Comments on: Who Spent What? http://thirdpartywatch.com/2005/07/21/who-spent-what/ Fri, 05 Dec 2008 04:09:12 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1.3 by: Alex Peak http://thirdpartywatch.com/2005/07/21/who-spent-what/#comment-431 Mon, 25 Jul 2005 04:29:14 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2005/07/21/who-spent-what/#comment-431 QUOTE: "...and his spending was #3 in 04." He didn't run in '04. QUOTE: "He’ll still never be President, though." He's decided not to run again. 2000 was his last election. QUOTE: “...and his spending was #3 in 04.”

He didn’t run in ‘04.

QUOTE: “He’ll still never be President, though.”

He’s decided not to run again. 2000 was his last election.

]]> by: mr. rogers http://thirdpartywatch.com/2005/07/21/who-spent-what/#comment-412 Sat, 23 Jul 2005 05:24:05 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2005/07/21/who-spent-what/#comment-412 Judging from a cross section, despite Pat Buchanan's terrible cost-benefit, I'd say Hagelin got the short end of the stick all around. He got the fewest votes of all, the second highest dollars per vote, and his spending was #3 in 04. At least the others have something to be happy about...Hagelin has only his superstrings to comfort him. Maybe he can weave them together into a beautiful super-tapestry. He'll still never be President, though. LOL Judging from a cross section, despite Pat Buchanan’s terrible cost-benefit, I’d say Hagelin got the short end of the stick all around. He got the fewest votes of all, the second highest dollars per vote, and his spending was #3 in 04. At least the others have something to be happy about…Hagelin has only his superstrings to comfort him. Maybe he can weave them together into a beautiful super-tapestry. He’ll still never be President, though. LOL

]]> by: George Whitfield http://thirdpartywatch.com/2005/07/21/who-spent-what/#comment-407 Fri, 22 Jul 2005 22:03:01 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2005/07/21/who-spent-what/#comment-407 Perhaps if Badnarik had received and used the same amount of money in 2004 that Browne had received and used in 2000, and kept the same cost per vote ($2.70) then he would have had a vote total of 816,060. Next time lets give Michael more support! Perhaps if Badnarik had received and used the same amount of money in 2004 that Browne had received and used in 2000, and kept the same cost per vote ($2.70) then he would have had a vote total of 816,060. Next time lets give Michael more support!

]]> by: Alex Peak http://thirdpartywatch.com/2005/07/21/who-spent-what/#comment-394 Fri, 22 Jul 2005 09:43:40 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2005/07/21/who-spent-what/#comment-394 The lesson is that you can get the most bang for your buck by voting for Badnarik. :) The lesson is that you can get the most bang for your buck by voting for Badnarik. :)

]]> by: Fred C. http://thirdpartywatch.com/2005/07/21/who-spent-what/#comment-391 Fri, 22 Jul 2005 07:41:06 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2005/07/21/who-spent-what/#comment-391 So the lesson here is that Libertarian votes are cheap? ;) So the lesson here is that Libertarian votes are cheap? ;)

]]>