It's not a stretch to infer that you don't pay those rare good arguments any heed. The set of ideas a person tends to remember is generally a subset of those ideas one pays attention to...

You sure do love to type. Have fun with that.

That is one argument that could be made. Another might be that the 5 percent that are good are not so good as to have achieved any noteworthiness, perhaps.

And with your arguments, for example, which shower out like sparks from a grinding wheel, they are difficult for me to remember. Most go right over my head and others catch my hair of fire. It's hard to remember stuff you don't fully comprehend or brings alarm.

 

[MrMatt]

Am I the only one that noticed the OP wrote Whiteman instead of Whitman in the thread title? So the Whiteman is outspending Brown...lol

 

[werepossum]

If memory serves, Huffington spent gads like this and got trounced. Plus, Brown has the media (except FoxNews), which is worth quite a lot to Dems. Whitman may well be spending her own money though. If she wins there will be no shortage of people looking to contribute to her "campaign" to buy favor. If she loses, who is going to want to contribute to a lost campaign?

In my opinion though, no campaign contributions should be allowed after the campaign is over, as this basically allows candidates to sell influence after the fact. If you want to loan yourself millions for your campaign and it isn't made up by others during the election, then you've spent your money and any money received after the election should be considered as income and taxed accordingly.

 

[dawp]

If she was such a successful business person, why does she want to run a government? Last time we let a business person run things, he generally totally screwed thing up. Not to sure CA could survive that kind of thing. I'm betting IF she does get elected, the state will go south in a hurry.

 

[bfdd]

The $125 million vs. $4 million stat posted by the OP is misleading. There are outside groups spending millions funding anti-Whitman TV ads. Also, Brown has a war chest of some 20 odd million he hasn't spent yet, but will spend it down the final stretch no doubt. There a huge mismatch, but by the end of it, when all spending is considered, it will be nowhere near 30:1. Probably more like 4:1.

- wolf

What I don't understand is, why are people bitching about it? Meg would have absolutely no chance in hell if she didn't put forth that kind of money. Carmen, that's what I was talking about when I said she was a "conservative" woman republican. We're in CALIFORNIA, the only reason we elected Arnold is because he was a movie star. That's as far republican as we go. If Meg wins I'll be surprised.

 

[bfdd]

If memory serves, Huffington spent gads like this and got trounced. Plus, Brown has the media (except FoxNews), which is worth quite a lot to Dems. Whitman may well be spending her own money though. If she wins there will be no shortage of people looking to contribute to her "campaign" to buy favor. If she loses, who is going to want to contribute to a lost campaign?

In my opinion though, no campaign contributions should be allowed after the campaign is over, as this basically allows candidates to sell influence after the fact. If you want to loan yourself millions for your campaign and it isn't made up by others during the election, then you've spent your money and any money received after the election should be considered as income and taxed accordingly.

agreed

 

[KIAman]

They hire - illegal aliens

They expand their operations - overseas

They spend their money - on lobbyists, kickbacks and among themselves.

They do research - on how to corrupt the politicians in their district.

Your ideology is creating all those welfare nut cases to begin with.

Thank you for stating the obvious. Once again, how is Brown going to fight this?

 

[trenchfoot]

Thank you for stating the obvious. Once again, how is Brown going to fight this?

I'd tell ya, but then it'd be too obvious for you and you'd get pissed at me.

 

[woolfe9999]

What I don't understand is, why are people bitching about it? Meg would have absolutely no chance in hell if she didn't put forth that kind of money. Carmen, that's what I was talking about when I said she was a "conservative" woman republican. We're in CALIFORNIA, the only reason we elected Arnold is because he was a movie star. That's as far republican as we go. If Meg wins I'll be surprised.

What does her being female have to do with her electability here? Both our U.S. Senators are female. Furthermore, we've only elected one democrat to the statehouse since 1983, and we recalled him. 1983-2010= 27 years. 4 years of democrats, 23 years of republicans.

- wolf

 

[DucatiMonster696]

I don't understand how anyone that has used ebay could vote for Meg Whitman but I have no real dog is that fight.

I don't understand how anyone could vote for a guy being backed up by state unions so that they can continue the gravy train pension system they've set themselves up with in California.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Thank you for stating the obvious. Once again, how is Brown going to fight this?

He's not. Jerry Brown, Kamila Harris, Gavin Newsom are part of the "No one is illegal crowd" and/or the "we never meet a tax we didn't like" movement.

I've yet to see Jerry state a concrete position on any issue. So far the focus has been on Meg but no one has bothered even talking to or asking Brown to come out on his views on things such as illegal immigration in such a way that he has to commit to an answer that actually addresses such an issue. In other words the guy represents more of the same political crap which has bankrupted this state and set it on course to shed jobs and productive citizens.

 

[zinfamous]

Meg Whitman is a wise and beautiful woman of the first order.

That being said, whoever chooses to spend that much money on what may be the worst political office in the country is a complete idiot. This is a different issue altogether

 

[zinfamous]

I don't understand how anyone could vote for a guy being backed up by state unions so that they can continue the gravy train pension system they've set themselves up with in California.

fair enough. Meg's solution, of course, is to undersell the Unions by replacing their jobs in India and China.

No need to worry about who is holding those jobs when they no longer exist, right?

 

[bfdd]

What does her being female have to do with her electability here? Both our U.S. Senators are female. Furthermore, we've only elected one democrat to the statehouse since 1983, and we recalled him. 1983-2010= 27 years. 4 years of democrats, 23 years of republicans.

- wolf

Seriously wolf? She's a REPUBLICAN FEMALE. When you hear the words REPUBLICAN FEMALE. What pops into your head? Sarah Palin. Because she is a Republican Female it will be much tougher for her to break the mold of what the Republicans would normally like to throw in our face. Yes we have had Rs fill the governors seat for the last while, but I'm pretty sure our state senate and assembly have been filled by Ds for awhile now. Not to mention our federal representatives lean heavily towards the Ds.

It makes complete sense to me why it would cost Meg Whitman 125m to run a campaign here. I can't believe some of you, especially fellow Californians, are oblivious to that.

 

[bfdd]

fair enough. Meg's solution, of course, is to undersell the Unions by replacing their jobs in India and China.

No need to worry about who is holding those jobs when they no longer exist, right?

You're an idiot. Have you ever even heard of a labor union? No not the kind that sit on an assembly line. I'm talking like carpenters, millwrights, steel workers, etc. THOSE CANNOT BE SHIPPED OFF TO INDIA OR CHINA. Those jobs are done RIGHT HERE on the things we NEED to have here. For instance when I was a union millwright I worked mostly in refineries. Moron.

 

[CrackRabbit]

It makes complete sense to me why it would cost Meg Whitman 125m to run a campaign here. I can't believe some of you, especially fellow Californians, are oblivious to that.

It has very little to do with her being a Republican Woman, and more to do with her non-stop barrage of attack ads. I was hearing them at least 3 months ago. It costs a ton of money to keep the ads going.
And before that she had tons of ads against Poizner in the primaries.

 

[bfdd]

It has very little to do with her being a Republican Woman, and more to do with her non-stop barrage of attack ads. I was hearing them at least 3 months ago. It costs a ton of money to keep the ads going.
And before that she had tons of ads against Poizner in the primaries.

Those ads costing money has nothing to do with the fact she has to run those ads. She's running those ads because she's automatically at a disadvantage being a republican woman. You guys don't think so, but you guys are ignoring the fact that this was the image of the Republican Woman for the last few years.

Not to mention this is a big D state, even our republicans are in name only.

 

[bfdd]

I'm not voting for Whitman or Brown because I find them both to be shit. I just think some of you guys are morons for questioning why the hell she would need 125m to run a campaign while her "enemy" can make do with so little. If you don't think it has anything to do with the political makeup of this state, you're fucking ignorant.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Seriously wolf? She's a REPUBLICAN FEMALE. When you hear the words REPUBLICAN FEMALE. What pops into your head? Sarah Palin...

Susan Collins, Libby Dole, Olympia Snowe, Lisa Murkowski, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Nancy Kassebaum...

Sarah Palin, Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell only come to mind if I think unqualified Republican Women.