Posted on 11/03/2010 2:21:29 PM PDT by JoeA
In the springtime, strategists for Meg Whitman in her campaign for governor of California probably felt theyd died and gone to heaven in. In a state roiled in political in-fighting, effectively bankrupt, and a political atmosphere in which the electorate was sharpening pitchforks and boiling tar, you had a non-political woman, an internet legend, immensely successful, running as a moderate Republican, which all the pundits agree is the only way for Republicans to get elected in California. Meg Whitman, the first female billionaire in fact, with all the private money available one could ever hope to spend. And the opponent? Laughable, really. A former two-term governor who earned the moniker Governor Moonbeam for outlandish ideas, who turned the states large surplus into large deficit, raised taxes, and left it with a (then) record unemployment rate and a shrinking economy.
(Excerpt) Read more at exm.nr ...
How much money did she spend per vote?
We must make sure that, when California hits bottom, it hits hard! No federal help! After all, what can the Californiacs do? Vote Democrat?
$45.64 per vote. (141.5 mil / 3,100,000 votes)
I don’t know, sounds like a possibility to me but I’m not a lawyer.
All I know is if I had the kind of Money Whitman has and just spent a quarter bil, I would be willing to spend several mil more to take Alred to task.
“The point was that Meg Whitman was a liberal that ran on a pro-abortion, anti-gun platform.”
So are you suggesting that Meg lost because she leaned left on these two issues? That was inconsequential. Did you read the posted article, the theme of which was about a state stuck on stupid that once again elected Governor Moonbeam, the same politican who failed them before and left a path of economic destruction in his wake? Kalifornia is a lost cause.
What I keep reading is your defense of Meg Whitman, you seem unbothered by her platform, or her politics, she was the wrong person to lead the GOP efforts in California with her 150 million dollar campaign.
She lost, because she never could be bothered to vote, which is an American citizen’s sacred trust.
She’s a globalist, so voting never mattered to her, until she decided that being governor would be good for her pocketbook.
No conservative can support a candidate like that.
“What I keep reading is your defense of Meg Whitman”
Evidently you’re not reading because you didn’t bother to answer the questions in the post you responded to. Bye.
As one that refused to vote for Whitman, I think that she was the wrong person to lead the GOP efforts in California with her 150 million dollar campaign.
It removed the entire Republican brand, having the state leader run on a pro-abortion, anti-gun platform.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.