Trying to get a grip on Meg Whitman’s bankroll
By Josh Richman
Tuesday, February 1st, 2011 at 11:56 am in 2010 governor's race, campaign finance, Meg Whitman.
$144.2 million. That’s what 2010 Republican gubernatorial nominee Meg Whitman spent out of her own pocket on her failed campaign; the campaign’s total spending was $178.5 million when all was said and done, according to campaign finance reports filed yesterday.
Chew on it for a second. $144.2 million. Gaaaaah! Cannot… contextualize. Maybe it’s because I live on a reporter’s salary – which was never great, and actually has gotten smaller in recent years – but I’m fascinated by the concept of being able to lay out that kind of money for anything. I’m dwelling on it. It’s probably not healthy.
I did a quick turn around the Interwebs to see what $144.2 million means in other contexts. That amount is also:
No, I’m still not feeling it. Maybe I’m just not cut out to be able to imagine $144.2 million in, and then out of, my pocket. Maybe it’s easier to visualize $34.93, which is what Whitman paid out of pocket for each vote she eventually got in November’s general election. $34.93 could buy you a pair of boots, or a computer daypack, or a knife-compass-and-spark-striker survival tool combo, or a yoga mat, or a pair of horse bookends.
Aaaahhhh, that’s it – sweet, sweet context. A pair of horse bookends each for 4,127,391 voters.
That’s about the same number of people as the combined populations of New Mexico, Alaska and Hawaii, by the way.
[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]
February 1st, 2011 at 12:26 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by CA Democratic Party, Josh Richman. Josh Richman said: Trying, and failing, to get a grip on @MegWhitman’s $144.2 million personal campaign bankroll: http://bit.ly/dMHetG [...]
February 1st, 2011 at 12:47 pm
It’s not like she mortgaged the family farm to run. When you’ve got a portfolio of $2-3 billion and can generate $100 million a year or so in investment returns without breaking a sweat, spending $144 million to be queen of California is no big deal, even if you lose. You make it all back in a couple of years. It’s the equivalent of one of us commoners going to the casino and dropping a thousand or so.
February 1st, 2011 at 1:36 pm
Lord, I’d like to get a grip on her bankroll!
But only her bankroll.
February 1st, 2011 at 2:04 pm
John W: When I go to the casino, I’m the guy who still looks for the $3 blackjack tables.
February 1st, 2011 at 2:38 pm
Josh, you’re a bigger gambler than me. Haven’t been in a casino since company-paid trips and junkets to LV and Reno stopped. Used to go through a roll of quarters at the slots and quit.
February 1st, 2011 at 3:00 pm
This may be my favorite post of yours ever. I love stuff like this.