Well, that's what they get for worshiping Pan, the Goat God, as most people with lots of money do.

Not necessarily, but the person with the least money NEVAR wins it.

So Kerry salvaged his campaign by getting a $6.4 million mortgage on a house he owned.

Gotcha.

Wait. WTF...$6.4 million mortgage. On a house?

Goddammit...this article is so full of fail...it's not asking 'who has the most money' it's asking 'who fundraises the most money'.

Sigh...we live in a plutocracy people, why the obfuscation?

Shaggy_C: So Kerry salvaged his campaign by getting a $6.4 million mortgage on a house he owned.

Gotcha.

Wait. WTF...$6.4 million mortgage. On a house?

Goddammit...this article is so full of fail...it's not asking 'who has the most money' it's asking 'who fundraises the most money'.

Sigh...we live in a plutocracy people, why the obfuscation?

I thought fundraising was the metric we were going by. Otherwise it'd be talking about Steve Forbes and such.

Fun fact: He didn't win either.

Gosling: I thought fundraising was the metric we were going by. Otherwise it'd be talking about Steve Forbes and such.

Maybe Subster just got me excited that we'd get to see the actual net worth of our candidates over the years...aw well

Ask Ross Perot, he should be able to answer that question.

debug: Ask Ross Perot, he should be able to answer that question.

Well, technically, he'd lock a bunch of experts in a room and not let them out until they had an answer to the question.

Q: Does the person with the most money always win the presidential nomination?


A: No


What's the point of this thread again?

Money is not nearly as effective as good hair. I hope to someday see a picture of Reagan without hair dye and blush.

Um, blush as a noun, not a verb.

Money won't guarantee victory but a certain amount is necessary to be competitive.

Sure. Next you'l tell me that the person with the most votes wins the elction.

Hasn't worked for Mitt Romney so far.

Dear Jerk Quote 2008-01-11 09:40:33 PM
Money is not nearly as effective as good hair. I hope to someday see a picture of Reagan without hair dye and blush.




/or did you mean from when he was president?

Recall all Repuglikkkans: Frankly, this is why we need public funding for election campaigns. We would all be better off if we did not allow people to give money at all to politicians.

We should just have a series of debates and then each candidate should get a certain amount of money based on the number of people who vote for them. That's it. No television ads, no radio ads, no campaign posters, nothing allowed at all.

One of the big problems with that scenario is that it won't stop other people from creating and running ads on behalf of the candidates.

Why, if I can afford it, can't I run an ad about a particular candidate?

Wandering through the links... how did Fred Thompson raise more money than Guiliani (new window) over any time period at all?

TUO3MTA3: Dear Jerk Quote 2008-01-11 09:40:33 PM
Money is not nearly as effective as good hair. I hope to someday see a picture of Reagan without hair dye and blush.
/or did you mean from when he was president?

Massive lolage

My first approved link! Strangely enough, even as subby, I submitted this with a better headline.

The guys with the most money always win? Ask Ron Paul how he's doing.

Ross Perot had more money, but spent a great deal of it just to be on equal footing with the jerks from the major parties...

Now Bloomberg, on the other hand, should he decide to run, would bury his opponents in cash.