re: #49 Buck
It doesn’t change the ratio is any serious way.
Then why did you decide to completely leave out all the pro-Walker money?
Oh, that’s right. Because that way you could claim Walker’s side didn’t even spend twice as much as Barrett’s, when the final estimates put it at about 3-to-1.
So you were right on one thing. Walker and his allies didn’t outspend Barrett’s side by a 8-to-1 margin. They “only” spent three times as much money.
According to you, this is proof that Walkers victory was simply “just a testament to his popularity (which is backed up by the voters), and not buying an election.”
More typical Buck-shit.