General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsElizabeth Warren Money Bomb Pulls In Over $100,000 In First Weekend (Huffpost)
WASHINGTON -- Elizabeth Warren's money bomb has pulled in pledges of more than $100,000 in the course of a weekend, according to the campaign, with four days left until the Senate candidate's first attempt to raise an explosive amount of money with a one-day haul from small donors.
"We already have pledges for more than $100,000 for our first ever money bomb this Thursday," campaign manager Mindy Myers told HuffPost, "but we have a long way to go to narrow the gap with Brown's $12.8 million war chest."
The total is a combination of pledges made at ElizabethWarrenMoneyBomb.com and others that have yet to be reflected on her site.
The money bomb was first reported by HuffPost on Friday evening, meaning that pledges have come in at roughly $50,000 per day.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/16/elizabeth-warren-money-bomb-fundraising_n_1208511.html
socialindependocrat
(1,372 posts)I'm not a politician but I have trouble accepting that
politicians who are popular need as much money as
their opponent to win an election.
If you take a poll and you are vastly more well known or popular than your opponent do you need to spend all that money on ads
or does your opponent's ads just start to wear away at your edge?
It just annoys me that all this money needs to be spent
to get the "right" people into office.
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)She wasn't as well known as her opponent, the very popular AG Dick Blumenthal. So she blew millions on running ads that ended up annoying people. Like me, people were hitting the mute button of the TVs upon her appearance on the screen.
I've just seen her new ad, which she'll be running this year. It's boring as hell and will probably get on people's nerves just as much as the older ones did. She just looks and sounds obnoxious and lots of people don't like the idea of the "wrestling lady" representing our state...