Whitman spent $178.5 million in bid for CA Gov--lost by 13-points

[WI_DEM]

The Sacramento Bee reports failed California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman's (R) spent a record-breaking $178.5 million spent on her campaign -- $43.25 for each of her votes in the general election -- which she lost to Jerry Brown (D) by 13 percentage points.

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/02/01/whitman_spent_178_million.html#

[Buzz Clik]

1. As they say, records are meant to be broken.

I'm sure someone will break her record in due course.

[FSogol]

2. Haw-haw. n/t

[Rosa Luxemburg]

14. Thank God that creature didn't get elected!

[Bluenorthwest]

3. This needs to be remembered when people are claiming

that money is all it takes, lots of commercials and such. Jerry spent under $70 million total, she outspent by 100 million, and she lost handily.
The truth is, she'd have done better with fewer ads. Still would have lost, but she dug her hole deeper and deeper, and Jerry, not being a sucker, waited until the voters wanted to hear from candidates. Meg got consulted out of 100 million dollars. They kept saying 'buy more ads' and she kept paying for them!
Let's not forget that she spent a fortune and lost in a huge way in spite of all that money. Too much money hurts, it does not help.

[Yavin4]

10. Not Every State Is California

Meg's money didn't work for two reasons:

1. CA has pretty savvy voters.

2. CA already went through the ugly experience of having a no experience, celebrity governor run their state into the ground.

[Sheepshank]

4. Given the corporation=person issue and donations

and that peckerhead Rove's laundering donations to GOP...this is actually quite a comforting piece of information. It would appear it doesn't matter what you say a million times over, it's really not about repetition, there is a lot to do with substance.

[yurbud]

5. like the financial elite in general, she thought she knew everything and the rest of us are rubes

hopefully, she's the leading edge of her kind getting their asses handed to them.

[Kdillard]

6. Warms my heart.

[rasputin1952]

7. Mine too...

hope it roasts hers...:evilgrin:

[ShadowLiberal]

8. I can't believe so many people STILL donated millions to her campaign

What's most shocking is that she STILL got over $30 million dollars in donations despite the fact that she made clear very early on in her campaign that she was willing to spend lots of her own money on the election. Heck, she even said early on she intended to spend $100 million dollars, and people STILL donated money to her campaign!

I would never give money to a democrat who could and was donating tens of millions of dollars to their own campaign every month, they wouldn't need my donation, it would help the party more donating to someone else who couldn't self fund their campaign.

[golfguru]

9. She could have won if

she promised every voter $25 cash to vote for her.

[slackmaster]

11. $43.25 per vote is only about twice what getting elected to the San Diego City Council costs

If there isn't a clear victor in the primary election, and a runoff is required. My Councilman spent about $300,000 to land a four-year term for which the annual salary is about $75,000. His main opponent spent a similar amount to not get elected.

Election finance has gotten beyond ridiculous.

[Raine]

13. When they spend that much on a position that

pays a fraction of it ... they sure must plan on reaping plenty of graft.

[joshcryer]

16. Exactly, it should be illegal.

There's no way that that council person isn't going to "recoup" their costs. It ceases to be a "for the people" thing when you spend (out of your own pocket) more than you'll make.

Though I should say it's not clear in this case if these council people actually paid out of pocket. If you're a successful fund raiser I don't think that should go against you.

[slackmaster]

19. I suspect he plans to have his costs recouped in about 8-10 years when he's elected to the Assembly

Which is pretty much a sure bet unless he gets caught red-handed on the take.

[slackmaster]

18. Frankly, they are on the take. But the main reason they bother is the Apostolic Succession.

Seats in both houses of the California state legislature have term limits, as do seats on the San Diego City Council. That has had an unintended consequence that troubles me greatly.

In my district, our Councilman is the fifth (or sixth?) in a series of hand-picked Heirs Apparent who aren't even beholden to their party (the loser in the runoff in 2008 was the one with the official endorsement of the Democratic Party).

My Councilman is not a bad guy. We get along well, and have always treated each other with respect even when I was actively campaigning against him. But he is very obviously in the pockets of the big land developers and the construction industry, and of big labor.

I'll probably be involved in an effort to unseat him in 2012. My friend who plans to run has actually filed the paperwork. And we'll most likely fail because his supporters have deep pockets.

[thelordofhell]

12. Worth Every Penny

:kick:

[PoliticAverse]

15. She should have used "Buy It Now". n/t

[okieinpain]

17. forget that all the polls had harry reid down by 4 points heading

into the election. but he won by 7 points explain that.