2016 Presidential Horse Race

2016 Presidential Horse Race


  • Total voters
    183

woolybug25

#1 Vineyard Vines Fan
Messages
17,677
Reaction score
3,018
That's not what he's saying. He's saying it's disproportionate representation in the name of a political agenda.

Americans Vastly Overestimate Size of Gay and LesbianÂ*Population - Bloomberg Politics

When polled, American's estimate that the gay population is 25% due to over-representation in pop culture. The actual number is 4%.

Well, first of all... you're wrong.
Broadcast TV’s representation of LGBT characters this year stands at 4 percent (or 35 out of 881 series regular roles), an increase of a tenth of a percent vs. the previous measuring period. Broadcast TV also will have 35 recurring LGBT characters.
Them damn gays

and second of all... where is the outrage for the disproportion of white characters to US population?
film-diversity-1024x538.jpg

Out of 30,000 Hollywood film characters, here's how many weren't white | PBS NewsHour

Off the top of my head, Degrassi, Parenthood, The New Normal, Friday Night Lights, Girls, etc. It's always portrayed as totally normal and anyone who objects to abortion is a fundamentalist nutbag.

Give me some examples regarding the scenes in those shows that show them portraying "not a damn thing wrong with it". Because off of the top of my head, the scene in Girls has the guy having a big problem with it and it ending his relationship. That coming from a show creator that has a pretty offensive pro-choice stance. There is a big difference regarding showing abortion as a simple, "no big deal" scenario and simply portraying a scene where one takes place. It certainly isn't regularly portrayed on regular programming. That is simply a false statement.
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
Cruz ad attacking Clinton via Office Space parody:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/vpUYoj2fZ4Q" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
Well, first of all... you're wrong.
Cherry-picked statistics. The 4% is based only on primetime broadcast television. As a counter-example, let's look at the latest season of True Life.

  • I'm Obsessed with Staying Young
  • I'm Genderqueer
  • I'm a Gay for Pay Pornstar
  • I Have a Trans Parent
  • I'm Fighting My Faith
  • I'm Dating with HIV

That's six of 27 episodes (22%) focussed on "alternative sexuality." I haven't seen them all, so there may be others that aren't immediately identifiable by the title. Statistics aside, can you honestly tell me that you haven't even anecdotally noticed a pro-gay agenda in pop culture?

and second of all... where is the outrage for the disproportion of white characters to US population?
"White" isn't a political movement.
 

woolybug25

#1 Vineyard Vines Fan
Messages
17,677
Reaction score
3,018
Cherry-picked statistics. The 4% is based only on primetime broadcast television. As a counter-example, let's look at the latest season of True Life.

  • I'm Obsessed with Staying Young
  • I'm Genderqueer
  • I'm a Gay for Pay Pornstar
  • I Have a Trans Parent
  • I'm Fighting My Faith
  • I'm Dating with HIV

That's six of 27 episodes (22%) focussed on "alternative sexuality." I haven't seen them all, so there may be others that aren't immediately identifiable by the title. Statistics aside, can you honestly tell me that you haven't even anecdotally noticed a pro-gay agenda in pop culture?

Ahh... of course, my statistic of regular prime time television from a reputable source is cherry picked, but your scientific analysis of one show is more in line with the total picture of all media. By the way, who's cherry picking? The "regular" show you listed, and portrayed as "regular" television, is a show based on what is NOT mainstream life in America.
True Life - This acclaimed documentary series provides viewers with a first-person perspective on unseen parts of society and its subcultures

But yes... i'm the one twisting reality...

"White" isn't a political movement.

But too many gay characters is?
 

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433
Cruz ad attacking Clinton via Office Space parody:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/vpUYoj2fZ4Q" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

...very funny on so many levels...she might do the faux outrage, or DWS or some other dumb ass will

...but you know somewhere Hillary is chuckling, because people above it all LOVE it when you call them out, but there isn't a damn thing you can do about it...
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
Ahh... of course, my statistic of regular prime time television from a reputable source is cherry picked, but your scientific analysis of one show is more in line with the total picture of all media. By the way, who's cherry picking? The "regular" show you listed, and portrayed as "regular" television, is a show based on what is NOT mainstream life in America.

But yes... i'm the one twisting reality...
My point is that you don't need a statistic if you open your eyes. There's a pro-gay agenda on TV, and it's plainly visible. Just because there hasn't been a study done to quantify it doesn't mean common sense is invalid.

But too many gay characters is?
Not strictly on quantity, no. But in the way they're portrayed, absolutely. Gay characters almost always exist as oppressed saints to be juxtaposed with "Christian" characters and their bigotted ways. I'm not going to argue this point. If you honestly don't see that homosexuality is glorified in the pop culture and conservatism and religion are mocked and ridiculed, then there's no point in going any further.
 

woolybug25

#1 Vineyard Vines Fan
Messages
17,677
Reaction score
3,018
My point is that you don't need a statistic if you open your eyes. There's a pro-gay agenda on TV, and it's plainly visible. Just because there hasn't been a study done to quantify it doesn't mean common sense is invalid.

THERE HAS BEEN A STUDY, I POSTED IT. The number for gay characters in broadcast television is 4%, the exact number proportionate to their overall US population. Your "eye test" is simply incorrect. I don't get what you are missing here.


Not strictly on quantity, no. But in the way they're portrayed, absolutely. Gay characters almost always exist as oppressed saints to be juxtaposed with "Christian" characters and their bigotted ways. I'm not going to argue this point. If you honestly don't see that homosexuality is glorified in the pop culture and conservatism and religion are mocked and ridiculed, then there's no point in going any further.

If "glorified" is simply portraying them as a normal citizen in society, then I guess I agree? Would it make you feel better if there were more gay bashing on television?

Showing normal, assimilated homosexuals as characters on television isn't some left wing conspiracy to mock or ridicule the right. That is the real world. If you think that's not true, then you are finally correct about something... there is no point going any further with you.
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
THERE HAS BEEN A STUDY, I POSTED IT. The number for gay characters in broadcast television is 4%, the exact number proportionate to their overall US population. Your "eye test" is simply incorrect. I don't get what you are missing here.
I'm saying that "prime time broadcast television" is a very small piece of the pop culture pie. Television itself is only one component, broadcast is a sub-component, and prime time is a further sub-component of broadcast.

If "glorified" is simply portraying them as a normal citizen in society, then I guess I agree? Would it make you feel better if there were more gay bashing on television?

Showing normal, assimilated homosexuals as characters on television isn't some left wing conspiracy to mock or ridicule the right. That is the real world. If you think that's not true, then you are finally correct about something... there is no point going any further with you.
No, exactly the opposite. There's too much gay bashing on TV. Everyone on TV who's not gay or actively pro-gay is a gay basher. If you're a Christian TV character, you hate gay people, period. The message there is that Christians hate gays.

More succinctly: I don't object to the portrayal of gay characters. I object to the way gay characters are used as a tool to portray Christians and conservatives as bigots.
 
Last edited:

woolybug25

#1 Vineyard Vines Fan
Messages
17,677
Reaction score
3,018
I'm saying that "prime time broadcast television" is a very small piece of the pop culture pie. Television itself is only one component, broadcast is a sub-component, and prime time is a further sub-component of broadcast.

The OP specifically stated that he was referring to television.
Every TV show now seems to feature a homosexual character or couple as well as trannys and/or bisexuals.

Give the board a break with your constant stretching of the goalposts. You constantly make these specific points, and when proven incorrect, try to stretch and manipulate until nobody even knows what the original debate was regarding. I think your new, broader point is also incorrect as well though. You also have provided zero actual evidence to prove your ever growing, extremely broad, fuzzy argument.

No, exactly the opposite. There's too much gay bashing on TV. Everyone on TV who's not gay or actively pro-gay is a gay basher. If you're a Christian TV character, you hate gay people, period. The message there is that Christians hate gays.

Again... there is no evidence of this. If a character is treating a gay character poorly because of their sexual preference, it certainly is portrayed as wrong. Because guess what... it is wrong. It's totally fine if someone disagrees with someone's lifestyle, but it is an entirely different thing to act like it's unfair of media to portray discrimination as being okay if it's under the right banner.

I thought you were done with me?
 

connor_in

Oh Yeeaah!!!
Messages
11,433
Reaction score
1,006
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">First look at new <a href="https://twitter.com/tedcruz">@tedcruz</a> ad in SC targeting <a href="https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton">@HillaryClinton</a> and lampooning classic 'Office Space' scene <a href="https://t.co/Mu1YI4KJZJ">https://t.co/Mu1YI4KJZJ</a></p>— Morning Joe (@Morning_Joe) <a href="https://twitter.com/Morning_Joe/status/698122551382269952">February 12, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
He did have the 60 he needed, but only for 72 days. ish.

Was Senator Byrd not hospitalized for those 72 days?

The rest is opinion. It is just a simple point of the finger and lets pretend that "you bad guys are so stupid that you only rely on fake news, which totally invalidates everything you propose or believe." It also implies that Obama has been trying desperately to reach across the aisle and accomplish meaningful legislation, while the republicans have been thwarting his every wonderful assertive move.

Of course it's an opinion.

You're arguing against a strawman with that quote. I have never said Republicans are stupid, I was a proud one myself until about 2012. I made the case that somewhere between the Clinton years and the Obama years something changed. Obama, as arrogant as he is, has governed as a rather centrist President that (warning: opinion coming up) would have gotten much more through Congress in the political climate of the 1990s.

So what changed? In my opinion it's, in part, because Obama is the first Democratic President since Roger Ailes propaganda machine, Fox News, really got under way. I think it has had a rather obvious effect on the extreme stances the GOP can get away with, or more detrimentally, what stances an individual Republican Congressman must take if he doesn't want to face the punishment Fox News can dish out.

I can't say enough for how much I loathe Roger Ailes. He's just a ruthless Machiavellian monster in my opinion, and there are plenty of articles out there about how Republicans from Nixon to W Bush have feared him.

Of course it's not all Fox News, that would be silly. Today people can pick their media outlets, which are now 24/7. That has harmed both bases. But I think the conservatives have it worse because they're better. Rush Limbaugh and Fox News just have a greater impact on their base than anything on the liberal end. They're better at a game that is ultimately detrimental to political discourse.

Even democrats have criticized him for not being active enough with congress and being too high and mighty to work with them. This is his administration, it is on him to be the deal maker, the leader, the guy who makes things happen, and then accomplishes meaningful progress.

I have never disagreed that Obama wasn't arrogant like that. Hell even Bernie Sanders has brought that up.

But the Democrats aren't the ones who saw their party's extreme stances birth a Tea Party and have to dodge similar "RINO" accusations.

The norquist pledge is stupid, but to think that republicans would be calling for higher taxes or implying that we need higher taxes without it is just as stupid. At some point in time, people on the left must realize that people who fundamentally disagree with them are not doing so because of Fox News.

Oh it's worse than that, didn't you watch the clip. The climate in that party is so bad that every candidate rejected a 10-to-1 deal on cuts to increases. How do people not see how absurd that is? That was one of the bigger moments in my decision to flee the party after 2012. I can remember that moment and Sean Hannity actually taking the time out of his program to rip on Obama for asking for dijon mustard at a Five Guys...like are you fucking kidding me?
 
Last edited:

BleedBlueGold

Well-known member
Messages
6,265
Reaction score
2,489
...You're arguing against a strawman with that quote. I have never said Republicans are stupid, I was a proud one myself until about 2012. I made the case that somewhere between the Clinton years and the Obama years something changed. Obama, as arrogant as he is, has governed as a rather centrist President that (warning: opinion coming up) would have gotten much more through Congress in the political climate of the 1990s.

So what changed? In my opinion it's, in part, because Obama is the first Democratic President since Roger Ailes propaganda machine, Fox News, really got under way. I think it has had a rather obvious effect on the extreme stances the GOP can get away with, or more detrimentally, what stances an individual Republican Congressman must take if he doesn't want to face the punishment Fox News can dish out.

I can't say enough for how much I loathe Roger Ailes. He's just a ruthless Machiavellian monster in my opinion, and there are plenty of articles out there about how Republicans from Nixon to W Bush have feared him.

Of course it's not all Fox News, that would be silly. Today people can pick their media outlets, which are now 24/7. That has harmed both bases. But I think the conservatives have it worse because they're better. Rush Limbaugh and Fox News just have a greater impact on their base than anything on the liberal end. They're better at a game that is ultimately detrimental to political discourse...

How dare you suggest that any of the media is not liberal. Haven't you seen all those gays on TV?

FOX News is extremely dangerous to the American society. Thankfully their average aged viewer will die off shortly, along with O'Reilly's.
 

connor_in

Oh Yeeaah!!!
Messages
11,433
Reaction score
1,006
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="und" dir="ltr"><a href="https://t.co/KSC1IqVPqR">pic.twitter.com/KSC1IqVPqR</a></p>— Bloom County (@bloomcounty) <a href="https://twitter.com/bloomcounty/status/698154924937338880">February 12, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 

EddytoNow

Vbuck Redistributor
Messages
1,481
Reaction score
235
I'm saying that "prime time broadcast television" is a very small piece of the pop culture pie. Television itself is only one component, broadcast is a sub-component, and prime time is a further sub-component of broadcast.


No, exactly the opposite. There's too much gay bashing on TV. Everyone on TV who's not gay or actively pro-gay is a gay basher. If you're a Christian TV character, you hate gay people, period. The message there is that Christians hate gays.

More succinctly: I don't object to the portrayal of gay characters. I object to the way gay characters are used as a tool to portray Christians and conservatives as bigots.

According to the Oxford Dictionary of English, a bigot is "A person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions."

To characterize all Christians or Conservatives as bigots would be wrong, but there are certainly a large number that fit the above definition. There are also large numbers of Liberals and non-Christians who fit that definition. Intolerance is wide-spread, and one can be both a Christian and a bigot. One can also be both a non-Christian and a bigot. Are you tolerant or intolerant?
 

Ndaccountant

Old Hoss
Messages
8,370
Reaction score
5,771
According to the Oxford Dictionary of English, a bigot is "A person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions."

To characterize all Christians or Conservatives as bigots would be wrong, but there are certainly a large number that fit the above definition. There are also large numbers of Liberals and non-Christians who fit that definition. Intolerance is wide-spread, and one can be both a Christian and a bigot. One can also be both a non-Christian and a bigot. Are you tolerant or intolerant?

I'm intolerant of ignorance. I have little tolerance for tolerance sake. Random intolerance should not be tolerated unless tolerated intolerance creates tolerated violence. As such, I am a bigot to most.
 

NorthDakota

Grandson of Loomis
Messages
15,701
Reaction score
5,999
Any kind of major TV network is NOT "liberal media." That's another bullshit lie from the right. Those are multi-billion dollar companies. You honestly think they're liberal? They are a part of the establishment. They support the status quo in this country.

TV Executives Admit in Taped Interviews That Hollywood Pushes a Liberal Agenda (Exclusive Video) - Hollywood Reporter

DISCLAIMER: I'm not certain of the validity of this article. But if it is accurate, it seems as though they are very liberal, perhaps we could also look at donations from the media types and see how much of it goes to the Dems.
 

BleedBlueGold

Well-known member
Messages
6,265
Reaction score
2,489
TV Executives Admit in Taped Interviews That Hollywood Pushes a Liberal Agenda (Exclusive Video) - Hollywood Reporter

DISCLAIMER: I'm not certain of the validity of this article. But if it is accurate, it seems as though they are very liberal, perhaps we could also look at donations from the media types and see how much of it goes to the Dems.

I'm referring to the news, not tv shows and movies. The major networks intentionally skewed coverage in favor of the "establishment candidates" like HRC and the "ratings-getter" Trump. Even though polls started showing serious support for Bernie, they rarely gave him the time of day.

So in terms of stand-alone campaign stories this year, it’s been 234 minutes for Trump, compared to 10 minutes for Sanders. And at ABC World News Tonight, it’s been 81 minutes for Trump and less than one minute for Sanders.
- Eric Boehlert of Media Matters

The networks are ignoring Bernie Sanders because his anti-corporate message is dangerous to their well being. The broadcast and cable networks both have a habit of ignoring stories that can hurt their bosses’ bottom lines.

Sen. Sanders has consistently criticized the media for their coverage of the election. In August, Sanders said, “I want you to talk about and force discussion about climate change. Do you think you do that enough? I would like you to force discussion of poverty in America. I have talked over and over and over again that 51 percent of African-American kids are unemployed or underemployed. You think that’s an important issue? I do. Are you going to discuss it?”

The data shows that the corporate media is not going to give any coverage to Sanders or the issues.

Bernie Sanders is a huge threat to the corporate media, which is why they are ignoring his campaign.
 
Last edited:

NorthDakota

Grandson of Loomis
Messages
15,701
Reaction score
5,999
I'm referring to the news, not tv shows and movies. The major networks intentionally skewed coverage in favor of the "establishment candidates" like HRC and the "ratings-getter" Trump. Even though polls started showing serious support for Bernie, they rarely gave him the time of day.

- Eric Boehlert of Media Matters

Right on. As you probably saw, the thread took off in a bit of a different direction. Thats interesting information regarding the lack of coverage for one candidate vs another.
 

IrishLax

Something Witty
Staff member
Messages
37,545
Reaction score
28,993
Anyone see the trailer for the new "The Purge" movie? Kept thinking that unfortunate anti-establishment Senator would definitely be Bernie Sanders.
 

BleedBlueGold

Well-known member
Messages
6,265
Reaction score
2,489
The Establishment (all of D.C., lobbyists, and donors) is terrified of a Sanders presidency because he will shake up the status quo. That being they want to maintain the plutocracy that is crippling this country but making all of these corporate giants millions/billions of dollars.

The vast majority of this country is sick and tired of that bullshit and that's exactly why Trump and Sanders are doing so well (Sanders in particular in spite of the unbelievable lack of mainstream media coverage). While they're polar opposites on pretty much every issue, they're both not the "norm" when it comes to D.C. politics and presidential campaigns.
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
The Establishment (all of D.C., lobbyists, and donors) is terrified of a Sanders presidency because he will shake up the status quo. That being they want to maintain the plutocracy that is crippling this country but making all of these corporate giants millions/billions of dollars.

The vast majority of this country is sick and tired of that bullshit and that's exactly why Trump and Sanders are doing so well (Sanders in particular in spite of the unbelievable lack of mainstream media coverage). While they're polar opposites on pretty much every issue, they're both not the "norm" when it comes to D.C. politics and presidential campaigns.
I agree on Sanders but disagree on Trump. Trump has been part of the plutocracy (as you describe it) his whole life. I don't know why his supporters seem to think that his legacy of buying influence is any better than Hillary Clinton and others selling influence. He's just the other side of the same dirty transactions.
 

woolybug25

#1 Vineyard Vines Fan
Messages
17,677
Reaction score
3,018
Anyone see the trailer for the new "The Purge" movie? Kept thinking that unfortunate anti-establishment Senator would definitely be Bernie Sanders.

Just watched the trailer on my phone. Looks radical. Love the Purge movies.
 

BleedBlueGold

Well-known member
Messages
6,265
Reaction score
2,489
I agree on Sanders but disagree on Trump. Trump has been part of the plutocracy (as you describe it) his whole life. I don't know why his supporters seem to think that his legacy of buying influence is any better than Hillary Clinton and others selling influence. He's just the other side of the same dirty transactions.

Yes, he's part of it, but he's made numerous comments about not being bought like all the other candidates. I believe he spent a ton of time on this in the first debate or two. People don't like politicians who are bought and paid for and Trump played that card to get their support on the issue. It's no different than Bernie not taking any money from Super PACs, etc.

Thanks for the neg rep, btw. It was clearly a joke.
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
Yes, he's part of it, but he's made numerous comments about not being bought like all the other candidates. I believe he spent a ton of time on this in the first debate or two. People don't like politicians who are bought and paid for and Trump played that card to get their support on the issue.
I understand Trump saying it, I don't understand people believing it. "I bought off politicians my whole life" doesn't sound like a credible argument for "I will not be bought off now that I'm a politician."

It's no different than Bernie not taking any money from Super PACs, etc.
You can't take money from Super PACs. That's now how Super PACs work. The whole point is that they're independent entities form the campaigns.

You gotta stand back when Wiz enters the political threads. He's allergic to reasonable debate and makes a real mess of the threads...
I can't remember the last time I neg repped someone, but it was many months ago. The "reasonable debate" I neg repped was when BleedBlueGold said he can't wait for Fox News viewers to die off.
 
Last edited:

BleedBlueGold

Well-known member
Messages
6,265
Reaction score
2,489
I understand Trump saying it, I don't understand people believing it. "I bought off politicians my whole life" doesn't sound like a credible argument for "I will not be bought off now that I'm a politician."


You can't take money from Super PACs. That's now how Super PACs work. The whole point is that they're independent entities form the campaigns.


I can't remember the last time I neg repped someone, but it was many months ago. The "reasonable debate" I neg repped was when BleedBlueGold said he can't wait for Fox News viewers to die off.

Since when does the majority of Trump's supporters use logic?

Super PACs are being used as unlimited resources for campaigning. Bernie isn't using one. You know what I meant.

Dude it was a joke. Unless it wasn't and I'm actually hawkish on all the senior citizens in this country.
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
Super PACs are being used as unlimited resources for campaigning. Bernie isn't using one. You know what I meant.
That's an empty statement that Bernie keeps repeating. A candidate cannot use a Super PAC, by law. Right to Rise supports Jeb Bush, for example, but they don't contribute to Jeb Bush's campaign and Jeb Bush isn't allowed to discuss strategy or anything else with them. It's an independent group of people, not linked to the Jeb! 2016 campaign, that promotes a pro-Jeb! message. The fact that there's not a specific Super PAC supporting Bernie has absolutely nothing to do with anything Bernie has or hasn't done, it just means that nobody has bothered to start one to support him.

It's a lie anyways, because the Super PAC National Nurses United for Patient Protection has been supporting him.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The bus belonging to the National Nurses union (super PAC) is sitting outside Sanders' victory rally here in Concord <a href="https://t.co/zNZOeOS43J">pic.twitter.com/zNZOeOS43J</a></p>— Gabriel Debenedetti (@gdebenedetti) <a href="https://twitter.com/gdebenedetti/status/697187547257118721">February 9, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
Last edited:

BleedBlueGold

Well-known member
Messages
6,265
Reaction score
2,489
That's an empty statement that Bernie keeps repeating. A candidate cannot use a Super PAC, by law. Right to Rise supports Jeb Bush, for example, but they don't contribute to Jeb Bush's campaign and Jeb Bush isn't allowed to discuss strategy or anything else with them. It's an independent group of people, not linked to the Jeb! 2016 campaign, that promotes a pro-Jeb! message. The fact that there's not a specific Super PAC supporting Bernie has absolutely nothing to do with anything Bernie has or hasn't done, it just means that nobody has bothered to start one to support him.

It's a lie anyways, because the Super PAC National Nurses United for Patient Protection has been supporting him.

I stand corrected on Bernie's PAC. I spaced the NNU. The money pales in comparison to what others have been supported with. And what you're saying about these PACs is true but only on technicality. It's beginning to get fuzzy.

Super PACs are supposedly independent of the candidate’s campaign, but that distinction has just about vanished. In fact, strategists for the campaign of Jeb Bush are reportedly considering turning over some of the campaign’s central functions to their “independent” Right to Rise super PAC, making it the super-lucrative tail that wags the dog.

The difference in fund-raising power between the two political entities runs into hundreds of millions of dollars. The Bush campaign’s potential move could mean having the super PAC take over not just television advertising and direct mail, but a host of other campaign duties, according to The Associated Press. This would essentially amount to making the super PAC the true campaign center, without money limits that would apply to traditional campaigns.

Federal law prohibits coordination between the candidates’ organizations and the super PACs. That ban is fast becoming a fiction, with federal election regulators uninterested and unable to enforce the law. The result is that some of the candidates’ closest political advisers and managers are now going off to take charge of super PACs, where they manage the unlimited money pouring in for their candidates.

For example, Mike Murphy, Mr. Bush’s longtime political adviser, is reportedly expected to manage the Bush super PAC. Experienced operatives could skirt the non-coordination rule and do what a candidate needs without explicitly working with the campaign organization. Other super PACs likewise have already installed campaign loyalists at their helms while proclaiming non-coordination.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/27/opinion/how-super-pacs-can-run-campaigns.html
 
Top