|
Will, I'm a human being like anyone else and so are you. Why do you think other people can't recognize bullshit when they see it if you and I both can?
As for Bloomberg, his money got him a level playing field in '01 and '05 because in NYC it's very hard for Republicans to be taken seriously (yes, I know we have had Republican mayors since '93 but that's really a fluke - there are almost no other Republican officeholders of any kind in NYC to speak of, at any level of govt). And his overspending in '09 came very close to losing him the mayoralty because people were massively turned off, and they were also pissed about his end-running term limits. So yes, there is no linearity there.
I think you're not really disagreeing with my basic point, which is that spending can make a candidate competitive but can't get him to win if s/he isn't otherwise an attractive candidate. All it can do is get him/her into the race. Otherwise Michael Huffington would have won in Calif, John Dyson in NY, Meg Whitman in CA, etc etc etc.
|