Total Ad Money in 2004 Campaign

[Pangloss]

Reported on ABC News just now, the total advertising money spent by each side this year.

 

Kerry: $358 million

Bush: 229 million

Total: 587 million

 

A staggering sum.

 

This is JUST by the two campaigns, so in fact in the end, adding in the 527 money, the pro-Kerry advertising probably outmatched the pro-Bush ads by 2:1.

[bloodhound]

that can feed a third world country for a year

[Pangloss]

Hell, it could almost feed my dog for a year.

 

(You have no idea.....)

[MolecularMan14]

lol, my cousin has an English Bull Mastif. The coolest dog I know! 6ft 2 in. tall, and a beast. But the nicest thing you could ever have as a pet.

[bloodhound]

i think Welsh Corgis are Tres KAWAIII

[Mad Mardigan]

I voted for someone who didnt waste that much money.

[Skye]

You could buy a democratic process for that much money!

[Mad Mardigan]

Or the Russian Aerospace Program

[atinymonkey]

Funny thing, the Government elections in the UK have a set limit on campaign funds. The funds are realistic, under 1 million in total. It puts the politicitions in the odd position of having to convince voters using the normal channels of communication, rather than relying on advertising, buzz words, clever catch phrases, two minute time slots and media blitzes.

 

It the same for most democratic countrys thease days.

 

It means that in theory anybody can run, without first having to be super rich. For some reason, the super rich tend to be out of touch with the average man. I can't think why.

[Pangloss]

That's interesting, thanks for the info. I think it just underscore's my personal belief that you CAN in fact stop extraneous advertising. I mean if someone puts up an add that's pro or con about a specific candidate, isn't that rather obvious? And you can (presumably) always find out who put the ad together and shut 'em down, whomever they might happen to turn out to be. So the idea that the candidates can hide behind surrogates for public advertising is a little silly in the end.

 

As is often the case, we'll be able to hold Europe up as an example.

[Douglas]

Funny thing' date=' the Government elections in the UK have a set limit on campaign funds. The funds are realistic, under 1 million in total. It puts the politicitions in the odd position of having to convince voters using the normal channels of communication, rather than relying on advertising, buzz words, clever catch phrases, two minute time slots and media blitzes.

 

It the same for most democratic countrys thease days.

 

It means that in theory anybody can run, without first having to be super rich. For some reason, the super rich tend to be out of touch with the average man. I can't think why.[/quote']

Keep in mind that a good portion of these monies come from the private sector under section 527 of the internal revenue code.

 

[bloodhound]

why does america even allow the so called "527" organisations to exist?

[Douglas]

why does america even allow the so called "527" organisations to exist?

I think Bush passed some legislation banning these types of ads. I guess the lawers (on both sides) found a loophole via the 527 code.

Some of the ads were brutal.

 

BTW, I watched Tony Blair on TV today. I think all Americans appreciate the support of the Brits...................though you can't tell it from reading the posts on this board.

[bloodhound]

hehe. u will find that most Brits dissprove of the war. Dont let Blairs blind support suggest otherwise.

[Douglas]

hehe. u will find that most Brits dissprove of the war. Dont let Blairs blind support suggest otherwise.

Yeh, but now that Bush has a mandate, maybe you blokes will strap on your six guns and join us.

[Tetrahedrite]

hehe. u will find that most Brits dissprove of the war. Dont let Blairs blind support suggest otherwise.

 

As is the case in Australia. Around 60% of people objected to the war. Howard won the election because of a scare campaign about interest rates, not because of his support for the war.

 

By the way, winning an election doesn't give you a mandate!

[bloodhound]

America is still divided as usual. getting 51% of popular isnt the best result for a president.

[atinymonkey]

Yeh, but now that Bush has a mandate, maybe you blokes will strap on your six guns and join us.

 

It doesn't matter if Bush has a magic space camel, it doesn't really change anyone's opinion of the war. We don't blindly follow anybody, not even if he does have mandibles.

 

Seriously, the anti war rally in the UK drew over a million protesters in London. That's the largest protest ever held in the UK, and Blair ignored it. Ministers resigned, saying the decision to go to war was not subject to the democratic process in Britain. That upset a lot of people, even the war supporters. In some ways the decisions surrounding Iraq highlighted the autonomy Blair misuses, which is a really worring thing. The Prime Minister is not like a President, he is supposed to be subject to control by the people via parliament.

[Sayonara]

It's a bit naive to infer that all those who voted for Bush supported the war. Many of them will have voted for him despite it, for whatever reasons.

[Douglas]

It doesn't matter if Bush has a magic space camel, it doesn't really change anyone's opinion of the war..

Is Tony Blair our only ally in the U.K.?

[Douglas]

It's a bit naive to infer that all those who voted for Bush supported the war. Many of them will have voted for him despite[/u'] it, for whatever reasons.

You're absolutely right. It appears that a lot of Catholics, and of course the religious nuts voted for him for his stand on partial birth abortion and gay marriage. Some of the younger folks (yes, young people voted for him) may have voted because of his position on social security.

 

BTW, you folk in the U.K. can expect a large influx of disgruntled movie stars, rock and roll people etc.....maybe even George Soros and Michael M..... Just heard that Alex Baldwin is on his way.

 

Of course, these guys are full of SH*T, they wouldn't sacrifice their fat salaries for their principles

[Tetrahedrite]

It doesn't matter if Bush has a magic space camel' date=' it doesn't really change anyone's opinion of the war. We don't blindly follow anybody, not even if he does have mandibles.

 

Seriously, the anti war rally in the UK drew over a million protesters in London. That's the largest protest ever held in the UK, and Blair ignored it. Ministers resigned, saying the decision to go to war was not subject to the democratic process in Britain. That upset a lot of people, even the war supporters. In some ways the decisions surrounding Iraq highlighted the autonomy Blair misuses, which is a really worring thing. The Prime Minister is not like a President, he is supposed to be subject to control by the people via parliament.[/quote']

 

It is quite ironic that after the weapons evaporated from Iraq, both Blair and Howard (and Bush I suppose) said that the war was still justified because they would bring democracy to Iraq.

Democracy is derived from two greek words:

Demos = People

Krateos = Rule

Democracy quite literally means "people rule".

Yet the majority of people in both of our countries did not support the war. Here we have Howard and Blair talking about democracy in Iraq, while at the same time, denying it to the people who they are meant to represent!

[Pangloss]

Neither the UK nor the US actually has a Greek-style democracy (nor would any of us likely want that), so there's no real relevence in that point at all. It's just protest-sign fodder.

[Tetrahedrite]

Neither the UK nor the US actually has a Greek-style democracy (nor would any of us likely want that), so there's no real relevence in that point at all. It's just protest-sign fodder.

My apologies, I did not intend to suggest that we should have a Greek style democracy, my point was that if the majority of the people you represent don't want you to do something, then you shouldn't do it! The government serves the people, not the other way around.

[Mad Mardigan]

Money well spent though.