PDA

View Full Version : I agree with Rove's counterfactual claim excuse...



Soflasnapper
11-10-2012, 11:59 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> An hour after most media outlets called the race for Obama, Rove was asked on Fox News about the impact of all the spending.

“We spent billions of dollars,” Fox host Chris Wallace said. “Crossroads, which you helped found, spent — what? — $325 million, and we’ve ended up with the same president, the same Democratic majority in the Senate and the same Republican majority in the House. Was it worth it?” Wallace wondered.

“Yeah,” responded Rove. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>“Look, if groups like Crossroads were not active, this race would have been over a long time ago.”</span>

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83658_Page3.html#ixzz2BqLHFPYn
</div></div>

I think that's true, although had that been the story told the donors, they still might not have thought it wise to donate their money.

Still, had Obama not faced the (whatever it was) $500 million+ from outside groups on top of what Myth and the RNC raised and spent against him (about $.955 billion), he could have done far fewer fundraisers and far more events, and likely carried some extra Democrats over the finish line on his coattails. He would have been far closer to his truly landslide numbers as to popular vote margin, and EC margin, in his first win, and it would have been seen as far more a mandate than it does now.

Ironically, this is the same 'it could have been much worse' story line the Democrats and Obama use as to the stimulus' effects and where the economy is, that is so widely ridiculed as stupid self-pleading by the side Rove is on.

It happens to be true, even if an unsatisfactory explanation that doesn't really get you very far. Or maybe it does, at least with regard to the Obama side of that parallel explanation.

And with all due respect to Rove, whom I find an execrable human being, HE did not pick the candidates that Haley Barbour in an off-hand moment of candor stated were 'sh!tty candidates' who 'p!ssed away' at least two Senate seats.

That was the party crazies, who as Michele Bachmann explained, had the theory that Obama was so hated and such a failure that they need not appeal to the middle, and instead were free to put forward their own wet-dream maximalist conservo favorites who would still win.

Shades of 2010, when neither Reid nor Delaware's Senate seat were taken by the GOP when they easily could have been.

It's not Rove's fault the GOP shot off two feet with their now two-cycles' worth of sh!tty candidates, when they probably could have had majority control of the Senate without those unforced errors.

Soflasnapper
11-10-2012, 12:21 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Collegio said Rove is a fundraiser and consultant for Americans Crossroads and not involved in day-to-day operations. He said the problem wasn’t with super PACs, but with the fact that Democrats from Obama on down buried Republicans in fundraising and that the GOP continues to have “suboptimal candidates running for office,” he said.

What Crossroads and other affiliated groups did do, he said, was keep it close: “Obama won by 355,000 votes in four swing states. I don’t think any honest person can say that if Obama outspent us by $150 million without the help of outside groups it would have been that close.” </div></div>

So, it would have been worse, AND Robme didn't have enough money (without them, or even, with them).