I ran across an interesting question about the election.

Did Barack Obama buy the election?
As everyone knows, Barack Obama has spent excessive amounts of money on his presidential campaign, with a total at least doubling that of John McCain's. Barack Obama took out ads in video games, and even had a special 30 minute infomercial broadcasted just for this 2008 presidential election. Obama is trying desperately to reach out to young voters and minority voters, but there gets to a point when you've gone too far. If you have to spend hundreds or billions of dollars to get elected, is it really about politics, or does it just come down to popularity and riches? Barack Obama was spending at a rate close to $91 million in just two weeks, where John McCain was only spending a mere $22 million in a two week period.

Why did Barack Obama spend so much money during this election, when John McCain spent bushels less? Did Obama buy the election?

You can answer here.

Clyde, have you always whined about elections where the GOP spent more money than the Dems.? Or was your TMJ bothering you too much?

Hi Aaron,

I don't think someone can make a definite statement on "buying" an election. Certainly those with larger warchests are most frequently the victors, but whether they have larger warchests because they are already more popular is not as certain. In Obama's case, I think he had more money than McCain first because more people liked him than McCain, and then later because of his flip flop on public financing.

I think McCain-Feingold itself may have been the ruin of McCain in 2008, and if so I hope he learns something.

But back to my point, I don't think that Obama necessarily bought the election. I think more Americans simply liked him better than McCain. What remains to be seen is how he handles the demands of the Presidency. I think it will be both disastrous and fascinating, but I could be proven wrong.

In a way, the Dems have done us a favor by hating on Bush for so long. Anything bad became Bush's fault, and I hope that this has set up a trend in the US by which anything bad will become the Democrats' fault, and that this will lead to the Dems actually taking great concern for making decisions that are good for the country.

I don't trust the Democrats, but I do trust that they want to win elections. Maybe that consideration will prove sufficient to keep them from getting too wacky, save on the issue of infanticide.

"...the Dems have done us a favor by hating on Bush for so long..."

Well Mike I know we all have our own rose colored glasses but still..

Isnt that the pot calling the kettle black?

Seems to me all I have heard from your side is everything is Clinton's fault.

Even after 8 years of Bush still some folks cant let go of their hate for Bill Clinton.

Case in point we have posters right here on the forum who are convinced the current economic meltdown is Bill Clinton's fault and poor old President Bush was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

So since I can see how closed minded that makes people look I have resolved not to do that now that the Dems are in.

I wil give Obama about 3-6 months to get settled in then far as I am concerned it's "his baby" as one of our posters likes to say...

sodbuster wrote:Case in point we have posters right here on the forum who are convinced the current economic meltdown is Bill Clinton's fault and poor old President Bush was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

It's so much that I don't blame Bush at all, because we acknowledge his shortcomings, I just point the finger at where today's economic climate got it's start, where it orginated, and like it or not Sherman, it is with Bill Clinton.

Mike,

I wasn't making the accusation that Obama bought the election. I ran across an interesting question and posted it to, as Sherman says, stimulate discussion.

Personally, I think there's a smidgen of truth to the accusation that the amount of money he spent, especially in swing states, helped him tremendously but all things considering, I think he would have still won, possibly by a smaller margin but he would have still won had he and McCain spent the same money.

Well Aaron I figure you are right about him winning by a smaller margin if he had curtailed spending.

But at this unique time in our history, facing unprecedented problems both foreign and domestic, aren't you glad the country is united and he has a mandate from the people to pursue his agenda?

The people (voters) have spoken loud and clear the past two elections that they do not want to continue the republican agenda.

So if republicans want to be relevant again they will need a new agenda.

But so far they seem to be headed in the opposite direction down the rightwing road to ruin.

Speaking strictly as a Democrat, that is good for our side.

But speaking as an American I hope they will re-group and rejoin us at the table of friendship and brotherly love.

And work with us toward the goalws the people have stated so clearly they want their political leaders to strive for.

Otherwise that rightwing path will be their road to political extinction.

I disagree that there was a mandate by the American people Sherman. Of those that showed up last Tuesday, there was a 2% increase of African American voters and a 2% increase in young voters who chose Barrack Obama, but that doesn’t tell the whole story.

The reason Obama won as handily as he did wasn’t due to a mandate but was caused by 70% of Republican voters staying home. Those numbers were about the same in 2006 and that’s 10 to 15% lower then normal Republican turnout. Had conservatives and Republicans turned out in full force, this race would have been much closer. That is a simple fact.

But conservative voters have stayed home the last two elections and the reason is simple. They are not satisfied with Republicans acting and spending like democrats and as a result, they are punishing them by not only staying home, but by not donating as much money for their causes as well.

I also happen to think that's the reason some really smart, qualified conservatives haven't ran the past two years as well. They're not going to 'be punished' for the shortcomings of many of the national republicans over the past 8 years or so.

I think had John McCain won, the first thing that would have happened was the left would have started the same wild accusations they did in 2000 and 2004, they would never have accepted McCain as their President and with a majority in Congress, he wouldn't have had any hope of passing any of his agenda.

Democrats would have launched lawsuits contesting close elections and with the race implications, we would have likely seen riots and this country would have been divided, imo, more than at any time in our history save the civil war.

I don't believe for a second that Obama is going to foster great change in this country or get as much of his agenda passed as many on the left think and I certainly don't have any faith in him or his party leading us out of this economic crisis or of him being a great leader.

What I do think is, that if he is willing to work with both parties as he says, then the one good that he can accomplish is to heal some of the divineness that has been caused by democrats after the past two elections and their unwillingness to accept those elections and that is the reason I voted for him.

You can continue to think Americans are suddenly giving a mandate for liberalism and progressives if you want but I’m telling you, I think you are wrong. Like it or not, and I've referenced it in a couple of articles by left leaning rags that say the same thing, basically America is a conservative country and if Obama doesn't govern from the middle, he will not be successful.

And the unity you claim we now have will quickly evaporate and in 20 years, Obama, with the exception of his uniqueness you mention, will be nothing more then Jimmy Carter was, a highly ineffective democratic President that accomplished very little.



.

"I disagree that there was a mandate by the American people Sherman. "

Well all I can say is there is none so blind as he who will not see.

After two successive elections where the people have clearly repudiated the republican agenda??????

De Nile ain't just a river in Egypt.....

George Snuffleupagus is from your side of the fence Sherman and he, as well as every other Sunday morning news show, said the same thing.

If Barrack Obama attempts to govern from the left, he will not be successful and it will come back to haunt him.

This is a consertative country and Americans will not stand by and allow Reid and Pelosi ram their liberal agenda through the congress. That was said many times as well yesterday.

It was said on George's show that Emanuel was brought in specifically to put the brakes on both Reid and Pelosi.

Perhaps if you would listen to something besides the far left, you might know what is actually going on.

And who knows, perhaps President Elect Obama will do what is necessary for this country and temper the far left of his own party.

We shall see.

One question for you Sherman.

Who was the last democrat that ran on a consertative platform of a stong national defense and cutting taxes for 95% of Americans?

The proof is in the pudding.

Obama?

Egg-Zactly. And lower taxes and strong national defenses ARE NOT core liberal principals, they are consertative principals and is further proof of what I'm saying.

Obama will govern from the center or he will not be successful.

Egg-Zactly. And lower taxes and strong national defenses ARE NOT core liberal principals, they are consertative principals and is further proof of what I'm saying.

I disagree.

There have been many "liberals" that have supported those principles.

Look at modern conservatives. They are indistinguishable from modern liberals, save on a couple of things, mainly god, guns and gays.

While you are placing blame, the two big parties are stealing your country out from under you.

Well Aaron I never made any claim that Obama was a far left liberal, and never claimed he would govern from the left.

Remember he was not my first choice.

It's just that once the people have spoken I accept that I was not in the majority and go from there.

Obama's approach to health care, for example, is probably closer to Mitt Romney's than it is to Clinton's. Or Edwards'.

Not to mention Kucinich, whose views are closer to my own.

So those of us on the left are already making a huge compromise by getting behind Obama.

So if we can compromise to the right, maybe well-meaning conservatives can compromise a little to the left and we can all move ahead. Albeit a lot slower than if we had elected one of the other Dems.

All this compromise Sherman has us $10 Trillion in dept and facing $60 Trillion of unfunded liabilities. How much more can we as a nation afford to compromise?

Well Aaron you dont need to try to sell me about deficit spending or the national debt.

Ross Perot convinced me the Dems were wrong about that.

And beginning with Reagan the republicans have been the party of profligate spending, not Democrats.

I believe that, in general, any increased spending should either be offset by a decrease somewhere else or a tax increase.

(of course we could make exceptions for emergencies and worldwide financial crises such as we are in...)

Well at least you concede that increased spending is wrong so maybe there's hope for you after all. It's too bad national democrats and won't agree with you.

As for Reagan's spending, it was to rebuild a decimated military to meet cold war requirements, it was most definitely needed and most importantly, it was constitutional.

Howbout his raiding the Soc Security funds ?

Creating problems further down the road?

And he did that all by himself, right Sherman.

Him and Greenspan.

Last time I read my constitution, the legislative branch controls the purse strings, including the SS trust fund.

Who controlled congress from Jan, 81 to Jan 89?

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_thom_har_061022_the_truth_about_the_.htm

The whole Soc. Security trust fund raid was an idea hatched by Greenspan and Reagan insiders.

It went along with massive tax cuts for the rich and tax increases for the lower end of the income scale.

Please read this with an open mind Aaron.

Perhaps we can start this conversation by someone justifying why any income group should have to pay between 70 and 90 percent of their income in taxes, which is what "the top income tax rate was for the "superrich".

Well we can talk about that but we cannot start with it because we already started.

This is about whether or not it was reagan who first raided the Soc. Security Trust Fund and I submitted a source for my claim that it was.

The structure of the Income Tax brackets is irrelevant and immaterial to that discussion.