The most negative primary campaign in history… or “How to Buy a Nomination”, by Mitt Romney

I heard this data read on Mark Levin this afternoon, and picked it up from the CNN PoliticalTicker blog by way of Lucianne.

I’ll provide the nothing shy of jaw-dropping stats below… how you choose to absorb this ugly reality about election campaigns and negative advertising is, of course, completely up to you.

Me? To use the “he who dies with the most toys…” old saying, paraphrased, obviously he who has the most money for a campaign, combined with the least scruples, wins.

Statistics provided by the Campaign Media Analysis Group (CMAG).

“I spent much of my academic career telling reporters, ‘Relax, this is not the most negative campaign ever,'” CMAG President Ken Goldstein said. “Well, this IS the most negative campaign ever.”

Numbers from CMAG show a total of 11,586 television spots aired in Florida between January 23 and January 29. [Mata Musing: that’s 1655 per day, or close to one every minute of a 24 hour period… no wonder my relatives were complaining…] Of those spots, 10,633 were negative and 953 were positive.

Of the 1,012 spots Newt Gingrich’s campaign ran, 95% were negative. Mitt Romney’s campaign ran 3,276 ads and 99% were negative.

The two super PACs supporting the top candidates were more divergent in their ad strategies. Restore our Future, supporting Romney, ran 4,969 spots, all of which were negative. The Gingrich-backing Winning our Future ran 1,893 spots, and only 53% were negative.

Correspondingly, the bulk of ads in Florida – 68% – were negative toward Gingrich. Twenty-three percent were anti-Romney spots. Gingrich got support from 9% of ads while pro-Romney spots accounted for less than 0.1%.

With these stats, the lesson learned is that Romney never won by positive campaigning… only by tearing down his opponent. How Obama’esque of him…. I’ve already got a POTUS with this version of ethics. Do I really want to replace him with another, just because he fakes an “R” behind his name?

Romney, of course, was busy playing the victim, whining like a little kid to his Mom, pointing fingers saying “he started it!” in reference to Newt. Unfortunately, that’s not how it went.

It was Romney’s well timed onslaught of SuperPac spending in Iowa that crashed Newt’s momentum there. Romney also outspent Newt 2 to 1 in South Carolina. Florida? Well, the above tells the story.

Needless to say, Romney’s feigned innocence and cries of “victim”, after outspending Gingrich four to one, are somewhat disingenuous to put it mildly.

In fact, as of Jan 10th, 96% of the SuperPACs’ spending on negative ads were targeting Gingrich. It’s amazing the guy’s gotten as far as he has, vacillating between being the front runner and in second both in the state, and nationally. As of the 20th of January, the SuperPAC spending had clicked up to about $33 million (both positive and negative of all candidates), with Romney leading the pack with $11 million, or 1/3rd of all SuperPAC spending alone.

While Mitt’s busy spending money, hands over fists, to destroy his competitor, what will he have left to defend himself again Obama’s massive war chest in the general? If Romney is, today, gloating over a win based on buying a State Primary with negative ads, saying they served him well, he’s got little hope of out spending Obama in the general.

There’s no money back guarantee on a Mittens candidacy if or when he loses to Obama when cast as the heartless, soul’less capitalist pig. The man who is the epitome of everything that Obama rails against. We sure know that health care will be off the table, since Romney was the architect of Obama’care. Mandates that force citizens to buy a product, simply because they live and breathe, are no more Constitutional at the state level than they are at the federal. Our inalienable rights do not stop at State boundaries.

Meanwhile, for some primary return fun, the folks over at ABC have decided to publish their predictions of by just how much Newt would be losing to Romney in Florida, in percentages ranging from 7-8% to 28%. It’s 6:41PM PT, and the cable news has called the election for Romney at 47%/Gingrich with 32% with 81% of the vote in (ever changing). Guess they’ll have to wait to declare the winner.

Wonder if they’re running a pool for cash…

AMY WALTER – ABC News Political Director

Romney- 45%
Newt- 29%
Santorum- 14%
Paul- 12%

JONATHAN KARL – ABC News Senior Political Correspondent

Romney – 41%
Gingrich – 28%
Santorum – 16%
Paul – 11%

RICK KLEIN – Senior Washington Editor

Romney – 45%
Gingrich – 27%
Paul – 15%
Santorum – 11%

Z. BYRON WOLF – Politics Editor for ABC News.com

Romney – 37%
Gingrich – 27%
Santorum – 12 %
Paul – 12 %

Eric Noe – ABCNews.com Deputy Managing Editor

Romney: 43%
Gingrich: 29%
Santorum: 16%
Paul: 12%

SHUSHANNAH WALSHE – ABC News Digital Reporter

Mitt Romney – 36 %
Newt Gingrich – 29 %
Rick Santorum – 15%
Ron Paul – 13%

GEORGE SANCHEZ – ABC News Washington, DC Assignment Editor

Romney – 49%
Gingrich – 21%
Santorum – 16%
Paul – 12%

ELIZABETH HARTFIELD – ABC News Political Unit

Romney- 41%
Gingrich- 28%
Santorum- 14%
Paul- 11%

CHRIS GOOD – ABC News Political Unit

Romney – 38%
Gingrich – 30%
Santorum – 12%
Paul – 11%

MATT NEGRIN – ABC News Political Reporter

Romney – 36%
Gingrich – 29%
Paul – 17%
Santorum – 15%

AMY BINGHAM – ABC News.com Reporter

Romney- 43%
Gingrich- 28%
Santorum- 12%
Paul- 9%

SARAH PARNASS – ABC News Intern

Romney – 46%
Gingrich – 27%
Santorum – 16%
Paul – 11%

ALEXA KEYES – ABC News Intern

Romney -44%
Gingrich – 29%
Santorum -14%
Paul – 11%

We have a problem, folks. While I support the voters’ right to choose via elections, even if not my candidate of choice, the amount of money and the sleazy tactics that have permeated our process are beyond alarming. So you’ll forgive me if I don’t celebrate the primary results, as it’s going now.

It turns out that all we feared may be true, as it plays out before our very eyes and with documented facts… that offices of our central government are, indeed, for sale to the highest bidder with those with the most creative lies.

A “must read” … C. Edmund Wright’s American Thinker article 2/1/12 – “Mitt’s Scorched Earth Win”.

Another “must”…Thomas Sowell’s primary day column, “The Florida Smear Campaign”

George Neumayr’s American Thinker article, “Romney’s Cheap and Empty Win”… tho I might disagree as to how “cheap” it was in a monetary perspective.