Karl Rove and American Crossroads

[FF2®]

Will interesting to see if billionaires continue to fork over cash to Rove considering the poor results




Karl Rove's election nightmare: Super PAC's spending was nearly for naught


Tony Gutierrez / AP file
Karl Rove's American Crossroads super PAC had big-money backers, but achieved minimal results, according to a study by the Sunlight Foundation.

By Michael Isikoff, NBC News
Karl Rove was the political genius of the George W. Bush era -- the architect of the last Republican president's two electoral victories. But this week, he may have had the worst election night of anybody in American politics.
Not only did Rove insist on Fox News that Ohio was still winnable for Republican challenger Mitt Romney after all the TV networks had called it for President Barack Obama -- causing anchor Megyn Kelly to march down to the Fox "decision desk" mavens, who assured her on air that they were "99.9 percent" confident in their call -- but his trailblazing "independent" super PAC operation was virtually shut out on election night.


A study Wednesday by the Sunlight Foundation, which tracks political spending, concluded that Rove's super PAC, American Crossroads, had a success rate of just 1 percent on $103 million in attack ads -- one of the lowest "returns on investment" (ROIs) of any outside spending group in this year's elections.

Money can't buy happiness, or an election

American Crossroads spent heavily, not just on Romney, but on attack ads on behalf of GOP Senate candidates in eight states -- thanks to mega contributions from conservative donors like metals magnate Harold Simmons ($19.5 million), Texas homebuilder Bob Perry ($7.5 million) and Omni hotel chief Robert Rowling ($5 million.)

The super donors didn't get much for their money. Six of the eight GOP Senate candidates that American Crossroads spent money to try to elect – Tommy Thompson in Wisconsin, George Allen in Virginia, Josh Mandel in Ohio, Richard Mourdock in Indiana, Denny Rehberg in Montana and Todd Akin in Missouri – lost their races, along with Romney. The group did, on the other hand, help to elect Deb Fischer in Nebraska and Dean Heller in Nevada.
(The Sunlight Foundation calculation of "return on investment" was based on the percentage of money it spent on individual races-- and since Crossroads spent the most on the races it lost on, the group earned its low 1 percent "return on investment" or ROI. A sister group, Crossroads GPS, which operates out of the same offices as American Crossroads but does not disclose its donors, fared little better, netting a return on investment of only 13 percent, according to the Sunlight Foundation report.)

Campaign spending by Super PACs in this election cycle topped $1 billion – nearly four times the amount spent by such groups in 2008. Former White House Deputy Press Secretary Bill Burton and former RNC Chairman Michael Steele discuss.

Jonathan Collegio, a spokesman for American Crossroads, dismissed the Sunlight Foundation report.

"GOP super PACs helped keep the race close and winnable, despite Obama's massive financial advantage," he wrote in an email to NBC News. "On the Senate races, run the numbers. If you don't count the long-shot self-funders in CT and PA, Senate Democrats outraised their GOP opponents by $60 (million) this cycle – and that disparity is greater if you factor out GOP primary fundraising. The DSCC (Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee) outraised the NRSC (National Republican Senatorial Committee) by another $20 (million). Few have reported on this."

"You can’t have an accurate view of the role of super PACs without the context of how Democrats leveraged incumbency to outraise their opponents by literally hundreds of millions of dollars," he added.

The American Crossroads debacle was only the most dramatic example of the limits of big money in this election, according to the Sunlight Foundation report. About $1.3 billion was spent by outside groups overall -- about two-thirds on the Republican side -- and for the most part their returns were equally low. The Chamber of Commerce, for example, spent $31 million-and had a 5 percent return, according to the Sunlight study. The conservative American Future Fund spent $23.9 million and also realized a 5 percent return. The National Rifle Association spent $11 million, and got shut out.
"It may mean people really don't like big money in politics," says Kathy Kiely, the Sunlight Foundation analyst who co-authored the study. "Maybe they prefer it be spent on something else."

[DDNYjets]

Karl Rove is not why Romney didn't get elected. In fact, if Romney and other conservatives adopted Rove's and Bush's views on immigration I think the Reps would have fared better in the elections, actually I know they would have.

Rove is very smart and know what he is doing. I know people want to cite his mini-tirade on FOX the other night, and predict his fall from grace within the GOP, but while he was doing that I was watching MSNBC and saw O'Donnell admit that if Rove believed the numbers and results needed to be waited on and checked then he felt that it would be legitimate given Rove's reputation and record.

The GOP needs to appeal to women and hispanics. If they do that, Rove is plenty good to help them win an election.

You know as well as I do that there were plenty of people that were voting for Obama no matter what negative ads or positive ads Rove could have created.

Not sure what the totals were for the independent voters but that might be another indicator used to judge how the Super PACs did.

[21st Amendment]

thought this was a good ad by Rove, thought since the celebrity angle didn't work in '08, clearly wouldn't work in '12.

[FF2®]

Originally Posted by DDNYjets

Karl Rove is not why Romney didn't get elected. In fact, if Romney and other conservatives adopted Rove's and Bush's views on immigration I think the Reps would have fared better in the elections, actually I know they would have.

Rove is very smart and know what he is doing. I know people want to cite his mini-tirade on FOX the other night, and predict his fall from grace within the GOP, but while he was doing that I was watching MSNBC and saw O'Donnell admit that if Rove believed the numbers and results needed to be waited on and checked then he felt that it would be legitimate given Rove's reputation and record.

The GOP needs to appeal to women and hispanics. If they do that, Rove is plenty good to help them win an election.

You know as well as I do that there were plenty of people that were voting for Obama no matter what negative ads or positive ads Rove could have created.

Not sure what the totals were for the independent voters but that might be another indicator used to judge how the Super PACs did.

I dont mean to say Rove was the reason Romney lost, not at all.

Billionaires like to see results and by the "return on investment" measurement the article talked about, he didn't do well.

I'm curious to see if he still attracts the big money.

[Sharrow]

Anyone want to pay me $100 million to waste? It would be my pleasure.

[FF2®]

Originally Posted by Sharrow

Anyone want to pay me $100 million to waste? It would be my pleasure.

Can you play 3rd base for the Yankees?

[AlbanyJet]

Originally Posted by DDNYjets

The GOP needs to appeal to women and hispanics. If they do that, Rove is plenty good to help them win an election.

Republicans should recruit and run successful women and hispanic owned business owners for public office.

Republicans should also work under the presumtion that the White House will be occupied by a Democrat forever.

Reason: If you look at the 2012 Presidential election results on a national election map of counties it's mostly Republican. Politics in America works from the bottom up, not the top down. However, the way the Electoral College works a few counties in OH and FL can determine who the next President is going to be.

To play to Republican strengths the RNC should:

1. Stick with conservative principles, run conservative candidates for the House and the Senate.

2. Take control and KEEP control of the House and Senate.

3. Take control and KEEP control of as many state legislatures and governorships as possible.

Result: Republicans control the national discussion as to what the role of government should be. Which is to say, Republicans in essence get to write the job requirements and expectations for the next President. When you do that it means that if a Republican isn't occupying the White House we at least have a conservative Democrat who is.

Example: A Republican House and Senate forced a Democrat President to say "the era of big government is over."

[jetstream23]

Originally Posted by FF2®

Will interesting to see if billionaires continue to fork over cash to Rove considering the poor results




Karl Rove's election nightmare: Super PAC's spending was nearly for naught


Tony Gutierrez / AP file
Karl Rove's American Crossroads super PAC had big-money backers, but achieved minimal results, according to a study by the Sunlight Foundation.

By Michael Isikoff, NBC News
Karl Rove was the political genius of the George W. Bush era -- the architect of the last Republican president's two electoral victories. But this week, he may have had the worst election night of anybody in American politics.
Not only did Rove insist on Fox News that Ohio was still winnable for Republican challenger Mitt Romney after all the TV networks had called it for President Barack Obama -- causing anchor Megyn Kelly to march down to the Fox "decision desk" mavens, who assured her on air that they were "99.9 percent" confident in their call -- but his trailblazing "independent" super PAC operation was virtually shut out on election night.


A study Wednesday by the Sunlight Foundation, which tracks political spending, concluded that Rove's super PAC, American Crossroads, had a success rate of just 1 percent on $103 million in attack ads -- one of the lowest "returns on investment" (ROIs) of any outside spending group in this year's elections.

Money can't buy happiness, or an election

American Crossroads spent heavily, not just on Romney, but on attack ads on behalf of GOP Senate candidates in eight states -- thanks to mega contributions from conservative donors like metals magnate Harold Simmons ($19.5 million), Texas homebuilder Bob Perry ($7.5 million) and Omni hotel chief Robert Rowling ($5 million.)

The super donors didn't get much for their money. Six of the eight GOP Senate candidates that American Crossroads spent money to try to elect – Tommy Thompson in Wisconsin, George Allen in Virginia, Josh Mandel in Ohio, Richard Mourdock in Indiana, Denny Rehberg in Montana and Todd Akin in Missouri – lost their races, along with Romney. The group did, on the other hand, help to elect Deb Fischer in Nebraska and Dean Heller in Nevada.
(The Sunlight Foundation calculation of "return on investment" was based on the percentage of money it spent on individual races-- and since Crossroads spent the most on the races it lost on, the group earned its low 1 percent "return on investment" or ROI. A sister group, Crossroads GPS, which operates out of the same offices as American Crossroads but does not disclose its donors, fared little better, netting a return on investment of only 13 percent, according to the Sunlight Foundation report.)

Campaign spending by Super PACs in this election cycle topped $1 billion – nearly four times the amount spent by such groups in 2008. Former White House Deputy Press Secretary Bill Burton and former RNC Chairman Michael Steele discuss.

Jonathan Collegio, a spokesman for American Crossroads, dismissed the Sunlight Foundation report.

"GOP super PACs helped keep the race close and winnable, despite Obama's massive financial advantage," he wrote in an email to NBC News. "On the Senate races, run the numbers. If you don't count the long-shot self-funders in CT and PA, Senate Democrats outraised their GOP opponents by $60 (million) this cycle – and that disparity is greater if you factor out GOP primary fundraising. The DSCC (Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee) outraised the NRSC (National Republican Senatorial Committee) by another $20 (million). Few have reported on this."

"You can’t have an accurate view of the role of super PACs without the context of how Democrats leveraged incumbency to outraise their opponents by literally hundreds of millions of dollars," he added.

The American Crossroads debacle was only the most dramatic example of the limits of big money in this election, according to the Sunlight Foundation report. About $1.3 billion was spent by outside groups overall -- about two-thirds on the Republican side -- and for the most part their returns were equally low. The Chamber of Commerce, for example, spent $31 million-and had a 5 percent return, according to the Sunlight study. The conservative American Future Fund spent $23.9 million and also realized a 5 percent return. The National Rifle Association spent $11 million, and got shut out.
"It may mean people really don't like big money in politics," says Kathy Kiely, the Sunlight Foundation analyst who co-authored the study. "Maybe they prefer it be spent on something else."

Really? It can't? How much did Obama spend? Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm sure you will ) but didn't Obama spend more per vote than Romney?

[FF2®]

Originally Posted by jetstream23

Really? It can't? How much did Obama spend? Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm sure you will ) but didn't Obama spend more per vote than Romney?

Note sure if you're talking to me...but I agree with you.

My question was whether or not Rove will still be able to attract as much money given his poor results.

[AlbanyJet]

"The era of big government is over."

President Bill Clinton
State Of The Union Address
January 27th, 1996

The Republican controlled House and Senate forced Bill Clinton to say that. Not only did Republicans have control of the House and Senate but they had control of many state houses and state governorships including right here in New York with George Pataki.

These offices are where the Republicans should focus their strength.

Not the Presidency. Let the Democrats have the Presidency and make the Democrat President the Republicans puppet like they did with Bill Clinton in 1996.

[jetstream23]

Originally Posted by FF2®

Note sure if you're talking to me...but I agree with you.

My question was whether or not Rove will still be able to attract as much money given his poor results.

As much? Not sure. But they'll do fairly well is my guess, particularly if Congress demonstrates an ability to keep the upcoming "compromise" in check. That may show that continued funding of Congressional candidates is a good end-around to keeping the President's liberal policies contained.

It's just the ironing that's amazing about "buying an election." People say that rich Mitt showed that an election can't be bought. Well, the Democrats may have shown that it can be to a degree. In a race that came down to about 52 to 48% and some pretty close swing states it's pretty clear that a better funded and slightly better organized/targeted campaign could have us looking at a different President today.

[AlbanyJet]

Originally Posted by jetstream23

In a race that came down to about 52 to 48% and some pretty close swing states it's pretty clear that a better funded and slightly better organized/targeted campaign could have us looking at a different President today.

Big, big, BIG mistake for Republicans to put their future in the fraudulent voting swing state Electoral College count. Just way too much cheating by Democrats in swing state urban areas to ever win a Presidency. Black Panthers at polling stations in Philadelphia? A Republican Presidential candidate is NEVER going to win PA!

What do Republicans do?

The issues in any Presidential election should be determined by Republicans downstream in the heartland/states WAY before the Presidential election cycle starts.

Republicans need to focus on full control of offices in:

1. State legislatures

2. State governors

3. The Congress

4. The Senate

5. The White House

If they do steps 1-4 then step 5 will fall into place. If step 5 doesn't fall into place then it goes to a conservative Democrat.

The swing state Electoral College - the graveyard of Republican Presidential candidates.

[FF2®]

Originally Posted by jetstream23

As much? Not sure. But they'll do fairly well is my guess, particularly if Congress demonstrates an ability to keep the upcoming "compromise" in check. That may show that continued funding of Congressional candidates is a good end-around to keeping the President's liberal policies contained.

It's just the ironing that's amazing about "buying an election." People say that rich Mitt showed that an election can't be bought. Well, the Democrats may have shown that it can be to a degree. In a race that came down to about 52 to 48% and some pretty close swing states it's pretty clear that a better funded and slightly better organized/targeted campaign could have us looking at a different President today.

I wasn't speaking in general terms about money, but whether or not Rove as an idividual will be a magnet for it.

I agree 100 percent on the 2nd paragraph.

[Sharrow]

Originally Posted by jetstream23

Really? It can't? How much did Obama spend? Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm sure you will ) but didn't Obama spend more per vote than Romney?

Saw this a couple days ago. As far as outside group spending goes, $6.23 was spent per vote for Romney while $1.78 per vote for Obama.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by Sharrow

Saw this a couple days ago. As far as outside group spending goes, $6.23 was spent per vote for Romney while $1.78 per vote for Obama.

I love how it's not enough to win, it has to by mythologized.

Obama and (D) raised and spent more than Romney and (R) raised and spent.