Democratic Donors Set To Go Rogue On Obama

[ProSense]

Yes, it's HuffPo, and no, the story isn't what the headline implies.

Sam Stein

Democratic Donors Set To Go Rogue On Obama

WASHINGTON -- In the wake of an electoral drubbing and fearing another one in two years, some deep-pocketed Democratic donors have decided to essentially go rogue with respect to the Obama White House.

<...>

"Going into 2012, you can fully expect the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee to out-raise and be much more competitive with the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. So if the party committee advantage is erased and the candidate advantage is erased and the third party groups stay the same as they did in 2010, it has the potential to be a bloodbath."

There are no dollar figures that either Brock or Rosenthal's groups have discussed in terms of what they are hoping to raise and spend in 2012. The $200 million that ACT and Media Fund (another independent-Democratic arm in 2004) raised two presidential cycles back is a pipe dream. But $50 million has been thrown out as a baseline number.

That such money would be available to help Democratic causes is in and of itself a remarkable reflection about the evolution of the party. In 2008, attempts to build an independent arm was essentially axed when the Obama campaign nixed donor giving to outside functions. This go-around, even the president's team seems to be of the mindset that such a tight restriction on funds is impractical or perhaps disadvantageous.

"One of the things the White House is recognizing as they think about the reelect is it is going to cost a lot of money, which is not to say the last one didn't," said one Democracy Alliance attendee. "It will be an expensive campaign though and they will need some help with it."

[grumgrum]

1. Obama openly admitted on 60-mins he is not so much for change

I think he is in serious trouble in '12 by regular small donors and young voters because most of his base now realize he isnt so muc for change as he is for corporate interests. Yes Obama does make some tweaks around the edges but if anyone thought he was going for transformational change as he likes to campaign on is way off. He openly admitted this on 60-minutes.

Obama recently mentioned they are working to repair ties with the Chamber of Commerce which we all know is for corporate and super-rich interests and not at all for middle-class interests.

I personally think it will be a very close race in '12 and unless Obama becomes more populist he is likely to lose. I feel if democrats are going to have a chance they should hope the repubs do something dumb by making Palin their nominee or convincing Hilary (an even more corporate sell out than Obama) to run, or a real progressive like Grayson to run as a 3rd party.

I am just glad Pelosi is in charge right now and is working for middle-class to get tax-cuts for ONLY middle-class to pass in the house..ideally i dont want any tax-cuts to happen but if it is just this than i am fine with it. If it Pelosi wasnt there i am absoluitely certain Obama would be pushing for 2year extensions for the rich

[ProSense]

3. What exactly is your point?

I feel if democrats are going to have a chance they should hope the repubs do something dumb by making Palin their nominee or convincing Hilary (an even more corporate sell out than Obama) to run, or a real progressive like Grayson to run as a 3rd party.

Her name is Hillary.

[impik]

4. Hee. Good one. Not as funny As the idea to run Grayson but still...

[FrenchieCat]

6. The story is not what the headline implies......

But thanks for playing.

[roguevalley]

10. agreed. He has a viewpoint that he won't budge from no matter

how many drubbings he's getting. what a fool. What a complete tool thinking that doing the same damned things will bring a different result. I wish I lived in the dreamland he lives in. I wouldn't have an ulcer over this shit.

[molly77]

13. Impeachment is off the table

[musiclawyer]

2. If I was POTUS, I'd say go for it

Go all ovee the world. Foreign governments , foreeign labor union, foreign rich guys with green credentials. Go for it. Just make sure you disclose and that the spoils of victory will be a promise to kill citizens united once and for all. GOP wants to a free for all, then bring it on. All out in the open for us. It will place immense pressure on them. We can go worldwide too.

[impik]

5. OMG! The headline is amazing. It has nothing to do with the story. Amazing

[jberryhill]

7. The story must have "gone rogue"

[FBaggins]

8. Looks like it matches just fine.

The article clearly says that in 2008 the President urged our donors to give straight to the party and not to outside groups that supported Democrats. They're making "similar requests" this year, but the donors aren't listening.

"Those days are (over)," said the individual. "It is a really big sea shift. People said we need an outside structure and we are going to do it. It is no longer 'Will you give us permission to do it, sir.'"

Sounds like "going rogue" to me. It also doesn't sound like a bad thing (assuming these unlimited donations on the other side aren't going to go away).

[ProSense]

9. No even in that context it doesn't match

That such money would be available to help Democratic causes is in and of itself a remarkable reflection about the evolution of the party. In 2008, attempts to build an independent arm was essentially axed when the Obama campaign nixed donor giving to outside functions. This go-around, even the president's team seems to be of the mindset that such a tight restriction on funds is impractical or perhaps disadvantageous.

"One of the things the White House is recognizing as they think about the reelect is it is going to cost a lot of money, which is not to say the last one didn't," said one Democracy Alliance attendee. "It will be an expensive campaign though and they will need some help with it."

The quote you cite implies that the President still holds the 2008-2010 position, which is clearly contradicted by the above statements from the same article.

Maybe Stein is unware.

[FBaggins]

11. Sure it does.

It's a "he said she said" between two un-sourced quotes. They don't even directly contradict each other, but the one I gave clearly supports the title of the article. So not everyone agrees? Big deal. But the author is clearly in the better position to weigh the statements and come up with a title.

Moreover... "rogue" doesn't have to have a negative connotation. It could just mean that these groups are going it on their own rather than under the direction of the DNC or WH.

The quote you cite implies that the President still holds the 2008-2010 position, which is clearly contradicted by the above statements from the same article.

No it isn't. The WH could easily "recognize" that more money will be needed this time around... that doesn't imply that they agree with the money going to outside groups rather than party-controlled funds.

[ProSense]

12. "that doesn't imply that they agree "

From the OP: "This go-around, even the president's team seems to be of the mindset"

Already made clear

With the White House now signaling it wants outside groups on the left to ramp up for 2012, Media Matters founder David Brock is in discussions to form a new group designed to raise and spend big bucks to counter the right's powerful new infrastructure, a person who's spoken directly with Brock about his plans tells me.

<...>

Would you say the WH agrees?

[FBaggins]

14. Also from the OP

"In 2010, similar requests are being made -- but they're not always heeded"

That's pretty clear (and pretty clearly supports the title). They're contradictory statements. You can't just cherry-pick one comment and decide that's the one you're going to accept and ignore the other one.

The author knows who he spoke to and can weigh the value of their opinions better than we can. I'd say that the title and relative placement of the quotes within the article makes it pretty clear.

Would you say the WH agrees?

I'd say there's some disagreement there. I'd also say that it doesn't matter. It's clear that we're going to need more money, and it's clear that outside groups are going to control lots of it. If the WH supports the idea, then it will happen with their blessing... if the WH opposes the idea it will still happen and the WH will have less influence on the priorities of those groups.

[ProSense]

15. OK,

"In 2010, similar requests are being made -- but they're not always heeded"

The information that that is no longer the case was provide.

"if the WH opposes the idea it will still happen "

They don't