语法：will no more determine the mid-terms than Mr Obama’s outspending of...
老师，您好，能不能请您分析一下粗体部分的语法~~我看不明白这里。Thomas Mann of the Brookings Institution says that the Citizens United decision will no more determine the mid-terms than Mr Obama’s outspending of John McCain in 2008 swung the presidential race. That contest was determined by the fundamental politics (rejection of the Bush legacy, the charm of Mr Obama), as November’s will be (the jobless “recovery”, disappointment with Mr Obama). Bill Galston, also at Brookings, goes so far as to wonder whether the fuss about it might be a pre-emptive attempt to explain away a defeat.
(背景资料: the Citizens United decision在文章的第一段里提到了，内容如下：IT IS fair to say that the Supreme Court of Chief Justice John Roberts is not extravagantly admired by Democrats. Of all its conservative rulings, the one they find most enraging as November’s mid-term elections approach is undoubtedly its 5-4 decision in January in the case of Citizens United. This held that since the first amendment tells Congress to make no law abridging the freedom of speech, previous legislation that barred companies, unions and other groups from paying directly for political advertisements during election campaigns was unconstitutional.
PS：我在yahoo！answer上问了，但看到回答后，句子结构还是不明白。http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101010044213AAHexWV
全文：http://www.economist.com/node/17201957
非常感谢老师~~:)
no more ... than 的意思是“和 …… 一样不 ……”，例如：
He is no richer than me. 他比我富不了多少（他和我一样穷）。
顶楼句子的架构是说：the Citizens United decision 与 Mr Obama’s outspending of John McCain 均不是 mid-terms （中期选举）的决定因素。 回复 2# IsaacZ
谢谢老师，那swung是怎么用的呢？ swung 本身是过去分词，后面又接名词，显然句子有误。不必深究。 回复 4# IsaacZ
我还想怎么左看右看也读不通似的~~
谢谢老师~~:)
页:
[1]