Lost Thought 00: One place Obama won't be spending money this year is Texas. Steufloff says at this point, it would be a complete waste if he did.

Way to go out on a limb, sucky blog maker

It's funny to me because not only does this completely contradict what the Democrats did in the last election, it's also a very self serving statement that is obviously transparent.

To break it down for people who weren't paying all that close attention: The Democrats spent a lot of money in "safe" Republican states during the last election cycle simply because it forced the GOP to defend those races and spread themselves thin. You see, the one thing both parties have is a lot of money, but the one edge that the Democrats have is frankly more people to staff campaign offices and ground ops. Sure they have to bus them in from out of state, but they have the people. The GOP does not.

I know it seems counter intuitive, since obviously Obama will never win the state of Texas. But there are a lot of down ticket races where his "get out the vote" campaign would have disasterous effects for Texas Republicans. This will draw both money and people from the Texas GOP that they would otherwise be using to bolster their presidential candidate.

Anyway, it worked brilliantly during the '08 election and I suspect that they'll pursue the same strategy. Ultimately however, it's less Obama's strategy and more a triumph of Howard Dean's "50 state strategy" as opposed to the more Clintonian "triangulation" campaigns that we're used to.

Cletus C.: sprawl15: Cletus C.: But stick with Solyndra because it resonates very nicely when talking about the economy and Obama.

And it's delicious on corn.

TyrantII: Obama's win last time can directly be contributed to his smart operation in almost all the states. He's taking what he did last time and putting in on steroids. And the GOP is not competing, but rather finding fights breaking out between the establishment and the teaparty base.

I can't wait for the first debate in the general. There's not enough popcorn in the world to watch Romney's ass get beaten into the ground.

Haters gotta hate, right? Romney seems like a good and honorable man. As does Obama.

When they debate it will be the usual post-spin bullshiat with both sides declaring victory so your wish will end up being a bit masturbatory.

If you really want fap material compile all the PAC-funded attack TV commercials against Romney. You can reserve your outrage for the anti-Obama stuff.

Romney is anything but good and honorable.

Bain capitals whole business model is predicated on buying up solvent, but cheap companies, leveraging BAIN's "investment" in them to take out huge loans and drive up debt, picking $$$ from the bone via consultant fees, loading the board and exectuive management with their people, and slashing costs across th board, and then getting paid first when the company finally goes bankrupt because they were the largest "lender". So, defaulting on loans that the now shell corporation is on the hook for, while the money was transferred to Bain.

The only thing that makes it NOT illegal is that mum's the word. Don't document it, and it's just "market forces" to steal from banks, ruin a company, and pocket the loans through embezzlement.

Sometimes the companies come through, but often not and usually when some else had a bigger stake in them than Bain.

Look it up, it's not honorable or good. It's plutocratic robbery and vulture capitalism.

themeaningoflifeisnot: And if Romney didn't have to spend so much money fighting off his fellow Republicans, he would have spent that $75 million and more attacking Obama instead.

Question: how much did George Bush spend campaigning while Obama and Clinton duked it out?

/I really don't know the answer--just throwing the question out there

Not a whole hell of a lot, considering he wasn't running for reelection.

This breaking headline from the Pulling Numbers Out Of Our Ass Department (PNOOOAD)

BojanglesPaladin: Given that Obama is ammassing far more corporate donations and far more money from large contributers than his oponants, where is the outrage of 'big money shill' when it comes to Obama?
Obama has ALREADY raised $43,176,055 from Donors contributing more than $1,500 each compared to Romney's $48,389,767 from Donors contributing more than $1,500 each.

Misleading, considering that
A) Obama's raised slightly more in total contributions than Romney, Paul, Gingrich, Perry and Cain put together, so any such direct comparison will be disproportionate, and
B) The "over $1,500" tier you're citing only provides 24% of Obama's total. (For Romney, by comparison, that number would be 64%).


How can Obama supporters see that kind of big money flowing into his election campaign and NOT be concerned? We ALL agree that this is the very thing that we areall traying to avoid. How does a good liberal reconcile a known bad action being acceptable simply because it is "thier guy"? Are Obama supporters just that willing to turn a blind eye and sacrifice principles in favor of maintaining power? Is it just a "The ends justify the means" thing?

Simply raising huge amounts of cash is not, in itself, a bad thing. (It's certainly not what we ALL agree that we're trying to avoid, that's glossing over a bit of an equivocation.) Even raising massive boatloads of cash from corporations isn't a bad thing, in and of itself. The problem is when that money comes with influence-peddling strings attached.

Obama's screwed that up on more than one occasion since '08, particularly in some of his choices for panels and advisors. And he's caught an earful from the Dems each time it's happened; this is one of several reasons why his relationship with the base is a little rocky.

But simply pointing out a big $$ value of "funds gained from source x" doesn't constitute an example of that. And it's just a dumb argument to make with those numbers, when the same figures show over half his funds coming from the lowest-end, $200 and under category. (Your Politifact link was for last election, not current figures. He's raised more in sub-$200 contributions than each Republican candidate's overall total this time around.) You can't simply throw out a large, context-free figure and then go begging for outrage.

BojanglesPaladin: I think (and have said before) that Romney's scorched earth spend the opposition into oblivion approach is a very good example of how American politics is going off the rails. And Obama is gearing up to make Romney look like a piker when it comes to this sort of massive war chest election buying. He's supposed to be against this sort of 'politics as usual'.

There's a couple distinctions here. Purpose of spending is quite different; Romney has been spending money like crazy on attack ads and other negative campaign tools, undermining the political process by attempting to be the least offensive choice. The majority of Obama's spending has been done on ground level action, getting out word, getting people aware, education, that kind of thing. A much more positive - and expensive - way to campaign.

The numbers you mentioned also aren't really that important in a vacuum - a more relevant number to see the influence of corporate financing would be one that looks at percentage of a candidate's financing coming from high dollar values (or more appropriately, corporate sources). If a candidate has only raised $1 million on +$1,500 sources, but 100% of that is from oil companies, it's a much surer bet that said person is in their bag.

I imagine liberals aren't so much upset with simply lots of money flowing through campaigns, but rather the influence and power brokering that goes along with owing an election to a limited few very high dollar value sources. The volume of small value donations to the Obama campaign goes a decent way towards alleviating some of those fears (simultaneously, I would bet that they would like to see less corporate influence despite it not being currently 'outrageous').

If there was ever a headline to sum up dealing with your republican friends this is it. Incorrect info trying to prove imagined bias coming from the left that actually exists on the right.

/way to hit this out of the park Subby.

tenpoundsofcheese: FlashHarry: how much money has romney's superpac spent? how much has obama's?

is your google broken?

30M for Romney
46M for 0bama

It's fun correcting you :) Like a mini-game in every thread, since we can always count on you being incorrect.

$37M - money spent by Romney SuperPAC
$2.8M - money raised by Obama SuperPAC

$84M - Obama's cash on hand
$27M - money raised by Rove's SuperPAC

/taa-daaa

Cletus C.: NateGrey: Cletus C.: James!: Cletus C.: $150 million? Big deal. That wouldn't pay for the administrative assistant's wet bar at Solyndra headquarters.

Was that a joke?

Nah. You just say Solyndra at every opportunity when it comes to Obama.

Can you mention Gunwalker too? Another thing no one gives a shiat about except for idiotic Right Wingers.

/Vote Republican

You're kidding, right? Next thing you'll want is a focus on his birth certificate and religious beliefs. No, Fast and Furious is so much more fun if you want to go the gun route.

But stick with Solyndra because it resonates very nicely when talking about the economy and Obama.

The best part of Operation Fast and Furious is that it started under Bush and continued under Obama while Congress was dragging its feet in appointing someone to run the BATF, effectively letting the inmates run that asylum. Kind of makes me glad we have politicians occasionally interfering with the "expert professionals" especially in law enforcement.

Cletus C.: But stick with Solyndra because it resonates very nicely when talking about the economy and Obama.

And it's delicious on corn.

TyrantII: Obama's win last time can directly be contributed to his smart operation in almost all the states. He's taking what he did last time and putting in on steroids. And the GOP is not competing, but rather finding fights breaking out between the establishment and the teaparty base.

I can't wait for the first debate in the general. There's not enough popcorn in the world to watch Romney's ass get beaten into the ground.

Remember when the left got outraged that Rmoney spent $75M on the GOP primaries?

Yeah, me neither.

Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: I've a question. Just why is there nobody running against Obama? Technically there is, but their chances of getting the Democratic nomination are so low that realistically, there's not.

Because there isn't a large groundswell among Democrats that Obama is doing a poor job or doesn't represent their beliefs.

tenpoundsofcheese: the_foo: Looks like Obama's spent $125 million this cycle, but his biggest expenses are payroll and mailings. Seems to be just gearing up his operation well in advance of the general election.

Disbursements by purpose

Payroll
Online Advertising
Printing
Postage

This is hardly gearing up for the operation well in advance. He is campaigning now in contrast to those who say he hasn't even started campaigning.

Besides, why does he have $267k in credit card fees?

He's clearly doing some campaigning as well, just not for the uncontested primaries as the article bizarrely asserts.

I assume the credit card fees are because the credit card companies charge the recipients of credit card payments something like 3% of the payment amount for the privilege of accepting their credit cards.

tenpoundsofcheese: imontheinternet: Satanic_Hamster: I'm more going to go with: Your blog sucks, subby.

The claim that Obama has spent 150 million sounds like something that's honestly completely made up and pulled out of someones ass. Oh look, the numbers come from the Heritage Foundation.

NYT has the same numbers.

Also, the Obama campaign's payroll is more than double all the Republicans combined.

shhhhh....people will get upset if you give them numbers from the conservative NYT.
The amount spent on an UNCONTESTED election is UNPRECEDENTED. The hope and change campaign machine needs to cover up for his actual record.


NOW conservatives are concerned about money in politics...

Obama is unopposed in the general election too.

Someone ever cared about how much money Romney spent on his campaign?

PROTIP: Republicans, when trying to prove some sort of nefarious "double standard" you have use something that ever existed in the past and *then* is different now. You can't just take something from now and pretend the past was different.

BunkoSquad: "Romney spent $75 Mil on the GOP primaries: "OMG"."

Who's OMGing? Unless it's Romney's kids, who cares? It's not like it's my inheritance he's futilely blowing through.

That's another point- campaigns are funded by voluntary donations in the US for the most part. If we were discussing taxpayer money funding this sort of thing, I could see some complaints. A sucker being parted from his money by a politician? We'd have to outlaw politicians to stop that.

tenpoundsofcheese: the_foo: Looks like Obama's spent $125 million this cycle, but his biggest expenses are payroll and mailings. Seems to be just gearing up his operation well in advance of the general election.

Disbursements by purpose

Payroll
Online Advertising
Printing
Postage

This is hardly gearing up for the operation well in advance. He is campaigning now in contrast to those who say he hasn't even started campaigning.

Besides, why does he have $267k in credit card fees?

It's probably because Obama receives lots of contributions from lots of people over the Internet and the Republicans receive fewer but larger contributions by check during a power lunch.

imontheinternet: Satanic_Hamster: I'm more going to go with: Your blog sucks, subby.

The claim that Obama has spent 150 million sounds like something that's honestly completely made up and pulled out of someones ass. Oh look, the numbers come from the Heritage Foundation.

NYT has the same numbers.

Also, the Obama campaign's payroll is more than double all the Republicans combined.

It's nice that he pays people and doesn't stiff them like the failed GOP candidates.

tenpoundsofcheese: The amount spent on an UNCONTESTED election is UNPRECEDENTED. The hope and change campaign machine needs to cover up for his actual record.

I guess it is time to reign in money in politics...

robertus: King Something:
/oh, and here's a few "It's twue!"s just for good measure
//It's twue! It's twue! Oh, it's twue!

[upload.wikimedia.org image 240x320]

this is sewious!

You.

Netflix.

Blazing Saddles.

NOW.

Looks like Obama's spent $125 million this cycle, but his biggest expenses are payroll and mailings. Seems to be just gearing up his operation well in advance of the general election.

Disbursements by purpose

Aarontology: There's also the whole thing about it being the other GOP candidates being the ones who are constantly complaining about how much Romney spends, not the Democrats.


Wrong, sorry. The Republicans have ALWAYS loved Romney and the campaigns of Santorum/Gingrich/Paul were entirely funded by secret Soros trusts in order to secretly undermine the Republican party. Thankfully the Republicans had a clever retaliation plan whereby they pretended to support Santorum so that he wouldn't drop out and they could waste more of Soro's liberal money by continuing to fund Santorum for months, which is money that won't make it into Obama's Kenyan coffers.

Suck it, libs.

But the Heritage Foundation's Brian Darling disagrees, and points out the president has spent $150 million in primaries where he's unopposed.
"The fact that he has spent more than all Republicans combined should really raise eyebrows for campaign finance lawyers, to understand why he needs to spend so much money so early in the campaign season," says Darling.


Why would it raise eyebrows for campaign finance lawyers?

Ain't no party like a manufactured outrage party because manufactured outrage don't stop.

Obama sent his babby death panels to my house yesterday and hogtied me while they rooted through my couch for loose change and Funyun residue.

Look at how much Obama supports Free Speech.