Pro Gringrich Super Pac donates another 5 mil

[NightHawkeye]

Do you think there is a difference in candidate appeal and support if the donations where from several thousand individuals rather than just one? You know, kind of like a grassroots thing.

I get the impression you think it doesn't matter...but I may be wrong.

For the sake of argument, let's say one candidate's SuperPAC received $100,000,000 from Goldman-Sachs, then I'd guess that Goldman-Sachs fully expects a return on investment of 4x to 10x. They'd hope to see a billion dollars in return, but maybe only get half that. Otherwise, the corporation wouldn't contribute to that candidate. Business is business.

With smaller amounts of money from individuals, it gets kind of hard to say ... depends on motivation. Certainly, some individuals expect a return on investment, either directly or as the result of a healthy economy. Speaking for myself, I donate when I can make a difference ... any return comes from an improved economy or other nebulous and poorly defined benefits.


Just my perspective. Probably not as ideological and hypothetical as you wanted, huh?

 

[JoyJuice]

For the sake of argument, let's say one candidate's SuperPAC received $100,000,000 from Goldman-Sachs, then I'd guess that Goldman-Sachs fully expects a return on investment of 4x to 10x. They'd hope to see a billion dollars in return, but maybe only get half that. Otherwise, the corporation wouldn't contribute to that candidate. Business is business.

With smaller amounts of money from individuals, it gets kind of hard to say ... depends on motivation. Certainly, some individuals expect a return on investment, either directly or as the result of a healthy economy. Speaking for myself, I donate when I can make a difference ... any return comes from an improved economy or other nebulous and poorly defined benefits.


Just my perspective. Probably not as ideological and hypothetical as you wanted, huh?

I don't get the idea that individuals who donate 2,500 are expecting a return. I think for the most part be they working at Sachs or Ed's tire shop, they probably like the candidate and that is the motivation.

 

[NightHawkeye]

I don't get the idea that individuals who donate 2,500 are expecting a return. I think for the most part be they working at Sachs or Ed's tire shop, they probably like the candidate and that is the motivation.

So, anyone who donates 1% to 10% of their net worth to a candidate is most likely doing it without expecting any immediate payback. Agreed.

Continuing that logic, anybody with a net worth of $100 million could easily be donating $10 million without expecting any immediate payback.

Or, do you think that having a greater net worth changes the inherent nature of a man's motivations.

 

[variant]

So, anyone who donates 1% to 10% of their net worth to a candidate is most likely doing it without expecting any immediate payback. Agreed.

Continuing that logic, anybody with a net worth of $100 million could easily be donating $10 million without expecting any immediate payback.

Or, do you think that having a greater net worth changes the inherent nature of a man's motivations.

Obviously you are not following the logic if you think that 2500$ is going to give someone an expectation of payback in a way that 100 million obviously would.

It's tragic really how poorly you are following the argument.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Obviously you are not following the logic if you think that 2500$ is going to give someone an expectation of payback in a way that 100 million obviously would.

It's tragic really how poorly you are following the argument.

So ... you don't think my $2500 means the same thing to me that $2.5 million means to someone with a net worth of $100 million?

LOL ... or was that just a random ad hominem?

 

[variant]

So ... you don't think my $2500 means the same thing to me that $2.5 million means to someone with a net worth of $100 million?

LOL ... or was that just a random ad hominem?

No I mean that any rational person can see that donating 2k is going to have different sets of expectations than someone donating 2 million or 200 million.

The fact that you can't see that makes you either disingenuous, or gullible.

Or perhapse your like an engineer, economist or any other trade that dosen't think scale is important.

 

[NightHawkeye]

No I mean that any rational person can see that donating 2k is going to have different sets of expectations than someone donating 2 million or 200 million.

The fact that you can't see that makes you either disingenuous, or gullible.

Or perhapse your like an engineer, economist or any other trade that dosen't think scale is important.

LOL ... I'm sorry I don't buy into your personal interpretation of the world, variant.

Quite a few wealthy people are so free with their wealth that they turn it over completely to foundations, and have few specific expectations other than it "do good". That's kinda where I am when I make a political donation. I just kinda hope for the best. Admittedly, that's quite different from Goldman-Sachs ... did I mention that Goldman-Sachs was Obama's largest corporate donor and is also Romney's largest corporate donor?


.

 

[Maren]

LOL ... I'm sorry I don't buy into your personal interpretation of the world, variant.

Quite a few wealthy people are so free with their wealth that they turn it over completely to foundations, and have few specific expectations other than it "do good". That's kinda where I am when I make a political donation. I just kinda hope for the best. Admittedly, that's quite different from Goldman-Sachs ... did I mention that Goldman-Sachs was Obama's largest corporate donor and is also Romney's largest corporate donor?


.

But as keeps being explained to you, it is not Goldman Sachs, it is over 1,000 employees who work for Goldman Sachs that have made the donations. And I think it is obvious why they would want to put money in Romney's campaign. Not because they think they can buy him, which is kind of a ludicrous thought that their $300,000 will "buy" a man that earns tens of millions each year. Rather, they can see what Romney can do as an organizer and businessman (he's very successful in fixing the Olympics and businesses he worked with at Bain) and believe he can do some of the same things in the government.

I think it is funny how Mitt is criticized for the sound bite (taken out of context) about firing people, yet isn't that what Republicans want from their President -- they want the President to shrink the size of government? Some of the attacks on Romney have made no sense to me at all.

And while I keep hearing Romney's campaign has so much money, this is far more interesting. It shows the money SuperPACS have spent (for or against) various candidates (they spend twice as much as the candidates themselves) and show the success is directly related to spending:

Interesting how this graph gives a completely different impression of the money spent, and one that fairly accurately shows the results.

 

[NightHawkeye]

But as keeps being explained to you, it is not Goldman Sachs, it is over 1,000 employees who work for Goldman Sachs that have made the donations.

The money is merely collected by Goldman-Sachs, bundled together, and then funnelled to Romney. It's a distinction without a difference, Maren.

Here's the way it works: Top Contributors to Barack Obama | OpenSecrets

Because of contribution limits, organizations that bundle together many individual contributions are often among the top donors to presidential candidates. These contributions can come from the organization's members or employees (and their families).
​

And here's the pay-off: Goldman Sachs: Summary | OpenSecrets

Goldman Sachs, one of Wall Street’s most prestigious investment banks, was also among the many banks in 2008 and 2009 to receive billions of dollars in taxpayer money to help it stay afloat. Like others in the securities industry, Goldman Sachs advises and invests in nearly every industry affected by federal legislation. The firm closely monitors issues including economic policy, trade and nearly all legislation that governs the financial sector. It has been a major proponent of privatizing Social Security as well as legislation that would essentially deregulate the investment banking/securities industry. The firm tends to give most of its money to Democrats. A number of high-ranking government officials in recent years have spent part of their careers at Goldman Sachs.
​

And I think it is obvious why they would want to put money in Romney's campaign.

Because they want billions more? Another big pay-off, just like the last one under Obama?

Not because they think they can buy him, which is kind of a ludicrous thought that their $300,000 will "buy" a man that earns tens of millions each year.

The $300,000 is just the tip of the iceberg, Maren. They gave over a million to Obama last time around. And pay-back was better than a thousand times ... billions of dollars for a paltry million dollar investment. That's pretty darned good, if you ask me. Of course, there's always the possibility that their contributions affected the administration's actions not at all. What are the odds of that?

Rather, they can see what Romney can do as an organizer and businessman (he's very successful in fixing the Olympics and businesses he worked with at Bain) and believe he can do some of the same things in the government.

I think it is funny how Mitt is criticized for the sound bite (taken out of context) about firing people, yet isn't that what Republicans want from their President -- they want the President to shrink the size of government? Some of the attacks on Romney have made no sense to me at all.

And while I keep hearing Romney's campaign has so much money, this is far more interesting. It shows the money SuperPACS have spent (for or against) various candidates (they spend twice as much as the candidates themselves) and show the success is directly related to spending:

Interesting how this graph gives a completely different impression of the money spent, and one that fairly accurately shows the results.

Where is the New Hampshire graph?

 

[Maren]

The money is merely collected by Goldman-Sachs, bundled together, and then funnelled to Romney. It's a distinction without a difference, Maren.

Here's the way it works: Top Contributors to Barack Obama | OpenSecrets

Because of contribution limits, organizations that bundle together many individual contributions are often among the top donors to presidential candidates. These contributions can come from the organization's members or employees (and their families).
​

And here's the pay-off: Goldman Sachs: Summary | OpenSecrets

Goldman Sachs, one of Wall Street’s most prestigious investment banks, was also among the many banks in 2008 and 2009 to receive billions of dollars in taxpayer money to help it stay afloat. Like others in the securities industry, Goldman Sachs advises and invests in nearly every industry affected by federal legislation. The firm closely monitors issues including economic policy, trade and nearly all legislation that governs the financial sector. It has been a major proponent of privatizing Social Security as well as legislation that would essentially deregulate the investment banking/securities industry. The firm tends to give most of its money to Democrats. A number of high-ranking government officials in recent years have spent part of their careers at Goldman Sachs.
​

Because they want billions more? Another big pay-off, just like the last one under Obama?

But, again, it was only 1% of the donations made to the Romney campaign back in September. The percentage is likely smaller now and will be even smaller by November (should Romney be the Republican nominee). Also, can you show how much was actually bundled? After all the part you didn't quote states, "The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families." [emphasis from the website]

Additionally, you haven't given a reason why Romney would want to "sell" himself for a measly $300,000 dollars. Again, he made over $20 million last year and has a net worth of around $200 million. Why would he make promises for money when he could have just as easily "loaned" his campaign a similar amount of money?

Again, I understand the employees of Goldman Sachs who made the contributions (whether they may have been bundled or not) want to make more money in salary and bonuses. But doesn't it make sense they would donate to a candidate they see as someone that would improve the economy and make them more money, just as you donate money to the candidate you feel will do what you want? What makes you believe there has to be something sinister in the donations?

The $300,000 is just the tip of the iceberg, Maren. They gave over a million to Obama last time around. And pay-back was better than a thousand times ... billions of dollars for a paltry million dollar investment. That's pretty darned good, if you ask me. Of course, there's always the possibility that their contributions affected the administration's actions not at all. What are the odds of that?

And yet, that $1 million they donated to Obama last time around was only about a quarter of one percent of the money donated to the Obama campaign. And if you feel that to get that much money there must have been some type of payoff, exactly what was the payoff made to the University of California, which donated even more money to the Obama campaign than Goldman Sachs?

If you have evidence of wrongdoing, feel free to post it. The fact remains that political donations to campaigns are very scrutinized -- which is exactly why we know how much the employees of Goldman Sach's donated, and exactly who they were and how much each person donated.

As such, I don't think that the odds are that great that Obama gave preferential treatment to a company whose employees only contributed 0.257% of his campaign, especially over the other 99.743% of his contributors.

Where is the New Hampshire graph?

Good question. My guess is that they felt it didn't need it's own graph as I don't believe the SuperPACS spent the large amount in NH that the spent in SC or Iowa, that instead most of the TV money was spent for Romney/against other candidates and Romney won.

It doesn't change the fact that, despite the rhetoric of how much Romney is spending, it is meaningless without noting that SuperPacs are spending far more than all the campaigns and apparently influencing the voting in two of the first three states.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Additionally, you haven't given a reason why Romney would want to "sell" himself for a measly $300,000 dollars. Again, he made over $20 million last year and has a net worth of around $200 million. Why would he make promises for money when he could have just as easily "loaned" his campaign a similar amount of money?

That is an interesting aspect of this system, isn't it, Maren. People seem to sell their souls for "small" amounts of money.

Consider the lobbyists. They never provide any money to politicians at all. Yet, they and the companies they work for write massive amounts of legislation and manage to get billions of dollars in benefits for the corporations they work for. The system doesn't make any sense at all, does it, Maren? What are we missing?

I mean, almost everyone agrees that it's horribly wrong, yet it continues on ... year after year. Perhaps there are intangible benefits which we aren't necessarily privy to. Got any idea what intangible benefits there might be in this system, Maren?

I've heard it said that people literally sell their souls in Washington. Many seem to accumulate inordinate amounts of wealth. What do you suppose is going on? How does that system work, if no gets directly paid?

Again, I understand the employees of Goldman Sachs who made the contributions (whether they may have been bundled or not) want to make more money in salary and bonuses. But doesn't it make sense they would donate to a candidate they see as someone that would improve the economy and make them more money, just as you donate money to the candidate you feel will do what you want? What makes you believe there has to be something sinister in the donations?

Didn't say there was anything sinister going on at all. I'm not the one complaining about Newt's SuperPAC, either.


.

 

[variant]

LOL ... I'm sorry I don't buy into your personal interpretation of the world, variant.

Quite a few wealthy people are so free with their wealth that they turn it over completely to foundations, and have few specific expectations other than it "do good". That's kinda where I am when I make a political donation. I just kinda hope for the best.

You think money is in politics becasue people are naturally good and charitable?

I don't really think that deserves a serious responce.

Admittedly, that's quite different from Goldman-Sachs ... did I mention that Goldman-Sachs was Obama's largest corporate donor and is also Romney's largest corporate donor?

So, you subscribe to my cynical world view when it suits your political biases?

Very funny.

I really don't have to argue with you if you are willing to discredit your own arguments without much help or direction from me.

 

[NightHawkeye]

You think money is in politics becasue people are naturally good and charitable?

No, I think politics is a dirty business. What surprises me that people take offense about it when it suits them to do so, but then completely dismiss it when their chosen candidate does the same dirty things or even worse.

So, you subscribe to my cynical world view when it suits your political biases?

Absolutely. Though I often do try to look at things from multiple perspectives.

I'm not a rigid ideologue. Perhaps what you're not seeing is that individuals can and do contribute to candidates for altruistic reasons. Altruism is not generally associate with corporations though ... perhaps that helps to explain the apparent discrepancy you believe you see.

At any rate, ascribing motivation is very often tricky business.

Very funny.

You're welcome.

I really don't have to argue with you if you are willing to discredit your own arguments without much help or direction from me.

You needn't feel compelled to argue with me at all, variant.

I will offer though that for both individuals and corporations, contributing to politicians is very much a game of chance ... regardless of motivation.

Consider BP, for instance. Their largest stack of money went to the Obama campaign. Sure enough, it appears that BP got special favors to drill deep earlier than they would have been able to otherwise. Ultimately, it didn't work out well for them though.

 

[Maren]

That is an interesting aspect of this system, isn't it, Maren. People seem to sell their souls for "small" amounts of money.

Consider the lobbyists. They never provide any money to politicians at all. Yet, they and the companies they work for write massive amounts of legislation and manage to get billions of dollars in benefits for the corporations they work for. The system doesn't make any sense at all, does it, Maren? What are we missing?

I mean, almost everyone agrees that it's horribly wrong, yet it continues on ... year after year. Perhaps there are intangible benefits which we aren't necessarily privy to. Got any idea what intangible benefits there might be in this system, Maren?

I've heard it said that people literally sell their souls in Washington. Many seem to accumulate inordinate amounts of wealth. What do you suppose is going on? How does that system work, if no gets directly paid?


Didn't say there was anything sinister going on at all. I'm not the one complaining about Newt's SuperPAC, either.


.

And yet, to go back to where I stepped in, it was suggested that Gingrich is having trouble getting donations because "he isn't easily bought off", despite the fact he has now had one person donate over $10 million to his SuperPAC. He's just not had a lot of individual donations to his campaign. This is a man that entered office on the salary of a small college professor, was worth far more when he left office then when he entered public office, and has been making millions since leaving office based on his government ties.

Yet it is supposed to be the person who had hundreds of millions prior to entering politics, that hasn't made substantially more since entering politics (and may even have less now), that has had substantial amounts of donors contribute a max of $2500 to his campaign that is the more likely of the two to have been bought off?

My only point was that I think someone is naive if the second person is the more likely of the two to have been bought off.

 

[NightHawkeye]

And yet, to go back to where I stepped in, it was suggested that Gingrich is having trouble getting donations because "he isn't easily bought off", despite the fact he has now had one person donate over $10 million to his SuperPAC.

Let's look at the other candidates then and see if there is some sort of pattern to be seen. Here's what the candidates reported as of September 30: Banking on Becoming President | OpenSecrets

Candidate Total Raised Q3 Raised Spent Debts Cash on Hand % From Small Indivs
Barack Obama (D) $86,215,580 $40,827,453 $27,115,268 $1,709,300 $61,403,711 48%
Romney Mitt Romney (R) $32,212,389 $13,928,166 $17,559,845 $0 $14,656,966 10%
Perry Rick Perry (R) $17,168,589 $17,168,589 $2,090,174 $339,120 $15,078,415 4%
Paul Ron Paul (R) $12,623,422 $8,109,256 $8,948,654 $0 $3,674,768 48%
Bachmann Michele Bachmann (R) $7,546,040 $3,906,317 $6,206,856 $549,604 $1,339,184 52%
Cain Herman Cain (R) $5,340,967 $2,779,802 $4,007,188 $675,000 $1,333,779 50%
Pawlenty Tim Pawlenty (R) $4,700,636 $226,963 $4,680,463 $453,842 $20,173 12%
Huntsman Jon Huntsman (R) $4,490,614 $4,490,614 $4,162,999 $3,145,594 $327,615 4%
Gingrich Newt Gingrich (R) $2,897,954 $803,087 $2,544,537 $1,192,866 $353,417 43%
Santorum Rick Santorum (R) $1,286,975 $701,699 $1,097,418 $71,866 $189,557 21%

The "big money" candidates earlier in the campaign were clearly Mitt Romney, Rick Perry and Ron Paul. Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, in comparison, were running on a shoestring.

He's just not had a lot of individual donations to his campaign.

Looks like Mitt Romney is the guy we need to watch out for, Maren. Only 10% of his contributions came from small donors. Mitt's only slightly better off than Rick Perry, who had only 4% from small donors.

Ron Paul, famous for money bombs, had 48% from small donors. Newt had 43% from small donors. The data tells a lot about the candidates, Maren. Newt came into this race without "big money" backing ... and, near as I can tell, he still doesn't have it ... that's likely why the one donation to his SuperPAC made news.

This is a man that entered office on the salary of a small college professor, was worth far more when he left office then when he entered public office, and has been making millions since leaving office based on his government ties.

Mitt Romney has a large net worth. Newt's net worth is small in comparison ... not much different from Ron Paul's apparently, though it's greater than Rick Santorum's.

Yet it is supposed to be the person who had hundreds of millions prior to entering politics, that hasn't made substantially more since entering politics (and may even have less now), that has had substantial amounts of donors contribute a max of $2500 to his campaign that is the more likely of the two to have been bought off?

My only point was that I think someone is naive if the second person is the more likely of the two to have been bought off.

Yet, the data indicates that Romney had only a few "small" donors. Gingrich had many "small" donors. To be honest, I'm not sure I really trust either Romney or Gingrich, Maren.


The Republican presidential candidates are all imperfect ... all may be seriously flawed even ...

Don't know about you, Maren, but I'm interested in seeing how this plays out ... hoping, actually, that things coalesce around the strengths of each candidate. Each of the remaining candidates has great individual strengths, but also serious shortcomings. If the debates drive the party to build on the strengths, then the eventual winner will be a very much stronger contender against Obama.

That's my hope anyway ... call it wishful thinking if you will ...

.

 

[Maren]

Let's look at the other candidates then and see if there is some sort of pattern to be seen. Here's what the candidates reported as of September 30: Banking on Becoming President | OpenSecrets

Candidate Total Raised Q3 Raised Spent Debts Cash on Hand % From Small Indivs
Barack Obama (D) $86,215,580 $40,827,453 $27,115,268 $1,709,300 $61,403,711 48%
Romney Mitt Romney (R) $32,212,389 $13,928,166 $17,559,845 $0 $14,656,966 10%
Perry Rick Perry (R) $17,168,589 $17,168,589 $2,090,174 $339,120 $15,078,415 4%
Paul Ron Paul (R) $12,623,422 $8,109,256 $8,948,654 $0 $3,674,768 48%
Bachmann Michele Bachmann (R) $7,546,040 $3,906,317 $6,206,856 $549,604 $1,339,184 52%
Cain Herman Cain (R) $5,340,967 $2,779,802 $4,007,188 $675,000 $1,333,779 50%
Pawlenty Tim Pawlenty (R) $4,700,636 $226,963 $4,680,463 $453,842 $20,173 12%
Huntsman Jon Huntsman (R) $4,490,614 $4,490,614 $4,162,999 $3,145,594 $327,615 4%
Gingrich Newt Gingrich (R) $2,897,954 $803,087 $2,544,537 $1,192,866 $353,417 43%
Santorum Rick Santorum (R) $1,286,975 $701,699 $1,097,418 $71,866 $189,557 21%

The "big money" candidates earlier in the campaign were clearly Mitt Romney, Rick Perry and Ron Paul. Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, in comparison, were running on a shoestring.


Looks like Mitt Romney is the guy we need to watch out for, Maren. Only 10% of his contributions came from small donors. Mitt's only slightly better off than Rick Perry, who had only 4% from small donors.

Ron Paul, famous for money bombs, had 48% from small donors. Newt had 43% from small donors. The data tells a lot about the candidates, Maren. Newt came into this race without "big money" backing ... and, near as I can tell, he still doesn't have it ... that's likely why the one donation to his SuperPAC made news.


Mitt Romney has a large net worth. Newt's net worth is small in comparison ... not much different from Ron Paul's apparently, though it's greater than Rick Santorum's.


Yet, the data indicates that Romney had only a few "small" donors. Gingrich had many "small" donors. To be honest, I'm not sure I really trust either Romney or Gingrich, Maren.


The Republican presidential candidates are all imperfect ... all may be seriously flawed even ...

Don't know about you, Maren, but I'm interested in seeing how this plays out ... hoping, actually, that things coalesce around the strengths of each candidate. Each of the remaining candidates has great individual strengths, but also serious shortcomings. If the debates drive the party to build on the strengths, then the eventual winner will be a very much stronger contender against Obama.

That's my hope anyway ... call it wishful thinking if you will ...

.

I think you are trying to make way to much out of "small" and "large" donors. Small donors are merely those that donate less than $200, large donors donate over $200 but still less than $2500. Neither amount is anywhere close to enough to "buy" a candidate whose campaign collects millions of dollars. By contrast, a $10 million donation (in this case, two separate $5 million donations just a couple of weeks apart) definitely makes things interesting.

 

[NightHawkeye]

I think you are trying to make way to much out of "small" and "large" donors. Small donors are merely those that donate less than $200, large donors donate over $200 but still less than $2500. Neither amount is anywhere close to enough to "buy" a candidate whose campaign collects millions of dollars. By contrast, a $10 million donation (in this case, two separate $5 million donations just a couple of weeks apart) definitely makes things interesting.

Honestly, Maren, you're trying way too hard to put Romney up on a pedastal. Previously, you were trying to make hay out of the number of individual donors. I continued that argument to show that most of Gingrich's donors were small donors. The significance of "small" donors is that a "grass-roots" movement will have many more "small" donors than "large" donors. Most people simply can't afford to donate a thousand or two thousand dollars to a candidate. Just FACT.

If Romney had the "broad" support you claim, then he would have many "small" donors ... like Ron Paul does. The FACT is that Romney's support, as shown in the chart, came from "large" donations ... folks who could afford to donate a thousand dollars or two.

The data shows that Romney's support is not the "broad" grassroots support you claim. I kinda think that's why polls consistently show his support ceiling is around 30%.

 

[Desk trauma]

Former Speaker Gingrich is being funded by Sheldon Adelson, to the tune of almost $20 million by way of the super PAC Winning Our Future, with every last dime of that money having been generated from his gambling empire dispite the fact that other groups supporting him have explicitly demanded the end of legal gambling. Strange bed fellows indeed.

 

[Maren]

Honestly, Maren, you're trying way too hard to put Romney up on a pedastal. Previously, you were trying to make hay out of the number of individual donors. I continued that argument to show that most of Gingrich's donors were small donors. The significance of "small" donors is that a "grass-roots" movement will have many more "small" donors than "large" donors. Most people simply can't afford to donate a thousand or two thousand dollars to a candidate. Just FACT.

If Romney had the "broad" support you claim, then he would have many "small" donors ... like Ron Paul does. The FACT is that Romney's support, as shown in the chart, came from "large" donations ... folks who could afford to donate a thousand dollars or two.

The data shows that Romney's support is not the "broad" grassroots support you claim. I kinda think that's why polls consistently show his support ceiling is around 30%.

Why do the goalposts keep getting shifted? This whole conversation, and what my replies have been geared toward, was the comment, "Maybe that means he isn't easily bought off," in reply as to why Gingrich is having trouble raising money.

I was never claiming Romney had broad grassroots support, merely (again) that a candidate taking $2500 or less from over 1 million different people was far less likely to have been "bought off" from those donations than a single candidate accepting $10 million from a single person for his SuperPAC. And because of that, the "maybe he isn't easily bought off" made no sense.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Why do the goalposts keep getting shifted?

Maybe ...

... because the TRUTH has no agenda?


That's my best guess.