NYMag: Republican Billionaires Just Can’t Seem to Buy This Election

Status
Not open for further replies.
It was the most fun I've ever had watching TV. The laughs just kept coming. Fox News... I know too much is already said on the subject, but it still manages to surprise me just how fucked up it is.

It was a glorious night for sure. GOP are not gracious losers in any sense. At least put on an act for the camera.
 
You're not supposed to 'buy' an election tho .. :/

shaq-laughing-press-conference-shaq-gifs.gif
 
From another New Yorker article:

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/12/14/a-house-divided

Mark Meadows said:
"'I’ve given money and yet nothing is happening.’ And this was from a country-club Republican, not a Tea Party activist. That had a real impact."

An actual GOP Congressman reacting in shock that their rich members can't buy legislative influence. That self-inflicted country-club image, a byword for an insular, financially and racially discrimatory, fuck-yours-got-mine shitpile is the icing on the cake
 
I kind of wish I was american. These Super PACs seem like a good way to embezzle/clean money.
Why do you think the IRS is a prime target of the people running these groups? And it worked like a charm, too.
 
What a waste of money too.

Funny coming from the party of so called fiscal conservatives.

It's a huge misallocation of money. Imagine if that money was used for capital instead of Me Too campaigns.

Yep. I admit to being surprised that big money hasn't completely corrupted federal-level elections, though it still comes with a myriad of other issues. But to think that all those millions that could be put to some tangible use or philanthropy is fired down the drain of political ad spends and mailers is disheartening.

I'm fairly shocked there haven't been any cartels or whatever using them to launder money, SuperPACs seem tailor made to do the job.

SuperPACs would be pretty shitty ways of laundering money. Your car wash or corner store doesn't have to disclose donors or list expenditures. You'd have to do some convoluted system where you owned some political organ that would put out cruddy ads you overpaid for, and there would still be direct connections between the sources of money.

Here's what various PACs and NGO/non-profit organizations have to disclose: https://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/rules.php
 
“Everyone is still shocked Romney lost”

I still don't get this...I still recall all the "unskewed" and "insider" polls and Rove freaking out on election day and the sentiment that Romney could win was never a fact to me. I don't think I ever understood until that moment how impenetrable their bubble is.
 
The fact that they're still shocked Romney lost should say something about how utterly impenetrable their bubble is. That was such a non-surprising election, yet they all seemed to have bought into the narrative that Romney was going to ride in on his white horse and trounce Obama. The same Romney none of them even fucking wanted in the first place.
 
I have never quite grasped how these rich doners decide to throw away millions and millions to win elections for favorable politicians that might not even introduce policies that save them as much money as the doners spend supporting them. On top of that, these elections aren't a sure thing so you are taking on double the risk. Always seemed stupid to me.

I think money is an important factor in elections up to a certain point. There is a threshold that can be crossed where additional support and ads just don't add much value.
 
I have never quite grasped how these rich doners decide to throw away millions and millions to win elections for favorable politicians that might not even introduce policies that save them as much money as the doners spend supporting them. On top of that, these elections aren't a sure thing so you are taking on double the risk. Always seemed stupid to me.

I think money is an important factor in elections up to a certain point. There is a threshold that can be crossed where additional support and ads just don't add much value.

It's a social standing thing as much as anything else. It's like a club.
 
wait, so they thought they would invest in President and since they didnt win, they wanted money back? That seems pretty damn silly.

What's this about entitlement they're always talking about? I feel like 90% of Republican campaigns are to fleece rich people out of their money to pay for consultants and travel expenses.
 
A few days after the election, New York hedge-fund manager Daniel Loeb, who’d helped finance Rove’s surge, tried to sue Crossroads and Fox News for misrepresenting the facts. “Loeb felt this was like an investment bank committing fraud on a road show,” a friend of his told me. After conferring with a securities lawyer, Loeb discovered that there are no investor protections in politics. He never filed a suit.
This is both hilarious and terrifying.
 
Corporate Donors will buy the election however, which is really how they win. They know the political spectrum is centered between crazy and bought, and simply bought.

Only a handful of people even know the extent a lot of this shit goes to. Its hardly about party.

Hillary will do what they want, the argument of "the GOP is losing, of course money in politics dont matter!" is simply obfuscating the real issue to detract from the core problem, which is how money in politics gets such a bad wrap from people who know what they are talking about.


Again, this is not about pure kind democrats against racist mean old repubs. Each party will bend to the will of the powerful regardless of their political leanings. Either one will do it brazenly, or one will do it behind their constituents backs while pretending to appeal to 'moderate thinking'.
 
Unlimited campaign funding basically just means some high paid consultants are just getting paid more now. There are strong evidences that the last few GOP primaries have been more like pyramid schemes than an actual political process.
 
Billionaires relying on sound research and sophisticated social sciences to elect politicians who will do the exact opposite when they set policy.

Fucking perfect.
 
“Loeb felt this was like an investment bank committing fraud on a road show,” a friend of his told me. After conferring with a securities lawyer, Loeb discovered that there are no investor protections in politics. He never filed a suit. (And Loeb declined to comment.)
Not finished reading but this part instantly reminded me of this:

M6NmLUc.jpg
 
“The going joke is that he must have a picture of Roger Ailes in his underwear to keep his contract.”
I certainly hope he cleaned that up for the interview, and that isn't how conservatives talk amongst themselves. My liberal father always says, "They've got a picture of [X] fucking a goat."

Trickle-down is a complete myth, but far too many people aren't willing to accept that reality.
"A poor man never gave me a job."
 
My takeaway from this is considerably more pessimistic-- that after the failures of 2012, they're learning.

Yeah, that was my scary take away as well.

From another New Yorker article:

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/12/14/a-house-divided

An actual GOP Congressman reacting in shock that their rich members can't buy legislative influence. That self-inflicted country-club image, a byword for an insular, financially and racially discrimatory, fuck-yours-got-mine shitpile is the icing on the cake

Well, to be fair that is a legitimate complaint regardless of who it is coming from. Individuals donate to political campaigns because they expect to see some effect, that their supported policies are being pushed forward. If an individual is continually donating large amounts of money to a party and they keep acting in the same losing manner they have every right to be upset.
 
What? The GOP frontrunner is a billionaire who persists despite villainizing entire ethnic and religious minorities as the cause of society's problems. If anything this shows how being rich can get you anywhere, even if you refuse to judge people on the basis of their character and are proud of it.
 
What? The GOP frontrunner is a billionaire who persists despite villainizing entire ethnic and religious minorities as the cause of society's problems. If anything this shows how being rich can get you anywhere, even if you refuse to judge people on the basis of their character and are proud of it.

Trump has spent the least amount of money than all of the other candidates, his rise in popularity has everything to do with the people and not his money. You may not like the people that support him as they are a racist, xenophobic, emotional crowd but they are the ones propping Trump up not a handful of rich billionaires.
 
Super Pacs have already done a lot of damage in midterm elections, where a few million can have a lasting impact. Looking at it only from the prism of presidential elections is very naive.
 
The thing is, all money can really do (right now) is misinform and discourage. And thanks to aforementioned republican billionaires, we've reached peak misinformation at the national level.
 
It seems conservative culture have bad problem when it comes to cheaters, grifters, and scam artists. From conservative media to the establishment to the average conservative voter, it seems there's always a cloud of opportunists waiting to bilk the wealthy conservative financier (Karl Rove) to the lowly conservative factory worker (conservative media talking heads selling their book...or GOLD!!) of their money.

No saying this isn't the case with the Democratic side, but it seems especially bad on the conservative side. It seems opportunists and scammer naturally gravitate towards conservative culture.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom