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  
•       •       •

722 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
 
2012-07-23 09:47:12 AM
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.
 
2012-07-23 09:48:57 AM
Done in one.
 
2012-07-23 09:49:03 AM

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.


Mitt Romney has a detailed plan to loot his campaign's pension fund, and to outsource the jobs while personally making millions in "consulting fees".
 
2012-07-23 09:49:29 AM
Is there some reason they should be bothered by that fact?
 
2012-07-23 09:50:07 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: 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.

Mitt Romney has a detailed plan to loot his campaign's pension fund, and to outsource the jobs while personally making millions in "consulting fees".


So, standard Republican procedure?
 
2012-07-23 09:50:13 AM
I guess since it's not a Republican campaign, they don't have to worry about producing a profit. What with candidate bills being covered elsewhere.
 
2012-07-23 09:51:01 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: 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.

Mitt Romney has a detailed plan to loot his campaign's pension fund, and to outsource the jobs while personally making millions in "consulting fees".


after which he will retroactively quit the campaign prior to anything that could be considered unethical
 
2012-07-23 09:51:14 AM
Hmm... between getting married and moving into a new apartment, and paying off my car, I'm pretty sure i've spent more than I made this month. Luckily, I also made money last month.
 
2012-07-23 09:51:54 AM
There's a right wing pundit douche site tailored for all types. If you are a full on nut case some WND or American Thinker might be your deal. If you just like to do the both sides are bad so vote republican kinda thing well then head on over to Reason.com.
 
2012-07-23 09:51:57 AM

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.


In Amercia they do.
 
2012-07-23 09:52:58 AM
I think they're missing a T
 
2012-07-23 09:53:51 AM
Well that settles it! I'm voting for Gingrich!
 
2012-07-23 09:53:58 AM
Meanwhile, I see from one of the ads (for Firefox users, those are solicitations for you to buy their product or sign up for some emails) Sheriff Joe wants to take the country back. Big aspirations for a County Mountie.
 
2012-07-23 09:55:08 AM
So, if I have $1000 in the bank coming into June, make $500 during the month of June, and spend $800 in the month of June...

No wait...

I am not allowed to save money for future use. I can, and in fact, *have* to spend every dime I make during the month that I make it...

That doesn't sound right either, let me try once more...

If I spend more in a month...


I can't do it. Could one of you Independents explain it to me?
 
2012-07-23 09:55:19 AM

unexplained bacon: Philip Francis Queeg: 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.

Mitt Romney has a detailed plan to loot his campaign's pension fund, and to outsource the jobs while personally making millions in "consulting fees".

after which he will retroactively quit the campaign prior to anything that could be considered unethical


Romney has just issued an affidavits to the FEC stating that he is both Candidate in control of his campaign and that he has no role of any kind in the campaign.
 
2012-07-23 09:55:33 AM
What a shame, bankrupting themselves like that. It's too bad for the Obama campaign that the month of June, in which they spent more money than they made, was the only month in which they raised any money at all.
 
2012-07-23 09:55:56 AM

Gecko Gingrich: I can't do it. Could one of you Independents explain it to me?


Obama Bad, QED.
 
2012-07-23 09:56:00 AM
President Obama may end up becoming the boy who cried wolf in his "I will be outspent" fundraising campaign.

Racism!
 
2012-07-23 09:57:24 AM
They sound concerned.
 
2012-07-23 09:57:40 AM
No one has commented on the giant douche vs. turnd sandwich hyperlink in the article yet. Have some more coffee farkers, your slacking.
 
2012-07-23 09:58:03 AM

Iblis824: Hmm... between getting married and moving into a new apartment, and paying off my car, I'm pretty sure i've spent more than I made this month. Luckily, I also made money last month.


This.

Obama has made a major investment this month because this is the point where the general election campaign really begins. And it's been a successful one -- before Romney really got a chance to define himself to the American people, they now know him as a vulture capitalist who refuses to be open about his finances.
 
2012-07-23 09:58:25 AM
I'm shocked to learn that a political campaign operates more like a business than the average American household. They don't live check to check and may have money in savings or reserves, or available on credit? Shocking! It's like this article wants to offend me, as the average schmuck, that the President's campaign isn't quite managed like my shoddy finances. There is only one opportunity as an average Joe. Turn from 0bama and his heretical finances and embrace the party that embraces, and cares for me; the Republicans. Or not. Get bent Repubs.
 
2012-07-23 09:58:41 AM
Remember all those months where Obama was bringing in loads of money while the Republicans were infighting? Yeah, they have some money in the bank saved for the next few months.
 
2012-07-23 09:58:44 AM
Oh is this another article where Reason pretends to be in the middle while only pointing out things Democrats do?
 
2012-07-23 09:59:24 AM
Was there a point being made in TFA? Because I sure didn't see it.
 
2012-07-23 09:59:59 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: Romney has just issued an affidavits to the FEC stating that he is both Candidate in control of his campaign and that he has no role of any kind in the campaign.


Initially I read that as Romney saying he was Canadian. Which would have actually been funnier:)
 
2012-07-23 10:00:26 AM

Iblis824: Hmm... between getting married


You poor, poor bastard.

/Divorced within the last 6 months
//Can you tell?
 
2012-07-23 10:01:32 AM
abcnews.go.com

"Who cares what that Muslim does? Dude, it's all about sinking tons of money into that Mormon dude. Adelson is going golfing with Mitt tomorrow while I bang Anne Romney after she does her MS therapy with that $77,000 tax write off horse. Deducations and viagra give this cowboy a raging hard-on!"
 
2012-07-23 10:02:37 AM

verbaltoxin: Oh is this another article where Reason pretends to be in the middle while only pointing out things Democrats do?


Well, today is a day with a Y in it, and the sun rose in the east this morning, so I'd give it about 3:2 odds that you're correct.
 
2012-07-23 10:04:16 AM

LucklessWonder: Iblis824: Hmm... between getting married

You poor, poor bastard.

/Divorced within the last 6 months
//Can you tell?


Just a little. The fark tag was a bit of a give away.

/even though you joined 9 years ago.
 
2012-07-23 10:05:20 AM
We get it - he's black.
 
2012-07-23 10:06:10 AM
img155.imageshack.us
 
2012-07-23 10:06:37 AM

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
 
2012-07-23 10:06:59 AM
 
2012-07-23 10:07:08 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: unexplained bacon: Philip Francis Queeg: 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.

Mitt Romney has a detailed plan to loot his campaign's pension fund, and to outsource the jobs while personally making millions in "consulting fees".

after which he will retroactively quit the campaign prior to anything that could be considered unethical

Romney has just issued an affidavits to the FEC stating that he is both Candidate in control of his campaign and that he has no role of any kind in the campaign.




That sounds about right.
 
2012-07-23 10:07:55 AM
img716.imageshack.us
 
2012-07-23 10:08:04 AM

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


THIS^^

a lot.
 
2012-07-23 10:08:45 AM

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.
 
2012-07-23 10:09:19 AM
It's ok; I'm sure we'll be hearing from Reason shortly about the $4.5 million the Gingrich campaign still owes. Or Rick Santorum, who ended his campaign with $2.2 million in debt. Or Michele Bachmann, who has just over $1 million in debt.

Bonus: while reading that article, I found this nice piece of info: "Opened in 2003, the center pulled in $59 million over nine years from more than 300 companies, some of which paid as much as $200,000 in dues. Among its activities, the center and Gingrich helped push a mandate requiring everyone to carry health insurance. "
 
2012-07-23 10:10:37 AM

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

 
2012-07-23 10:11:20 AM
cdn.tss.uproxx.com
 
2012-07-23 10:11:30 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.


It's that Liberal Media bias. Always going after the conservatives because the left owns the MSM Lamestream media.
 
2012-07-23 10:11:53 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.


What double standards? The media focused on Hilary debt when her campaign was over too.
 
2012-07-23 10:12:15 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.


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.
 
2012-07-23 10:14:28 AM
Should have done it like Bain Capital. Sold subscriptions to a fund/campaign then collected fees for running it, bankrupt the campaign and walk away with the cash.

//amirite?
 
2012-07-23 10:14:32 AM
This is an outrage! Government and political campaigns should have balanced budgets - JUST LIKE MY HOUSEHOLD!

Now excuse me, I have to go write a check for my car payment.
 
2012-07-23 10:14:58 AM
Obama has been building up a "war chest" for a while now, just because he earns X amount one month and spends more than that that month means nothing. He been earning more than that for months on end, if not years on end.

And frankly, with all the Romney tax related stuff, you strike while the iron is hot.
 
2012-07-23 10:15:02 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.


Obama is no longer a candidate?
 
2012-07-23 10:15:05 AM
Practice? 0bama is an expert!

$5,000,000,000,000
 
2012-07-23 10:15:40 AM
I paid cash for a new car in June. Should I be concerned that I spent 10x what I made in June?
 
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!
 
2012-07-23 12:18:31 PM

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.


The Obama campaign isn't in debt. They dipped into the war chest they've been building in previous months.
 
2012-07-23 12:48:10 PM

WombatControl: 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....


61% of people think that either: Congress, Wall Street, or George W Bush are "most to blame" about the economy compared to 34% who think Obama is.

This is bad news...for Obama.

You're starting to become a caricature of yourself.
 
2012-07-23 01:34:28 PM

The Homer Tax: WombatControl: 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....

61% of people think that either: Congress, Wall Street, or George W Bush are "most to blame" about the economy compared to 34% who think Obama is.

This is bad news...for Obama.

You're starting to become a caricature of yourself.




That same poll you pulled that from:

47. If Barack Obama were re-elected, do you think his policies would improve your own
financial situation, make it worse, or would his policies not have any effect on your own
financial situation?
Improve my situation Make it worse Have no effect DK/NA
4/13-17/12* 26 38 33 2
7/11-16/12* 26 39 30 5


54. If Mitt Romney were elected, do you think his policies would improve your own
financial situation, make it worse, or would his policies not have any effect on your own
financial situation?
Improve my situation Make it worse Have no effect DK/NA
4/13-17/12* 28 26 36 10
7/11-16/12* 32 25 34 9



So the electorate believes, by a 13% margin, that re-electing Obama will make their situation worse, while believing, by a 7% margin, that electing Romney will make their situation better.

This is bad news... for Romney.
 
2012-07-23 01:38:45 PM
so, if president Obama wins re-election is this proof positive that sometimes deficit spending is reasonable?
 
2012-07-23 01:54:41 PM

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.


That doesn't even fall under balanced budget. The Obama campaign has had donations for many months previous to June. I am willing to bet the have a surplus even now.

Anyone capable of reason knows Reason is misnamed. It's a Koch project, pure and simple.
 
2012-07-23 01:55:22 PM

RolandGunner: This is bad news... for Romney.


I didn't pull anything from anything. I was responding to someone else's poll. I was pointing out that he wasn't making the point that he thought he was making.
 
2012-07-23 02:45:48 PM

The Homer Tax: RolandGunner: This is bad news... for Romney.

I didn't pull anything from anything. I was responding to someone else's poll. I was pointing out that he wasn't making the point that he thought he was making.



Well, on that ground I think you are reading that wrong, at least insofar as it relates to the coming election. Of those listed in the question only Obama is up for re-election. And from this poll, on domestic policy, Romney currently has a rather commanding lead on Obama by a fairly wide margin.

In fact, of all the various policy concerns, Romney leads in Two of the top three concerns and ties the third. Obama leads in Foreign policy and Social Issues which rank fourth and seventh out of seven. So on the domestic policy front Romney leads with a score of 3-1-2 to Obama's 1-3-2. So, unless the country decides to start giving a crap about gay marriage, Obama is in trouble. And on the foreign policy front, he's looking less and less adept as Egypt spirals out of control and the government that he helped into office by pressuring Mubarak while doing nothing to assist the pro-western forces left in his wake is now discussing whether or not the Great Pyramids should be demolished as an affront to Allah.
 
2012-07-23 02:56:41 PM

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.


When candidates start running deficits in a campaign, they start selling off assets like donor lists. So making a law that you have to run a balanced campaign budget might be good policy.
 
2012-07-23 03:58:26 PM

RolandGunner: now discussing whether or not the Great Pyramids should be demolished as an affront to Allah.



Update: The reports only partially correct as far as I can tell. Islamists have/are destroying ancient sites in Timbuktu, but no actual calls to destroy the pyramids.
 
2012-07-23 09:02:49 PM
It's like Obama is planning on not running again, and will try to get to as close to zero in the end as possible.

It's also like he figured the Super PACs will start spending TONS of money on advertisements in the near future.

/Sometimes forethought is a good thing.
//Or long term planning.
 
Displayed 110 of 110 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report