2016 Postmortem

Silent3

(15,259 posts) Wed Nov 7, 2012, 11:07 AM Nov 2012

Do you think the billionaire bucks had their biggest effect in House races?

Could we have flipped the House without the huge money advantage Republicans had, or would that have remained out of reach anyway?

The big money didn't seem to have had much effect at the Presidential level. I think with the economy as it is, no matter how much that's really the Republican's fault, the size of Obama's ultimate victory was nearly as good as we could have hoped for, with or without the billions poured into the election.

Given the incredibly low approval rating for Congress, it's amazing to me personally that so many Republicans held onto their seats. Redistricting by Republican states helped protect many of those seats, but did the money help even more?

7 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Do you think the billionaire bucks had their biggest effect in House races? (Original Post) Silent3 Nov 2012 OP

no this house is unfortunately wilt the stilt Nov 2012 #1

True. Gerrymandering is so evil. GreenPartyVoter Nov 2012 #3

Exactly. Obama ran a brilliant campaign FOR OBAMA, but not for the party BlueStreak Nov 2012 #6

It does make you wonder. GreenPartyVoter Nov 2012 #2

Negative ads work best against unknown candidates gravity Nov 2012 #4

What does it say about their business acumen when they spent money ineffectively? LiberalFighter Nov 2012 #5

There are a lot of Republican Counties RosedaleGuy Nov 2012 #7

wilt the stilt

(4,528 posts)

1. no this house is unfortunately

Reply to Silent3 (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 11:08 AM

Nov 2012

the result of losing in 2010 and redistricting

GreenPartyVoter

(72,381 posts)

3. True. Gerrymandering is so evil.

Reply to wilt the stilt (Reply #1)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 11:09 AM

Nov 2012

BlueStreak

(8,377 posts)

6. Exactly. Obama ran a brilliant campaign FOR OBAMA, but not for the party

Reply to wilt the stilt (Reply #1)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 11:17 AM

Nov 2012

He never did even ask for the public to send him a cooperative House.

We need somebody like Dr. Dean who understands how important it is to control Governorships and state legislatures. And we have 8 years to get our shit together before the next wave of Gerrymandering.

GreenPartyVoter

(72,381 posts)

2. It does make you wonder.

Reply to Silent3 (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 11:08 AM

Nov 2012

gravity

(4,157 posts)

4. Negative ads work best against unknown candidates

Reply to Silent3 (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 11:13 AM

Nov 2012

Everyone had vetted Obama already so the negative ads had little effect on him.

A Democratic challenger for a Congressional seat doesn't have the name recognition so it is easier to allow the ads to define the candidate.

LiberalFighter

(51,054 posts)

5. What does it say about their business acumen when they spent money ineffectively?

Reply to Silent3 (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 11:14 AM

Nov 2012

RosedaleGuy

(89 posts)

7. There are a lot of Republican Counties

Reply to Silent3 (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 11:25 AM

Nov 2012

in America. If you look at the map it's all red except for the cities. Dems need to do more to reach out to rural voters. There must be common ground somewhere.

Dems need to forget about gun control like Clinton and Obama did.

I think Obama didn't do much to help dems in other races because he was in a fight for his life. Being on stage with a congressman who later does or says something embarrassing could have cost him the race and dems the White House. He made the tough call.

Reply to this discussion