Wall Street Journal says the only reason Romney lost is having less money than Obama. no really

[progressivebydesign]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/how-race-slipped-away-from-romney.html

The article says that Romney only lost because he just didn't have the money the PResident had... because he spent so much on the primary.

Yeah.. conveniently neglecting to mention the loans, the billion dollars in PAC money. I just can't keep up with the excuses anymore.

[Frances]

1. Tell that to Adelson, the Koch brothers, and the other billionaires

who gave Karl Rove and other shadowy groups millions of dollars

[spartan61]

2. Something I have been wondering.

The billionaires donated big bucks to Romney's campaign, but did Romney donate any of his millions to himself?

[summerschild]

3. He had plenty of $ in the Caymans, but he would have had to pay taxes on it!

[BlueDemKev]

4. To the WSJ, money is ALL that matters in life

[Tennessee Hillbilly]

5. Evidently the Wall Street Journal thinks that elections can be bought if you have enough money.

Evidently the Wall Street Journal thinks that elections can be bought if you have enough money.

[LiberalFighter]

6. I wonder how much they save or lose compare to their dirty money to campaigns?

[NewJeffCT]

7. so, a 3:1 spending edge from outside groups

doesn't count?

And, didn't Romney outraise Obama just about every month?

[davidpdx]

8. I know Romney did out raise Obama 2 or 3 months

But then Obama started out fundraising him again. I think the lesson in this is Obama was getting most of his donations from millions of individuals who weren't maxed out and the campaign could go back to time and time again. Romney was getting large donations from people who were maxing out right away. If that is the case, then they couldn't go back and ask for more (except for super-pacs)