Florida

[boutons_deux]

Can Willard Gecko buy it?

Can Noot's polemics, facile debating "prowess", and flame-thrower insults keep his decrepit, obese ass afloat?

Mitt Romney super PAC outspending rivals 20-to-1 in Florida

Restore Our Future, a super PAC backing Mitt Romney, has already spent $5 million on ads in Florida. Can Newt Gingrich raise enough money to compete with Romney in Florida?

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/From-the-Wires/2012/0123/Mitt-Romney-super-PAC-outspending-rivals-20-to-1-in-Florida?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+feeds%2Fcsm+%28Christian+Scie nce+Monitor+|+All+Stories%29

[boutons_deux]

Eleven Shocking Facts About Campaign Finance

It’s been two years since the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Citizen’s United vs. Federal Election Commission, allowing a torrent of secret money to flow into the political process.

To be clear, the corrupting influence of big money was distorting the democratic process for years before that decision. But it unquestionably made the problem worse, exacerbating both the volume and secrecy of campaign donations.

Here’s eleven disturbing facts about the extent to which money is playing an increasing role in our politics:

The amount of independent expenditure and electioneering communication spending by outside groups has quadrupled since 2006. [Center for Responsive Politics]

The percentage of spending coming from groups that do not disclose their donors has risen from 1 percent to 47 percent since the 2006 mid-term elections. [Center for Responsive Politics]

Campaign receipts for members of the House of Representatives totaled $1.9 billion in 2010—up from $781 million in 1998. [Committee for Economic Development]

Outside groups spent more on political advertising in 2010 than party committees—for the first time in at least two decades. [Center for Responsive Politics]

A shocking 72 percent of political advertising by outside groups in 2010 came from sources that were prohibited from spending money in 2006. [Committee for Economic Development]

In 2004, 97.9 percent of outside groups disclosed their donors. In 2010, 34.0 percent did. [Committee for Economic Development]

In 2010, the US Chamber of Commerce spent $31,207,114 in electioneering communications. The contributions for which it disclosed the donors: $0. [Committee for Economic Development]

Only 26,783 Americans donated more than $10,000 to federal campaigns in 2010—or, about one in 10,000 Americans. Their donations accounted for 24.3 percent of total campaign donations. [Sunlight Foundation]

Average donation from that elite group was $28,913. (The median individual income in America is $26,364) [Sunlight Foundation]

Amount the Karl Rove–led Crossroads GPS says it will spend on the 2012 elections: $240 million. [On the Media]

Amount that President Obama has raised from the financial sector already for his 2012 re-election: $15.6 million [Washington Post]

http://www.thenation.com/blog/165778/eleven-shocking-facts-about-campaign-finance

America for sale, Human-Americans need not make an offer, their votes don't count.

[Winehole23]

The Nation for sale, grazing liberally in the pens of stink tanks and the handmaiden press in Washington.

lol

no quibble with the stipulated facts

[mercos]

I think Romney will take Florida. Gingrich may do well in the panhandle which is very conservative, but the larger population is further south which is more moderate. Romney hurt himself with the tax return issue, and it seems he has finally woken up and will release them. The two debates scheduled before the Florida primary could sway things, and any surprises in Romney's tax returns could also change things. It will also be interesting to see the long term effects of the Newt Gingrich ex-wife story.

[boutons_deux]

Willard Gecko will be the nominee, since the Repug power structure and Wall St know Noot is unelectable.

Noot's just pimping his celebrity, future revenoo, in which all (bad) news and scandal is always a great career move, just like Hollywood.

No one seriously expects politicians to be moral or ethical.

[boutons_deux]

Doesn't have a chance in hell, but gotta try.

Kucinich proposes measure to mandate taxpayer-funded campaigns

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) on Thursday proposed a constitutional amendment that would require all federal campaign funding to come from taxpayer dollars.

Kucinich argued in an announcement statement that his amendment would in effect overturn the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which allows outside groups to spend unlimited amounts to influence campaigns. That decision, Kucinich said, put U.S. democracy "on the auction block."

"With corporate private financing, we have officials working for the interest of corporations," said a statement from Kucinich as reported by Cleveland's The Plain Dealer on Friday. "With public financing, we have officials working for the public. And public financing will actually save taxpayers' money, by eliminating any incentive of public officials to reward campaign contributors with taxpayer subsidies.

“We must rescue American democracy from unlimited corporate money,” Kucinich continued. “This is the most fundamental issue facing the future of our nation.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/205381-kucinich-wants-to-amend-the-constitution-to-fund-federal-campaigns-exclusively-with-taxpayer-dollars

[RandomGuy]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/23/gloves-off-romney-savages-gingrich/

Ol' Mitt seems to have gotten the message from the far-right that they don't like him, and appears to have realized he actually could lose.

He will still win the nod, IMO.

The larger, more diverse states will go overwhelmingly to him, especially as he trashed the thoroughly trashable Newt.

That said, I hope Newt wins. That would be funny.

As a Democrat, I am still gleefully watching the Republican brew-ha-ha. Pure entertainment. :corn:

[Viva Las Espuelas]

I think its funnyer(done purposely, yes) Democrats are 100% happy with Obama. Not one finds anything wrong with him. Oh well. Hope. Change. Yada yada......

[Spurminator]

I think its funnyer(done purposely, yes) Democrats are 100% happy with Obama. Not one finds anything wrong with him. Oh well. Hope. Change. Yada yada......

Well, technically 80% are happy with him based on the latest Gallup approval ratings. That's still surprisingly high to me, but it'[s also consistent with same-party approval ratings of past Presidents.

[Winehole23]

where do you think new RP voters come from?

(mainly disaffected younger voters who voted for hope and change last time around or were sympathetic to it.)

[boutons_deux]

"Not one finds anything wrong with him"

You Lie

[Drachen]

I think its funnyer(done purposely, yes) Democrats are 100% happy with Obama. Not one finds anything wrong with him. Oh well. Hope. Change. Yada yada......

100%? No. He tried and tried and tried to compromise on several issues and when that didn't work, he used a democratically controlled congress to pass a compromised version of the bill. If the fuckers aren't going to meet half way or even a quarter of the way, then pull all that compromise back and pass the good version of the bill. That desire to compromise compromised his ability later, because it showed that he would fold. Many times he did it for the good of the nation (i.e. blinked first in last summer's game of chicken over the debt ceiling), but he wouldn't have had to fold if he didn't do it so many times earlier.

Try to compromise, give a really good attempt, once it is obvious that there is no compromise, go with your original ideas and be done with it.

All of that to say that I am not satisfied.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Yes 100%. He's uncontested, no?

[Drachen]

Yes 100%. He's uncontested, no?

so uncontested = 100% happy? wow, what a misguided leap of logic.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

so uncontested = 100% happy? wow, what a misguided leap of logic.

Then why isn't anyone contesting him? I mean I understand he's an incumbent but does that mean don't have anyone oppose him? Or are the dems just settling? Why am I "misguided". I know most peoples MO here is name calling but.......

[Drachen]

Because unlike some Repubs, Dems aren't ideological purists. You don't have to agree 100% to continue a relationship. I like a lot of what he tried to do. In fact, my biggest grievances (off the top of my head, I am sure there are a few others) are the non-closure of gitmo, and the aforementioned acquiescence to republican interests with absolutely no benefit.

[Spurminator]

Then why isn't anyone contesting him? I mean I understand he's an incumbent but does that mean don't have anyone oppose him? Or are the dems just settling? Why am I "misguided". I know most peoples MO here is name calling but.......

Per Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_primary#Advantage_of_in cumbency):

An incumbent President seeking re-election usually faces no major opposition during his respective party's primaries, especially if he is still popular within his own party. Like Bill Clinton during the 1996 Democratic primaries and George W. Bush during the 2004 Republican primaries, their respective paths to nomination became uneventful and the races become merely pro forma. The last time a Democratic incumbent was seriously challenged was during the 1980 Democratic primaries when Senator Ted Kennedy carried 12 states while running against President Jimmy Carter. The last time a Republican incumbent was seriously challenged was during the 1976 primaries, when former California Governor Ronald Reagan carried 23 states while running against President Gerald Ford. There have been other primary challengers like Pat Buchanan during the 1992 Republican primaries that do capture a small percentage of the national popular vote, but only receive either a handful of delegates or none at all.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

I mean I understand he's an incumbent but does that mean don't have anyone oppose him?.