Jeb Bush paid $50 million per delegate (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 03, 2024, 09:39:40 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  Jeb Bush paid $50 million per delegate (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Jeb Bush paid $50 million per delegate  (Read 982 times)
SillyAmerican
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,052
United States


« on: July 22, 2016, 08:46:13 PM »

That he lost despite spending so much money is creditable. The best candidate, not the wealthiest, should always prevail in an election. Otherwise, we live in a country unfairly dominated by the elites, with some votes's having more influence than other votes.

Following that point, I correspondingly hope that Trump manages to hold his own against Hillary, as she's outspending him significantly; let's show that money and status mean little.

Yes. We can show that money and status mean little by putting Hillary in the White House this November.

This post is hilarious considering Trump is much richer than Clinton.


In terms of personal value, he has more net worth. In terms of campaign assets, Hillary has raised significantly more money and (as of now) spent significantly more money.

She, in other words, is the candidate relying on money and status to win (as Jeb Bush did); Trump is not.

I think Clinton is relying on votes to win, but that's just me. If people were to vote based on money and status, who do you think they would vote for?

Did you even read my post? She is relying on money and status to a greater extent than Trump is because she has raised much more money and spent much more money.

Answer:

1). Has Hillary not raised significantly more money than Trump has?
2). Has Hillary not spent significantly more money than Trump has?
3). Has Trump not raised significantly less money than other candidates have in the past?

Assuming you answer yes to the above 3:

4). As Hillary has raised and spent significantly more money than Trump has, is she not relying on money and status to win this election?

Anyone paying any attention whatsoever understands that Hillary is the candidate with the money generating machine, and that to this point, it's been Hillary that's been spending the money like it's going out of style -- maybe not to the level of Jeb Bush, but she's raised and spent considerably more than Trump. It would be so very gratifying to have money not matter in the least in this presidential election. If the money spent by Jeb and Hillary ends up being shown not to have moved the needle one iota in their direction, perhaps future candidates will think long and hard about how (and why) they spend their money.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.025 seconds with 12 queries.