Chanting Points Memo: “Two Campaigns”

You’ve been hearing it all over the place since it started sinking in among Democrats that their anointed candidate, Tom Barrett, was not going to pull off the win in Wisconsin last Tuesday – not even close.

Once the “Coin Toss” turned, for Dems in Wisconsin and nationwide, into a “Lunch Toss”, they – and their enablers in the mainstream, public and lefty media – started looking for excuses, for reasons that the ineluctable forces of history turned out to be very, very eluctable.

Among the first was the notion that Barret was outspent by 6:1.

It would sure make a reassuring story – “we didn’t get beat on ideas, we got beat by money”.

There are three answers to this meme:

Answer 1:  It’s Just Not True – The problem is, according to that noted conservative tool the WaPo, it’s really more like 2:1:

Now, Walker out-fundraised Barrett in Wisconsin, as well as outside the state.  But the part Dems never, ever tell you is that the Dems, as usual, outspent the GOP on independent expenditures by over $1.6 million

As everyone knew they would.

But they got outspent by the Walker campaign.  Which brings us to the second point:

Answer 2: Boo Freaking Hoo – So the Democrats got outspent?

In a recall that they forced?

There is not one single person in the entire Wisconsin Democrat party that knew that there would be no campaign finance restrictions on the race?  And that the GOP would call in every dog it could for this fight?  That Reince Priebus wouldn’t run his rolodex red-hot to defend the win he earned back in 2010?  And that the Tea Party wouldn’t absolutely slam the organizing?

Because there are only a few possible explanations:

  • There was, in fact, nobody who knew .  It’d seem to be a drastic mistake, forcing a recall without knowing the laws involved.  Just saying.
  • They knew, but figured that sheer Fleebagger passion would carry them through.  It’s the kind of hubris that is explainable, if not necessarily excusable.
  • They knew, but figured the GOP would screw it up.  Not a bad assumtion, under normal circumstances.  But the GOP – or at least the Tea Party-influenced part of it – is learning.

At any rate, it was the Wisconsin Democrats who asked for the recall.  So they got outspent?

Sucks to be them!

Answer 3: Hypocrisy – So winning an election by spending lots of outside money is a bad thing?

Well, tell it to Mark Dayton, whose 8,000 vote margin of victory was paid for by…:

  • An epic toxic smear campaign financed by Alita Messinger, a scionette of the Rockefeller family who dumps millions of her own money into Minnesota astroturf groups, which managed to convince just enough low-information voters that Tom Emmer had a DUI to cost him whatever…
  • The DFL-friendly travesty of an election-registration system didn’t provide Dayton.
  • Which, by the way, outspent Emmer and the GOP by at least 2:1.  More like 3:1, if memory serves.

In Minnesota, you have truckloads of outside money financing outreach to dumb voters and creation of illegal voters to win elections for the DFL.

I’ll await your peals of outrage.

And await.

And await.

7 thoughts on “Chanting Points Memo: “Two Campaigns”

  1. I heard that they don’t count all of the free and salaried Union man hours, too.

  2. I heard that they don’t count all of the free and salaried Union man hours, too.

  3. As I pointed out yesterday, they don’t mention the now estimated $125M in state taxpayer money to placate the DemocRAT cry babies.

  4. As I’ve constantly had to remind people, after CU and now Wisconsin, too much money in politics is not the problem. The problem is that people want to spend all those dollars to influence a government that has far too much influence on us. Scale back on government, the benefits it provides and the harm it can inflict, and the need to have $50 Million state campaigns goes away.

  5. They can do a recount, if they’d like. Of course, under WI law, if it’s beyond .5%, you have to pay for it yourself. I hope they DO go for a recount! It’d be a great place for them to sink millions of dollars, rather than the fall elections!

    By the way, KRod? It’s a bit of a pet peeve of mine, people using slang terms that they never bother to explain to people. What is Seeuuentee supposed to mean? If you explained it before I missed it – sorry if I did – but please explain.

    It’s like your old, repeated use of “Burbot”; if nobody knows what it means, it kinda loses its effect.

  6. I thought at first he was trying to make a subtle and sly reference to Senor Wences, a noted puppet. Alas, subtlety is not in this toolkit. Decoding it phonetically as if he were trying to spell a word, yields an unfortunate reference that detracts from one’s argument rather than bolstering it. It also distracts attention from the laughable content and reasoning of the target’s comments, which deserve to stand alone in the spotlight for all to point at and laugh.

    When your opponent is already doing herself in with her own words there is no point in being a beeyooteetee.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.