If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reason Magazine)   The Obama campaign does not seem to be bothered by the fact that it spent more than it raised in June, calls it "practice"   (reason.com) divider line 110
    More: Interesting, President Obama, Obama campaign, Fe C, TV Land, swing states, DNC  
•       •       •

724 clicks; posted to Politics » on 23 Jul 2012 at 9:46 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



110 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-23 10:16:15 AM

Helios1182: Remember all those months where Obama was bringing in loads of money while the Republicans were infighting?


More importantly, the Obama campaign had thousands of volunteers and hundreds of offices already on the ground. They can't be bargained with. They can't be reasoned with. They don't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And they absolutely will not stop, ever, until Obama is re-elected.

Plus, the bagels and coffee are pretty good at early morning canvassing events.
 
2012-07-23 10:16:44 AM

js34603: qorkfiend: Is there some reason they should be bothered by that fact?

Nah it probably doesn't matter they're being massively out fundraised by their opponent and can't even raise enough to cover their expenditures. Who cares if they can't afford ads in October? Not like those make a difference.

When has money ever been important in politics anyway? I'm sure this thread will fill up quickly with people scoffing at Romney's campaign and its massive war chest while assuring everyone that all is well and Obama has got Romney right where he wants him.

An incumbent being out raised by a challenger? Psh, why worry, I'm sure that happens all the time. Oh? That has never has happened? Well, I know from reading Fark this election is over anyway and the damn biased right wing media is just making it look close for ratings, so I'm sure everything is going to work out.

/make sure you Farkers vote, even if you think the 'media' is what is making this election close


I'm sure they're a bit bothered by the fact that they're being out-raised and out-spent, but in a post-Citizen's United world where the majority of Romney's contributions have come from fewer than 200 wealthy individuals, what can you do?

However, I doubt they're particularly bothered by the fact that in one month they spent more than they raised, since there are several other months in which they didn't.

Also, the media's not biased towards right or left (with a few notable exceptions, of course), they're biased towards sensationalism and ratings, and people don't watch blowouts. I'm also not sure why you consider 68-32 "close".
 
2012-07-23 10:16:54 AM
 
2012-07-23 10:17:48 AM

Diogenes: kyrg: Bloody William: I didn't know campaigns had to have balanced budgets or be profitable. I thought it was pretty much a game of "Raise money, then spend all of it before the election to get your point across. It's not about creating a sustainable business.

Then why all the media hoopla after Gingrich left the race with a large debt? Double standard much?
Not a fan of the Newt, or double standards.

Proportion of the debt to earning/fundraising potential. Plus, He's out of the race now. Who do you think pays that debt off? It ain't Gingrich.


Apparently Newt will be campaigning for Mitt in exchange for Mitt's help in paying off that debt.
 
2012-07-23 10:18:09 AM

kyrg: Bloody William: I didn't know campaigns had to have balanced budgets or be profitable. I thought it was pretty much a game of "Raise money, then spend all of it before the election to get your point across. It's not about creating a sustainable business.

Then why all the media hoopla after Gingrich left the race with a large debt? Double standard much?
Not a fan of the Newt, or double standards.


I'm pretty sure Obama still has money in his war chest. There's a difference between the campaign and fundraising not turning a profit and actually being in debt after it.
 
2012-07-23 10:19:37 AM

KellyX:

And frankly, with all the Romney tax related stuff, you strike while the iron is hot.


I really don't understand what he is doing.

The voters that matter (e.g. the undecideds, or those able to be influenced) aren't really paying attention to the election 4 months early. IIRC research shows that they tend to make up their mind in the last week. So why spend so much now? Especially in the summer?
 
2012-07-23 10:19:38 AM

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: They can't be bargained with. They can't be reasoned with. They don't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And they absolutely will not stop, ever, until Obama is re-elected.


Obama has hired Anonymous?

/oh please oh please oh please
 
2012-07-23 10:20:01 AM

Bloody William: kyrg: Bloody William: I didn't know campaigns had to have balanced budgets or be profitable. I thought it was pretty much a game of "Raise money, then spend all of it before the election to get your point across. It's not about creating a sustainable business.

Then why all the media hoopla after Gingrich left the race with a large debt? Double standard much?
Not a fan of the Newt, or double standards.

I'm pretty sure Obama still has money in his war chest. There's a difference between the campaign and fundraising not turning a profit and actually being in debt after it.


Exactly, if I have 100 million in my warchest at the start of June, spend 80 million but only raise 40, I am still in the black. But let's get our panties in a bunch.
 
2012-07-23 10:20:08 AM

Cletus C.: President Obama may end up becoming the boy who cried wolf in his "I will be outspent" fundraising campaign.


Was Obama including superPACs? Is the article?
 
2012-07-23 10:20:34 AM

qorkfiend: Diogenes: kyrg: Bloody William: I didn't know campaigns had to have balanced budgets or be profitable. I thought it was pretty much a game of "Raise money, then spend all of it before the election to get your point across. It's not about creating a sustainable business.

Then why all the media hoopla after Gingrich left the race with a large debt? Double standard much?
Not a fan of the Newt, or double standards.

Proportion of the debt to earning/fundraising potential. Plus, He's out of the race now. Who do you think pays that debt off? It ain't Gingrich.

Apparently Newt will be campaigning for Mitt in exchange for Mitt's help in paying off that debt.


Kind of part of my point. Indentured servitude. Especially with regard to Gingrich, individually.

But to depersonalize/departisanize it - this is how modern campaigning works.
 
2012-07-23 10:22:09 AM

King Something: js34603: /make sure you Farkers vote, even if you think the 'media' is what is making this election close

js34603: /make sure you Farkers vote, even if you think the 'media' is what is making this election close

js34603: /make sure you Farkers vote, even if you think the 'media' is what is making this election close

js34603: /make sure you Farkers vote, even if you think the 'media' is what is making this election close

js34603: /make sure you Farkers vote, even if you think the 'media' is what is making this election close


Yes, and that goes double for anyone under the age of 40.
 
2012-07-23 10:22:21 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: Practice? 0bama is an expert!

$5,000,000,000,000


Most of which was inherited. Next.
 
2012-07-23 10:22:23 AM
So if he had money on his balance sheet a month ago, it would make sense that between now and the election, he would spend that money. If that's true, between now and the election spending would exceed fund-raising, or he's not doing it right.
 
2012-07-23 10:23:41 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: KellyX:

And frankly, with all the Romney tax related stuff, you strike while the iron is hot.

I really don't understand what he is doing.

The voters that matter (e.g. the undecideds, or those able to be influenced) aren't really paying attention to the election 4 months early. IIRC research shows that they tend to make up their mind in the last week. So why spend so much now? Especially in the summer?


Do you think that Romney is wise enough to take your expert advice and not spend any money until the last week?
 
2012-07-23 10:24:39 AM

qorkfiend: Is there some reason they should be bothered by that fact?


they sound concerned
 
2012-07-23 10:25:59 AM

Diogenes: qorkfiend: Diogenes: kyrg: Bloody William: I didn't know campaigns had to have balanced budgets or be profitable. I thought it was pretty much a game of "Raise money, then spend all of it before the election to get your point across. It's not about creating a sustainable business.

Then why all the media hoopla after Gingrich left the race with a large debt? Double standard much?
Not a fan of the Newt, or double standards.

Proportion of the debt to earning/fundraising potential. Plus, He's out of the race now. Who do you think pays that debt off? It ain't Gingrich.

Apparently Newt will be campaigning for Mitt in exchange for Mitt's help in paying off that debt.

Kind of part of my point. Indentured servitude. Especially with regard to Gingrich, individually.

But to depersonalize/departisanize it - this is how modern campaigning works.


Well, some of them do. The Paul, Romney, and Obama campaigns are all debt free.
 
2012-07-23 10:26:38 AM

unexplained bacon: js34603: /make sure you Farkers vote, even if you think the 'media' is what is making this election close

THIS^^

a lot.


and make sure you have your id with you.
 
2012-07-23 10:26:42 AM

qorkfiend: in a post-Citizen's United world where the majority of Romney's contributions have come from fewer than 200 wealthy individuals


This just hit me:

Romney has raised over $100 million himself, yes? So let's just say that 200 people have built a war chest of $50 million. That means that 200 people contributed an average of $250,000 to Mitt Romney since he declared on 2JUN2011.

In just over a year, 200 people contributed FIVE TIMES the average US yearly salary to a man, that he should become president.

To say nothing of "unaffiliated" PACs and other corporate spending. Wouldn't that $250k be better spent on, like, creating jobs? Or maybe just paid to lower the debt? Or slice off $1,000 from each of them for a day of food at a homeless shelter in the nearest poor-people colony (or wherever they live)?

And these are people who biatch about how much they're "forced" to contribute to government. CONTRIBUTING FIVE TIMES THE AVERAGE YEARLY SALARY IN THE US TO A POLITICAL CAMPAIGN.

// don't want to live on planet, etc
// does dumb have an escape velocity?
 
2012-07-23 10:32:58 AM

qorkfiend: js34603: qorkfiend: Is there some reason they should be bothered by that fact?

Nah it probably doesn't matter they're being massively out fundraised by their opponent and can't even raise enough to cover their expenditures. Who cares if they can't afford ads in October? Not like those make a difference.

When has money ever been important in politics anyway? I'm sure this thread will fill up quickly with people scoffing at Romney's campaign and its massive war chest while assuring everyone that all is well and Obama has got Romney right where he wants him.

An incumbent being out raised by a challenger? Psh, why worry, I'm sure that happens all the time. Oh? That has never has happened? Well, I know from reading Fark this election is over anyway and the damn biased right wing media is just making it look close for ratings, so I'm sure everything is going to work out.

/make sure you Farkers vote, even if you think the 'media' is what is making this election close

I'm sure they're a bit bothered by the fact that they're being out-raised and out-spent, but in a post-Citizen's United world where the majority of Romney's contributions have come from fewer than 200 wealthy individuals, what can you do?

However, I doubt they're particularly bothered by the fact that in one month they spent more than they raised, since there are several other months in which they didn't.

Also, the media's not biased towards right or left (with a few notable exceptions, of course), they're biased towards sensationalism and ratings, and people don't watch blowouts. I'm also not sure why you consider 68-32 "close".


So, all is well?

Also 68-32?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_ele c tion_romney_vs_obama-1171.html#polls

Must just be the media chasing ratings.
 
2012-07-23 10:33:17 AM

Hobodeluxe: unexplained bacon: js34603: /make sure you Farkers vote, even if you think the 'media' is what is making this election close

THIS^^

a lot.

and make sure you have your id with you.


If ID were required maybe a person couldn't vote "a lot."
 
2012-07-23 10:33:59 AM

theknuckler_33: Was there a point being made in TFA? Because I sure didn't see it.


There sure was. You see, Obama's campaign spent more money than it raised this month. Our government spends more money than it raises and that adds to our debt, which is bad. That means Obama is bad and therefore we need elect Romney who has pledged to raise less money and spend even more. Get it?
 
2012-07-23 10:34:57 AM

Cletus C.: Hobodeluxe: unexplained bacon: js34603: /make sure you Farkers vote, even if you think the 'media' is what is making this election close

THIS^^

a lot.

and make sure you have your id with you.

If ID were required maybe a person couldn't vote "a lot."


You've survived longer than most. But no longer. *plonk*
 
2012-07-23 10:35:52 AM

Dr Dreidel: qorkfiend: in a post-Citizen's United world where the majority of Romney's contributions have come from fewer than 200 wealthy individuals

This just hit me:

Romney has raised over $100 million himself, yes? So let's just say that 200 people have built a war chest of $50 million. That means that 200 people contributed an average of $250,000 to Mitt Romney since he declared on 2JUN2011.

In just over a year, 200 people contributed FIVE TIMES the average US yearly salary to a man, that he should become president.

To say nothing of "unaffiliated" PACs and other corporate spending. Wouldn't that $250k be better spent on, like, creating jobs? Or maybe just paid to lower the debt? Or slice off $1,000 from each of them for a day of food at a homeless shelter in the nearest poor-people colony (or wherever they live)?

And these are people who biatch about how much they're "forced" to contribute to government. CONTRIBUTING FIVE TIMES THE AVERAGE YEARLY SALARY IN THE US TO A POLITICAL CAMPAIGN.

// don't want to live on planet, etc
// does dumb have an escape velocity?


Yes, the Kochs really would rather pay out millions on getting Scott Walker kept in office and Mitt Romney elected, than pay a full income tax rate on capital gains and/or 37% instead of 35% per year on their regular income. When you get down to it, that's how selfish and stupid these people and their shills are.
 
2012-07-23 10:36:26 AM

js34603: qorkfiend: Is there some reason they should be bothered by that fact?

Nah it probably doesn't matter they're being massively out fundraised by their opponent and can't even raise enough to cover their expenditures.


Who cares if that isn't remotely true? Last month Romney raised 25% more than Obama. Not exactly "massively

Who cares if they can't afford ads in October? Not like those make a difference.

You actually think Obama won't be running ads in October? Or that the ads run by SuperPACs will outnumber the official campaigns' ads by a massive amount anyway? You know, SuperPACs, which don't have those fundraising limits? Which gets us to the next thing you don't understand:

When has money ever been important in politics anyway?

No,. no, not your silly strawman, this other stupid thing:

I'm sure this thread will fill up quickly with people scoffing at Romney's campaign and its massive war chest while assuring everyone that all is well and Obama has got Romney right where he wants him.

An incumbent being out raised by a challenger? Psh, why worry, I'm sure that happens all the time.


For fundraising purposes, the primaries and the general election are completely separate. And according to the FEC's calendar. since neither party has actually nominated anyone, we're still in the primaries.

Obama's donors maxed out early on that $2500 limit, since they knew he was the nominee. Romney's still picking up checks from the many, many people who have about as much enthusiasm for him as going to their annual prostate exam, but have decided they must hold their nose and back him.

Get to the general election part of our FEC calendar, and watch Obama's campaign war chest fill right back up.

Even then, its considered likely Romney will do better than Obama on fundraising, but not by a "massive" amount, somewhere in the range of 20%-25%.

Given how long Obama's team has been working on their ground game (20 staffed field offices in Virginia, for example, that have been organizing precinct by precinct for months already), and given that the Romney campaign's communications strategy is the worst of any campaign since the invention of broadcast media, this liberal ain't too worried.
 
2012-07-23 10:37:50 AM

PDid: I paid cash for a new car in June. Should I be concerned that I spent 10x what I made in June?


Not so much, you actually had the cash. The borrowing seems to be the problem with the govt.
 
2012-07-23 10:40:35 AM

monoski: PDid: I paid cash for a new car in June. Should I be concerned that I spent 10x what I made in June?

Not so much, you actually had the cash. The borrowing seems to be the problem with the govt.


The Obama campaign is not the government

Paying cash for a car when negative real interest rates are available is silly. Same goes for the government.
 
2012-07-23 10:44:47 AM

Epoch_Zero: Cletus C.: Hobodeluxe: unexplained bacon: js34603: /make sure you Farkers vote, even if you think the 'media' is what is making this election close

THIS^^

a lot.

and make sure you have your id with you.

If ID were required maybe a person couldn't vote "a lot."

You've survived longer than most. But no longer. *plonk*


Plonk?
Is that a vote for funniest, or maybe smartest?
Thank you very much.
 
2012-07-23 10:46:09 AM

PDid: I paid cash for a new car in June. Should I be concerned that I spent 10x what I made in June?


Yes! That is a really terrible budget decision to spend nearly a year salary on a car.
 
2012-07-23 10:48:57 AM
 
2012-07-23 10:53:13 AM

js34603: Also 68-32?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_ele c tion_romney_vs_obama-1171.html#polls

Must just be the media chasing ratings.


He's referring to the 538 prediction. The basic poll you linked to tells you how the popular vote will probably play out. The 538 prediction is based on how the vote in each state and the electoral college will play out and predicts the chances of the candidates to win the actual election. It's currently sitting at Obama having a 68% chance to win and Romney a 32% chance to win. It's fairly accurate but of course can't predict how things might change between now and the election.
 
2012-07-23 11:00:16 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: KellyX:

And frankly, with all the Romney tax related stuff, you strike while the iron is hot.

I really don't understand what he is doing.

The voters that matter (e.g. the undecideds, or those able to be influenced) aren't really paying attention to the election 4 months early. IIRC research shows that they tend to make up their mind in the last week. So why spend so much now? Especially in the summer?


Because the Obama campaign is trying to win while they still can.

They're reading the same polls that everyone else is and drawing the obvious conclusion: this is a very tight race where the President has a tenous lead of about 2%. They also know that the economy is in the crapper and has a much greater chance of getting worse by November than recovering. They tried to run on the argument that Obama was helping the economy, but it was such a disaster than they've got one arrow in the quiver left: try to take down Romney any way possible.

So that's why they're doing an ad blitz now. They're hoping to take out Romney early enough that he'll be damaged goods when the electorate starts paying attention and before Romney blitzes them with his own spending. That strategy makes perfect sense for a candidate in Obama's position - you're an unpopular incumbent who can't really run on his record, so your best bet is to make the other guy radioactive.

The problem with that strategy is that it hasn't worked. Obama's numbers have barely budged, but the negative ads are hurting is personal approval rating. Romney's numbers are right where they were before the ad blitz, which suggests that the ads just aren't working for the President.

What the Obama campaign is doing makes sense and is probably the conventional strategy to try. But what's happening is the biggest downside to running a highly negative campaign: you push your own numbers down the more negative you get. It's not that Obama is doing something stupid - it's just that their lines of attack aren't going anywhere with a highly polarized electorate.
 
2012-07-23 11:03:33 AM

WombatControl: who can't really run on his record,


charts showing improving economic numbers over the course of his presidency in 3....2...1....

I guess by repeating it often enough republicans hope to also poison the well for Obama, coincidentally doing the exact same thing they are whining about Obama doing regarding Romney's accomplishments.
 
2012-07-23 11:05:06 AM
I just bought a cup of coffee. Should I be concerned that, in the 0.5 seconds the cash was transferred from my hand to the cashier's, I was spending money 1000 times faster than I make it?
 
2012-07-23 11:08:57 AM

Kibbler: Should I be concerned that


I don't know, but I SURE AM. EMPTY SUIT! BIRTH CERFICIT! SOCIALIS!
 
2012-07-23 11:11:16 AM
Does this means Sarah Palin is now President?
 
2012-07-23 11:11:22 AM

Headso: WombatControl: who can't really run on his record,

charts showing improving economic numbers over the course of his presidency in 3....2...1....

I guess by repeating it often enough republicans hope to also poison the well for Obama, coincidentally doing the exact same thing they are whining about Obama doing regarding Romney's accomplishments.


The spots that simply talk about progress on the economy did not do well. The first offered a graphic depiction of job decline during the early months of the recession and job growth under President Obama. The second highlighted progress on jobs in the automobile industry. These ads did not win over most Obama voters.


Democratic pollster Democracy Corps analysis of Obama economic messaging.

The reason I say that Obama can't win by talking about his alleged economic gains is not because that's what I'm predicting, but because that is what the polls consistently show.
 
2012-07-23 11:17:01 AM
Spending money you don't have? It's called Stimulus
 
2012-07-23 11:19:42 AM
I just retired after working for forty years. Should I be concerned that, since retiring, I am now spending a lifetime of carefully managed savings faster than I can earn them?
 
2012-07-23 11:21:48 AM

WombatControl: Headso: WombatControl: who can't really run on his record,

charts showing improving economic numbers over the course of his presidency in 3....2...1....

I guess by repeating it often enough republicans hope to also poison the well for Obama, coincidentally doing the exact same thing they are whining about Obama doing regarding Romney's accomplishments.

The spots that simply talk about progress on the economy did not do well. The first offered a graphic depiction of job decline during the early months of the recession and job growth under President Obama. The second highlighted progress on jobs in the automobile industry. These ads did not win over most Obama voters.

Democratic pollster Democracy Corps analysis of Obama economic messaging.

The reason I say that Obama can't win by talking about his alleged economic gains is not because that's what I'm predicting, but because that is what the polls consistently show.


You used the exact phrasing that is constantly used by republicans regarding Obama's record. The economic numbers have been improving over his tenure and he has foreign policy successes that could be used in the campaign. Where in your 20 page pdf does it show Obama can't tout some of his successes?
 
2012-07-23 11:22:05 AM
Obama's campaign deficits are the fault of Bush's failed policies.
 
2012-07-23 11:27:14 AM

Headso: You used the exact phrasing that is constantly used by republicans regarding Obama's record. The economic numbers have been improving over his tenure and he has foreign policy successes that could be used in the campaign. Where in your 20 page pdf does it show Obama can't tout some of his successes?


Perhaps you should read it? Because it talks at lengths about why Obama can't win by making the argument that he made the economy better. It's not an argument that voters believe or respect because they simply are not experiencing it.
 
2012-07-23 11:31:55 AM
as a patriotic romney supporter I am going to outsource some work to INdians to call Americans and tell them to support and vote for romney.
 
2012-07-23 11:34:49 AM

WombatControl: Headso: You used the exact phrasing that is constantly used by republicans regarding Obama's record. The economic numbers have been improving over his tenure and he has foreign policy successes that could be used in the campaign. Where in your 20 page pdf does it show Obama can't tout some of his successes?

Perhaps you should read it? Because it talks at lengths about why Obama can't win by making the argument that he made the economy better. It's not an argument that voters believe or respect because they simply are not experiencing it.


His record includes more than the economy the numbers also clearly state that there is an improvement in the economy. Do you find it odd that republicans constantly suggesting that he can't run on his record are actually concerned about how he might manage his campaign and are trying to give helpful advice regarding future PR and ad campaigns?
 
2012-07-23 11:43:14 AM

js34603: Also 68-32?


I was referring to Nate Silver's win probability calculation. It currently sits at 68% chance of an Obama win.
 
2012-07-23 11:47:47 AM

Headso: His record includes more than the economy the numbers also clearly state that there is an improvement in the economy. Do you find it odd that republicans constantly suggesting that he can't run on his record are actually concerned about how he might manage his campaign and are trying to give helpful advice regarding future PR and ad campaigns?


You can believe that if you wish. But it's a Democratic pollster that's telling Obama that message won't work. The link I posted was from two of the most respected Democratic pollsters out there.

The Republicans would love nothing more than for Obama to run a campaign of telling struggling families how great it is that the economy is recovering thanks to him. But Obama's campaign is not that stupid, which is why they've spent millions attacking Romney rather than tooting their own horn on the economy.
 
2012-07-23 11:53:25 AM

heavymetal: Does this means Sarah Palin is now President?


Yep.

It also means that Barack Obama has to dress as the Yellow Bird from Angry Birds for Halloween.
 
2012-07-23 11:57:37 AM

Oh, and as further evidence for why Obama can't run on his economic record, The Hill has a new poll out:

Two-thirds of likely voters say the weak economy is Washington's fault, and more blame President Obama than anybody else, according to a new poll for The Hill.

It found that 66 percent believe paltry job growth and slow economic recovery is the result of bad policy. Thirty-four percent say Obama is the most to blame, followed by 23 percent who say Congress is the culprit. Twenty percent point the finger at Wall Street, and 18 percent cite former President George W. Bush....

The poll, conducted for The Hill by Pulse Opinion Research, found 53 percent of voters say Obama has taken the wrong actions and has slowed the economy down. Forty-two percent said he has taken the right actions to revive the economy, while six percent said they were not sure.


So yeah, Obama should totally run on his economic record, that would work just awesome for him.
 
2012-07-23 12:01:03 PM

WombatControl: Headso: His record includes more than the economy the numbers also clearly state that there is an improvement in the economy. Do you find it odd that republicans constantly suggesting that he can't run on his record are actually concerned about how he might manage his campaign and are trying to give helpful advice regarding future PR and ad campaigns?

You can believe that if you wish. But it's a Democratic pollster that's telling Obama that message won't work. The link I posted was from two of the most respected Democratic pollsters out there.

The Republicans would love nothing more than for Obama to run a campaign of telling struggling families how great it is that the economy is recovering thanks to him. But Obama's campaign is not that stupid, which is why they've spent millions attacking Romney rather than tooting their own horn on the economy.


Every presidential race involves millions spent attacking the other candidate. Because you keep suggesting that the pdf you linked states that Obama can't run on his record I read through it and it really doesn't say that, you might want to read it. The ads they were discussing were very specific and the overall narrative of the study was not that Obama could not tout his successes in foreign policy and on domestic fronts. You are also responding with strawmen, who is suggesting he tell struggling families that the economy is great?
 
2012-07-23 12:04:43 PM

WombatControl: So yeah, Obama should totally run on his economic record, that would work just awesome for him.


Like I said, I am sure your concern in parroting republican concern about how Obama should run his campaign is based in being helpful and not about poisoning the well by catapulting that talking point.
 
2012-07-23 12:09:06 PM

Cletus C.: President Obama may end up becoming the boy who cried wolf in his "I will be outspent" fundraising campaign.

Racism!


Last week:
Romney Outraising Obama by 5:1 in month of June!

This week:
Obama blowing his financial load all over the unwilling American populace, when will his relentless usurpation cease!?

Next week:
Obama war chest 3 times the size of Romney's: Is The Presidential Election Rigged?

Week after:
Obama spending unprecedented! Who has bought the president!?

Week after that:
Romney performing well despite massive campaign deficit!
 
Displayed 50 of 110 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report