Obama campaign had twice the staff as Romney last month at same cost

[^_^ 5,021]

The Romney campaign spent $4.04 million on payroll in August -- nearly twice as much as it spent in July -- while the Obama campaign spent $4.37 million, according to campaign finance disclosures filed last week with the Federal Election Commission.

But the president appears to be getting a much bigger bang for his buck.

According to an analysis by the Times Data Desk, part of the Los Angeles Times, the Obama campaign had 901 people on its payroll last month, and paid them a median salary of $3,074 a month, or $36,886 a year.

The Romney campaign, in contrast, had 403 people on its payroll, and paid them a median salary of $6,437 in August, which would mean $77,250 a year.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-obama-romney-staff-expense-20120924,0,2707799.story

Edited September 25, 2012 by Habitual Offender

[Obama 2012 1,714]

More people "employed" versus better salaries.

Hmmmm, which argument would win I wonder.

[^_^ 5,021]

More people "employed" versus better salaries.

Hmmmm, which argument would win I wonder.

At best, they're running even in the polls. Sometimes Obama even has a slight (within MoE) lead.

We still judge by results, don't we?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

More people "employed" versus better salaries.

Hmmmm, which argument would win I wonder.

So Mitt pays people twice the salary to help him waste away a gimme election. Good call!

[Obama 2012 1,714]

At best, they're running even in the polls. Sometimes Obama even has a slight (within MoE) lead.

We still judge by results, don't we?

I mean in a simple debate though of more people employed versus a better wage.

I'd be curious to see the states where those people are employed and how "comfortable" of a wage that is.

Obama could easily argue he employs more people than Romney, however depending on the COL, Romney could argue that he gives people a better wage to support their families than Obama does.

[^_^ 5,021]

I mean in a simple debate though of more people employed versus a better wage.

That's a different thread. Go have the simple debate you so clearly desire over there. This thread is about two national campaigns for the President of the United States.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

The Romney campaign spent $4.04 million on payroll in August -- nearly twice as much as it spent in July -- while the Obama campaign spent $4.37 million, according to campaign finance disclosures filed last week with the Federal Election Commission.

But the president appears to be getting a much bigger bang for his buck.

According to an analysis by the Times Data Desk, part of the Los Angeles Times, the Obama campaign had 901 people on its payroll last month, and paid them a median salary of $3,074 a month, or $36,886 a year.

The Romney campaign, in contrast, had 403 people on its payroll, and paid them a median salary of $6,437 in August, which would mean $77,250 a year.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-obama-romney-staff-expense-20120924,0,2707799.story

Obama underpays people. Keeps them on food stamps and in the 47% that do not pay taxes. Great plan. If everyone did that then ni one would have to pay taxes!

[lostinblue 1,989]

The liberal media complex is doing Joseph Goebbels proud!...Who needs to pay for staff in the kenyans camp.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The liberal media complex is doing Joseph Goebbels proud!...Who needs to pay for staff in the kenyans camp.

That liberal media complex that is doing Goebbels proud is corporate America, my friend. The same corporate America that gets to buy any election it wants ever since the Citizen United decision was handed down by the Roberts court. Now what?

Edited September 26, 2012 by Mr. Big Dog