Statistic of the Day

Oct 13, 2010 14:42

Meg Whitman (Californian gubernatorial candidate) has now contributed as much of her own money to her campaign as it cost to produce the first Spiderman movie. About $140,000,000.

All in all, I'd rather she had made The Hobbit (which, I hear rumored, will be the highest cost movie ever to have been made -- perhaps in nominal dollars, but I'm not

2010 election, statistic of the day, california, tolkien

Leave a comment

Comments 18

vizslas_r00l October 14 2010, 03:19:53 UTC
I find it interesting that the same people who rail against this level of spending, also think that it's okay for Reid to outspend Angle 10:1 because "that's different".

Also, if you think you're a better candidate than the other guy, how much money SHOULD you spend trying to get elected? It's like that scene in the Matrix where they're defending the dock against the sentinels. One person I was watching it with commented, "Did they REALLY need to fire THAT MANY BULLETS?!" How many bullets would you fire if it was Humanity's Last Stand? Answer: All of them.

Reply

kalimac October 14 2010, 12:16:26 UTC
Has Reid spent $140 million? Of his own money?

Reply

vizslas_r00l October 14 2010, 14:43:47 UTC
If Reid had a $1B net worth, then I think it would be reasonable for him to spend 14% of it on his campaign. I would guess that people spend much higher amounts of their net worth on campaigns, especially if they believe their cause is just.

Reply

jpmassar October 14 2010, 15:38:29 UTC
There are tradeoffs though. First, you get seriously diminishing returns. Second, some people start to wonder why you have to fund the campaign all by yourself; does no one else support you enough to contribute?

I wouldn't mind terribly having someone spend a gazillion bucks on a campaign as long as the opponent has a chancet o also get their message out.

In any case I just thought the comparison with the cost of a movie was a bizarre take on the whole thing; not necessarily a comparison for good or evil.

Reply


abostick59 October 14 2010, 19:03:54 UTC
Do you think the money will have been better spent if she loses, or if she wins?

I think being California's governor is such a terrible job that I question the sanity of anyone who wants it, and anyone who spends that much of their own money to get it should be at the very least 5150'ed into that rubber room for 72 hours for observation and evaluation.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up