NewsNation | November 08, 2012
>> karl rove is doing a lot of explaining today. politico reports he's calling top donors to talk about the nearly $400 million loss on tuesday night. one republican operative told the huffington post , quote, the billionaire donors hair are live livid. there's holy hell to pass. joining me is nick capasori, political reporter for t"the new york times". nothing is guaranteed. why are she so livid. sheldon adelman is a casino man. most of the time the house wins, and in this case it was obama's campaign.
>> he gambled a lot and lost a lot in terms of return. how many races he won, if you exclude the house majority of republicans into which he put a lot of money and some overall super-pacs, the candidates he backed, eight candidates, all loss. that's a lot of moo la.
>> this is what mr. adelman said regarding all this moent money he spent.
>> how do you think your money was spent? was it well-spent?
>> by paying bills. that's how you spend money. either that or become a jewish husband. you spend a lot of money.
>> i'm not sure what he meant. that was his reaction to, i guess, one of the reporters who caught up with him. to your point he invested in a number of different races, but when you look at the money invested in newt gingrich and the number of dollars put into the romney campaign, it seems that a lot of -- i guess, his desire really was simply to get president obama out of the white house , and that's why he was just shelling out the money and maybe not necessarily believing in his candidate.
>> i don't know. i think it's pretty clear he believed in the candidates he put money behind. of course, candidates lose all the time and it doesn't mean every dollar or vote for that matter is a wasted dollar.
>> the reason i and you that, the paper that he owns the headline read that the united states was going back to socialism, and some of the things that we'd heard pointed at the president. that's more about president obama and less about mitt romney , and it seemed those were some of the concerns he had all along, israel's relationship with the united states and the president included in that.
>> right, right. it's amazing if you look at the tide of history here, in 2004 it was liberal billionaires who spent a lot of money to unseat george w. bush . they lost. in 2012 it was conservative billionaires that couldn't stand president obama , and they lost. i'm not sure what the kind of broader reason for that is, if there's any inclusion, but it shows you that if you're a candidate controlling your own money and message, that's really the best sort of practice you can imagine.
>> i believe when you look at the total sum of the money put in in the races, he won about 42% in good bets, 58% in bad bets. so i mean it depends on if you have the cash whether those are good and bad odds. moving ahead, we talked about super- pac money and the fear of what it would do. the president is not happy with the supreme court ruling on the money, the unnamed donors. the next cycle, what do you foresee?
>> i think super-pacs will play a huge role in presidential primaries, as they did in 2012 . mitt romney owes a lot to his super- pac restore our future for even being a nominee in the first place. i think they spent -- i think his super- pac alone restore our future spent more in the primary than any other candidate spent besides mitt romney . it was a whole lot of money. it was donated by a very few number of people. the lesson there if you're a candidate running for president in 2016 , you're looking through your rolodex and asking how many people am i friends with or who support me who can put 1, 2, or 10 million dollars at the drop of a hat into a super- pac ? that can change everything that we understand about what it takes to win a nomination.
>> you're a candidate and look through your rolodex and see who can give you $ 10 million . wow.
>> changes everything.
>> change and money. greatly appreciate it in some cases. as