Super PACs stimulating the economy to Obama's advantage in states that went blue in 2008

[Tom Poll Master]

Cross-posted in Immizen.com with charts and links to sources.

Republican Super PACs: We Can't Buy The Election Like We Thought We Could

A billionaire-backed stimulus program for states that went Obama in 2008. A private cash infusion to prop up the economy in a race where Obama gets the credit. However you characterize what is going on now in the 2012 election, the societal benefit of the Super PAC spending spree is tremendous, particularly if you happen to live in one of the aforementioned states. From today's Wall Street Journal:

Big outside political groups armed with an unprecedented river of money had appeared poised to be pivotal players in the 2012 elections.

So far, these super PACs are looking less than super.

Freed of any constraints on the size of donations, political action committees have since April poured more than $250 million into the presidential and select congressional races—more than what the two 1996 presidential candidates spent in total on their campaigns, records show.

But signs are few that super PACs have had the major impact that both supporters and critics predicted. The flood of spending doesn't appear to have significantly influenced voter opinion in key states in the presidential contest or in top congressional races.

And then there is my home state, North Carolina:

In North Carolina, which the GOP believed it could retake easily after losing to Mr. Obama by a sliver in 2008, conservative super PACs have spent $23 million trying to put the state beyond Mr. Obama's reach. Through the end of August, the Romney campaign and its allies had committed to ads worth a total of nearly $34 million in the state, compared with nearly $23 million by the Obama campaign.

And today, a new Civitas poll has come out (replacing the absurd Survey USA/Civitas poll of 9/10 that had 30% of African-Americans voting for Romney) showing Obama up over Romney in North Carolina by 4%. This moves the NC RCP average from -2% Obama to +1% Obama. That makes the new "no toss-up state" tally 347 electoral votes Obama/Biden, 191 electoral votes Romney/Ryan and means that Mitt Romney is now officially behind in ALL of the 2012 swing states.

Essentially, anything that Obama does short of losing means that the state economies have received these billionaire bucks for free – at no cost to the American taxpayer and no increase to the national debt. It's also a pretty nice reward to these states for going blue in 2008 and all pretty brilliant of Obama and his people, if you ask me. Now some might argue that it is really the Bush Supreme Court and/or the arrogance of billionaires who deserve the "credit" for this state of affairs. Others may ask, what is the "heartbreaking" part of this story? The Wall Street Journal has the answer to that – the heartbreak of the fat cats, of course:

"If the Republicans don't win the presidency and don't win the Senate, there are going to be a lot of millionaires wondering where all the money went," said Steve Elmendorf, who helped run the 2004 Kerry campaign. "There will be a lot of soul searching and a lot of questioning of the groups who promised to deliver."

dis·ap·point·ed
Adjective:
1. (of a person) Sad or displeased because someone or something has failed to fulfill one's hopes or expectations.
2. (of Republican hopes and expectations) Soul searching and questioning of groups like American Crossroads who promised to deliver.

* Apologies to Dave Eggers

[Raster]

1. The bloom could very well be off the Turdblossum.

[Tom Poll Master]

2. LOL, that's exactly what it is, but it serves it's purpose: reelect Obama!

[SunSeeker]

3. Every time a Republican sheds a tear an angel gets its wings. nt

[cleduc]

4. "There will be a lot of soul searching and a lot of questioning of the groups ...

who promised to deliver."

When those people look at the polls today, after spending $40 mil more than Obama, they have to be wondering already if it's worth continuing or whether their money is better spent down the ticket.

The fact that Romney has scrambled to 29 recent fundraising events (compared with 5 or so for the Obama campaign) since late August suggests the Super PACs have already told Romney that Romney can't count on them as much as Romney might have thought.

[NBachers]

7. Those with no souls can't soul search

[tanyev]

5. .

[Tom Poll Master]

6. Me too

[qwlauren35]

8. I don't see the money getting spread around though.

If all the money goes into TV ads, then the money stays in the hands of the wealthy elite and major corporations. Now RADIO ads would actually stimulate the economy...

Let's see, who else is making money from the campaign? People who make bumperstickers and yard signs, phone companies, field office directors...

Who else benefits? I think that's the thing about campaigns that saddens me. They SHOULD bring an infusion of money. But it doesn't trickle down.

The theory, once again, doesn't work.

[agentS]

9. If Obama wins, the Dem-supporting Super PACs will be quite pleased

"Money well spend" they will say.

[agentS]

10. Candidates win elections, not money alone

All the money in the world can't help you if the candidate sucks as a person.