HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Politics 2014 (Forum) » Wall Street Journal says ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 01:52 PM

Wall Street Journal says the only reason Romney lost is having less money than Obama. no really

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/how-race-slipped-away-from-romney.html

The article says that Romney only lost because he just didn't have the money the PResident had... because he spent so much on the primary.

Yeah.. conveniently neglecting to mention the loans, the billion dollars in PAC money. I just can't keep up with the excuses anymore.

8 replies, 1004 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 8 replies Author Time Post
Reply Wall Street Journal says the only reason Romney lost is having less money than Obama. no really (Original post)
progressivebydesign Nov 2012 OP
Frances Nov 2012 #1
spartan61 Nov 2012 #2
summerschild Nov 2012 #3
BlueDemKev Nov 2012 #4
Tennessee Hillbilly Nov 2012 #5
LiberalFighter Nov 2012 #6
NewJeffCT Nov 2012 #7
davidpdx Nov 2012 #8

Response to progressivebydesign (Original post)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 01:53 PM

1. Tell that to Adelson, the Koch brothers, and the other billionaires

who gave Karl Rove and other shadowy groups millions of dollars

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressivebydesign (Original post)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 01:57 PM

2. Something I have been wondering.

The billionaires donated big bucks to Romney's campaign, but did Romney donate any of his millions to himself?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressivebydesign (Original post)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 02:15 PM

3. He had plenty of $ in the Caymans, but he would have had to pay taxes on it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressivebydesign (Original post)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 02:16 PM

4. To the WSJ, money is ALL that matters in life

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressivebydesign (Original post)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 02:26 PM

5. Evidently the Wall Street Journal thinks that elections can be bought if you have enough money.

Evidently the Wall Street Journal thinks that elections can be bought if you have enough money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tennessee Hillbilly (Reply #5)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 02:34 PM

6. I wonder how much they save or lose compare to their dirty money to campaigns?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressivebydesign (Original post)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 02:52 PM

7. so, a 3:1 spending edge from outside groups

doesn't count?

And, didn't Romney outraise Obama just about every month?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NewJeffCT (Reply #7)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 07:12 PM

8. I know Romney did out raise Obama 2 or 3 months

But then Obama started out fundraising him again. I think the lesson in this is Obama was getting most of his donations from millions of individuals who weren't maxed out and the campaign could go back to time and time again. Romney was getting large donations from people who were maxing out right away. If that is the case, then they couldn't go back and ask for more (except for super-pacs)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread