He spent far more money than ANY US Senate candidate in history and still lost.
Read this from Twitchy. O’Rourke got only 200,000 votes more than Paul Saddler did in 2012 against Ted Cruz, and Sadler only raised $700,000.
US Senate for Texas
2012, Paul Sadler
Raised: $705,027
Votes: 3,194,927
$/Vote: $0.22 each
2018, Beto O'Rourke
Raised: $69,240,350+
Votes (11:33pm ET): 3,413,259+
$/Vote: $20.29 each
Allllllll that money for just 200K+ more votes?
— T. Greg Doucette (@greg_doucette) November 7, 2018
“Allllllll that money for just 200K+ more votes?”
This is absolutely true. But the thing to be concerned about is that the Democrats have an almost endless supply of FAR LEFT billionaires who are willing to keep upping the dollars spent (fascism is the preferred economic structure of very large, powerful companies, it limits competition greatly). And they are getting very close to flipping even more red states to blue with that money. They won’t stop here. In 2020, those billionaires will at least double (perhaps even more) the amount of money that they are willing to spend to buy a globalist America. They have an endless supply of money from the uber-wealthy. Endless.
Eventually, it does overwhelm the opposition.
Not true. He got over 800,000 more votes than Sadler, so far. Currently Cruz has 200,000 less votes than he got in 2012, so maybe that’s the number they’re thinking of. These vote totals are likely to go up on both sides before the final vote is certified. Overall, it seems Beto’s gains over Sadler were from mobilizing new voters while Cruz just held his ground.
Um, that analysis is incorrect. You have to subtract the old data from the new data to find out how much the additional votes actually cost.
$69MM - $700M = $68,535,323
3.4MM votes - 3.2MM votes = 218,332
So we now have $313.90 per vote, not just $20.29. Granted, I’m sure this is more of a logarithmic scale, but even that much per additional vote, to still lose, is ridiculous.