Upset Republican donors: Have we wasted our money?

The Hill ^ | January 13, 2016 | Jonathan Swan

[Repealthe17thAmendment]

It's not the money, it's the candidate. You'd think smart donors would have figured that out.

Ask any bettor; putting more money on a losing team doesn't help them win. Losers are losers.

[MNJohnnie]

Yes, and what is worse is all us small irrelevant peasant types around the USA are laughing hysterically at you because of it.

[stephenjohnbanker]

If the GOPe doesn’t lose 100 million, I’ll be upset.

[Sacajaweau]

Supporting losers is like building a gigantic reserve to rig an election. The money has to go somewhere....

[Bryanw92]

>>It’s not the money, it’s the candidate. You’d think smart donors would have figured that out.

They really don’t get it. Its not even the candidate. It’s his message that is, sadly, very unique in modern American politics. Imagine that...a message of “let’s make America great again” that doesn’t involve a bunch of programs and shout-outs to victim groups!

Any candidate could have made that message work, but none of them believe it except for one.

[stocksthatgoup]

You think?

[hillarys cankles]

YES, yes you have.

[Opinionated Blowhard]

but they're starting to look for ways to make them more effective during a presidential cycle

Psst. If either of these two clowns are running the SuperPac, it won't be effective:

[SaxxonWoods]

I think they’ve spent it perfectly.

Heh.

[hal ogen]

HaHa. The slaves must be off the plantation.

[cornfedcowboy]

Think about the hundreds of millions wasted on Hillary. She is a terrible candidate.

[be-baw]

I’m thinking ads will have more influence after Iowa and New Hampshire when the primaries start piling up.

[txrefugee]

Haha...the GOP Fat Cats probably thought this was still 2008 when they foisted McCain on conservatives or 2012 when they bought the nomination for the Mittster, but that dog won’t hunt this time. Well-financed losers are still losers.

[The_Victor]

All the money in the world isn’t going to sell liberal policy to conservative voters.

[nopardons]

They may have a LOT of money, but they sure don’t know how to read how the wind blows.

[nopardons]

After Trump wins both states? WHY would ads against him work ?

[Slyfox]

Despite all the talk about money in politics, we are entering an era where big money is less and less important

He-he-he.

Meanwhile, in a lone office somewhere in Texas (or DC)(or NY), we can hear the faint cries of a man named Karl.

[Marcella]

PACs are stuck on advertising on TV - mostly a waste of money as elections happen in counties.

Take that money to each county and set up shop, get a Republican primary voter list from the county, send out fliers, call Republican voters, set up a stand in the middle of the major town/city and hand out fliers with the candidate’s message on it and talk to those people who come to the stand, get voters to the polls.

A simple thing: Voters who are not used to voting should be told where they go to vote - where their polling place is based on where they live.

Why do not PACs do the above? Because it is easy to hire someone to make a video for TV and extremely human labor intensive to work in counties and get votes.

[MplsSteve]

“It’s not the money, it’s the candidate. You’d think smart donors would have figured that out. Ask any bettor; putting more money on a losing team doesn’t help them win. Losers are losers”

Very well put.

[Eddie01]

What? The guy on the right couldn’t afford the entire sleave?