Forest for the trees.

The point I'm driving at is that the charge liberals love to throw at conservatives about their grassroots organizing being "astroturf" funded by their large financing machine is hilariously hypocritical at best and outright bullshit at worst. Liberals in the US have a MUCH larger political financing machine than conservatives, but it's the conservatives who try to interfere with the democratic process by buying their way into power? Please.

Yes, there are larger monied interests favoring the Democrats. That's not a problem to me. My problem is that those same rank-and-file Democrats complain that they have a "mandate" based on popular opinion and love to frame political debates as a left-leaning population at large opposed by a minority right-wing upper class propped up by superior funding. (Google "Koch brothers" and get back to me.) Any objective look at this list reveals that this framing is completely disingenuous horseshit. If it came down to who has the larger political financing base, this country would have no serious conservative opposition at all.

That of course doesn't mean that the counterfactual -- that the US is actually mainly conservative and liberals are only propped up by a superior money base -- is correct either. Realistically, the correct framing is that both sides are nearly equal and nearly half of the country, and it's more likely that the political tides move as the big funding moves. The last 15 years have featured a remarkably liberal shift in political affiliation and action and it's no coincidence that this lines up with superior funding.

...So in other words...politicians see the version if the truth they like and cling to that despite contradicting factors because the truth is a complex messy ball and would doom partisan politics.

BREAKING NEWS INDEED.

I have no idea how what you said is remotely relevant to what I said. It's true, and also obvious, and also completely unrelated as far as I can tell. This has nothing to do with politicians (who may as well be plug-and-play) and everything to do with organizing for them: running advertisements, writing platforms, organizing demonstrations, get-out-the-vote efforts, getting spots on media reports, you name it. All the things that shape elections, campaigning, and public policy pull from this money pool, and despite the popular narrative, it's apparently *not* conservatives who are using superior monetary resources to win elections as a minority.

If you look at the most recent election cycle, shown by the same site, it's relatively equal ... http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/topcontribs.php?cycle=2012

Interestingly, NRC Handelsblad reported this morning that pres. Obama is about to appoint Timothy Broas ambassador to the Netherlands (usually considered a high target post for diplomats, as NL is the third foreign investor in the US). According to the American Foreign Service Association, the number of "political friends" appointed to ambassador positions is 37% under Obama, compared to 30% under Bush Jr..
Broas had been nominated before but his nomination was withdrawn when he was caught drinking and driving and resisting arrest.
Because that's the kind of image you want to project awaiting Senate confirmation to a diplomatic post: as being a person that can't master the self-discipline to wait a few months to start drinking and doing it while having obtained diplomatic immunity.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/02/us-ambassador-picks-103242.html#.UwIdG2C3FM8

Although, from my personal point of view, anyone caught drink driving who uses diplomatic immunity as an excuse should be punched in the face repeatedly by another diplomat (also enjoying immunity) until they learn their lesson.

It's funny to see a typical Libtard like Obi frothing at the mouth and dancing hysterically because <GASP!!!> it turns our the Democrats are fucking hypocrites and their mindless political money-machining is just as vulgar, if not more so, than the Republipuke machine, and this sudden revelation is severely denting his carefully constructed, emotionally-held delusion of reality...If he is capable of holding on to the memory of these facts, he might have to actually hold his knee-jerk, sheep-like criticism of Republipukes in check in the future....

Good lord, he might just explode...

As for Obama's appointments of ambassadors recently...amongst some of *the worst* ever – if any of you watch any media reporting on these things (which you won’t, because Libtard media has a difficult time criticizing the Emporer…) he has made appointement after appointement in recent weeks/months of individuals that can barely locate their intended country of representation on a map, let alone have any ideas of their government, people, culture, economy, etc….you know, all the pesky information an ambassador might like to know.

Of course, after he let an ambassador get slaughtered in Bengahzi, one would wonder who is silly enough to go out as Emporer O’s front man…seems like a dangerous job, to me…

"Good lord, he might just explode..."

...Not really...?

I don't get how this is a big deal, or a revelation, really.

Or, in the words of my generation:

U mad, bro? U mad......lol jk omg i no rite???

I might add that my generation has Attention Deficit Dis--

SQUIRREL!

Sorry, what were we talking about?

@obi: short and concise posts with a point please.

PE, the Republicans took over North Carolina completely even though it was trending blue with the personal finances of one man, Art Pope. Russ Feingeld, a longstanding liberal Senator from Wisconsin, was defeated because he was outspent by 4:1 in outside money. Out of state money is overwhelmingly going to GOP candidates in these races, and the GOP has far more 'billionaires' willing to put a huge sum of money into political campaigns. And if Democrats somehow had a greater advantage here, why is it the Republicans who continue to oppose any kind of limitations on financing?

This is faux equivalence par excellence on your part, PE.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/10/31/1114621/69-percent-of-outside-money-benefited-romney-and-republicans/

Doesn't seem to plea for the people of Wisconsin either not to immediately side with whoever spends less in such a blatant attempt to buy an election.

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/10/super-pacs-nonprofits.html

"short and concise posts with a point please."

1. Come off it, those last two combined were 8 lines long...save that comment for my true tl;dr posts, please.

2. If we're going to limit posts to those with a point, we're going to have to delete at least 50% of what's said on this forum. (And I already made my points--good or bad--above.)

"
"Good lord, he might just explode..."

...Not really...?

I don't get how this is a big deal, or a revelation, really.

Or, in the words of my generation:

U mad, bro? U mad......lol jk omg i no rite???
"

-This is just a drizzle of randomly assembled words and letters.

Fact is GOP had a good party-based campaign organization under Bush, prior to Citizens United, while the Democrats struggled with this prior to the emergence of Howard Dean in 2004, which was perfected by Obama's savvy campaign in 2008. After Citizens United, the Republicans got lazy and thought they could just win elections by bombing states with ads purchased with superpac money while neglecting on the ground organization, while the Democrats continued to build their traditional on the ground campaign fundraising operation. You can see that with the GOP primaries, where candidates would poll well but couldn't translate that into results because they had literally no on the ground organization. If it wasn't for SuperPAC money, the GOP would be dead right now.

These are independent anecdotes that don't rebut the overwhelming advantage Democrats have at the top of this list. The data up there is undeniable: Democrats have more money to throw around. Republicans winning due to outspending people win in spite of this fact, not because they actually have an advantage. In fact, the idea that the GOP is throwing a lot of money around out-of-state pretty strongly supports the hypothesis that they have fewer funds to throw around -- the states they're throwing money at are either key battleground states in elections (North Carolina for instance), or were done in states where Republicans have a way to mitigate unions' financial influence on the state's electoral politics and possibly flip a normally strongly-blue state (Wisconsin comes to mind pretty heavily). Other states that were battleground states are clearly becoming Democratic, though; Ohio, Virginia, Florida and North Carolina (despite the Democratic losses in other parts of the state's governance) all went blue last election, and they're all trending blue for the future as well. Part of this may be demographic in nature, but you can bet superior financing is playing a part, too.

You answered your own question re: limitations -- if the GOP would be dead without SuperPAC money, they would obviously be opposed to efforts to curb SuperPACs. Democrats aren't as concerned about it because it hurts Republicans more than Democrats on the whole; the US electoral system is effectively a two-party zero-sum game, so a measure which hurts yourself is still good if it hurts your opponent more. Without SuperPACs, Democrats would still dominate due to labor union spending; Republicans would probably be left in the dust significantly more.

"Maybe if the GOP didn't piss off Teachers, Laborers, and other groups they hit time and again with budget cuts--not to mention taking an anti-union approach--they'd bet more support there."
maybe most people hate unions and that's why the unions have to spend so much money to have any political influence...

""Maybe if the GOP didn't piss off Teachers, Laborers, and other groups they hit time and again with budget cuts--not to mention taking an anti-union approach--they'd bet more support there."
maybe most people hate unions and that's why the unions have to spend so much money to have any political influence..."

Those arguments are equally terrible when presented with absolutely no evidence.

Yeah...trying to hold unions accountable (i.e. did you actually *teach* the children anything last year?) and asking them to live by the same economic standards as teh rest of society (i.e. no golden parachute pension plans) = Hate

If this perception of “hate” is an example of your intellect as molded by union-Teachers, then you are only making the argument that teachers are *grossly* overcompensated for the 920 of classroom hours (In OHIO, for example), as compared to the 2080 hours a normal employee works. And please don't insult us by suggesting teachers are making up those 1000+ hours in prep work, grading, etc....nobody believe it.

I dare a couple of you to look up your local teacher's average salary, and then project it out from 920 hours to the full 2080 hours normal people work, and then tell me they are underpaid, when people with (for example) Masters degrees designing the safety systems of your automobile make less than they do, hour-for-hour...

If you admit that teachers do work additional hours outside of the classroom, then you can't directly compare their 920 hours to 2080 hours. I'm not saying that teachers do not get paid more per hour (I don't know, so I can't refute you); I'm just saying your argument is flawed.

It's flawed, but not enough to devalue the point. krellin's still on-point here. We just need a good estimate for out-of-classroom time. (1160 hours isn't it)

Those teachers that coach and do after school clubs get *paid* for those activities, at least where I live. Those teachers who work summer school get *paid* for those extra 3 months, at least where I live. So what do they do outside the classroom that I don't do an equivalent amount of? Sure, they grade papers. The lesson plans for the courses typically done by the state for them, so their isn't a lot of prep. Me? I take my work home, read technical magazines to keep up with the latest technology, etc. I spend 3-4 hours every evening (including weekends) working on job/career related efforts that, directly or indirectly by making me a more informed worker, contribute to my employers bottom line.

But even if you take out my evening work from home and unpaid OT I occasionally put in, I still work 1920 hours ( a year (3 weeks vacation and 1 week of holidays means only 48 work weeks). I seriously doubt even with summer that the teacher puts in 1000 hours outside the classroom unpaid (you cannot count the extracurricular stuff they get paid for).

It's hardly fair to consider pay for coaching or other after school activities. When I was in high school, our coaches got paid $1k for a season's work. That's not even close to a fair wage, and it's small enough to be negligible.

coaching is a voluntary activity. there are *plenty* of people that work real jobs i.e. 2080 hours) that **volunteer** to coach for all sorts of community sports. fuck off with your bitching about the time spent coaching.