Obama is going to have one huge advantage next year--money

[WI_DEM]

Whether we like it or not (and many of us favor public financing of campaigns) President Obama will have nearly a billion dollars to spend on his re-election and unlike 2008 when he had a tough opponent with Hillary Clinton he will be able to begin using that money early on to organize key states. By the time the GOP picks their nominee (hoping for a long and hard struggle up to the convention) the president will have organizations in place, GOTV apparatuses up and running and already bought millions of dollars worth of TV/radio/media ads to define the GOP candidate--whoever or whatever it is.

This is not an insignificant advantage and in a tight election it can make a big difference.

[Cali_Democrat]

1. The fact that it might take a BILLION dollars to win the presidency is

frightening and disturbing.

Can we still call this a Democracy?

[leveymg]

2. . . . and that so little of it is from small donors this time bothers me more. Who owns the WH?

I'm afraid most of us don't like the answer to that.

[stevenleser]

4. OpenSecrets says your information is incorrect.

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2011/07/several-presidential-campaigns-rev.html

During the first months of his re-election campaign, Obama raised about 47 percent of his total funds from small-dollar donors, according to a Center for Responsive Politics review of new paperwork filed Friday with the Federal Election Commission.

In all, Obama reported raising $46.3 million between April and June. Of that, $21.65 million came from individual donors who gave him $200 or less -- the Federal Election Commission's threshold for itemized reporting.

[RaleighNCDUer]

10. You do realize that 21.65 million dollars, at $200/ea is only 108,250 donors.

That's 2,165 donors/state. In my state, that would be 21 donors/county.

Still impressed?

But let's assume these are REALLY small donors - $20/ea. That would be, in my state, 210 donors/county. As many people as it takes to fill a moderately sized movie theater. Once. At approximately the same cost.

Still impressed?

[stevenleser]

18. Of course I am impressed. $200 is an attainable figure for most people

particularly if they spread it out over a year or so, which you can do with donations.

Attempting to claim that this means not many people donated doesnt take away from the fact that a large percentage of his donors are small donors.

[ellisonz]

28. The economy sucks. I can't afford to give this election.

[leveymg]

11. No. Compare that to 01/2008 when 90% was from small donors.

See, http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/02/obama-breaks-records-with-smal.html

Democrat Barack Obama's campaign raised a record $36 million in January, overwhelmingly from small online donors, according to the New York Times. "The details of Mr. Obama’s January fund-raising illustrate just how much his campaign has been able to chart a new path for the presidential race. He brought in $28 million online, with 90 percent of those transactions coming from people who donated $100 or less, and 40 percent from donors who gave $25 or less, suggesting that these contributors could be tapped for more," the Times reported.

[stevenleser]

19. You are comparing the wrong period of time. We are not in january

He is also not a new candidate.

[leveymg]

21. By 01/08, Obama was hardly a new candidate. It's the change in the donor base mix that's the issue

Your seasonal argument also doesn't explain that change or even address it.

[TheWraith]

8. So little? Currently he's OUTPACING 2008 for small donations.

In other words, MORE of his money is coming from small donors now than before.

[RaleighNCDUer]

12. Ref post #4 & post #11.

Post 4 - 48 million over 3 months, from donors under $200.

(Edit - my bad - that's $21.65 million over 3 months from donors under $200)

Post 11 - 36 million in 1 month, from donors under $100.

(Edit - again - and 28 million in 1 month from donors under $100)

Who is lagging behind what?

[TheWraith]

15. Those two posts conflate donations and total donated.

And also online donations with total donations. 11 says that 90% of his total online transactions were small donations.

However, percentage of transactions is not the same as percentage of money raised. For instance, if you have 30 people each donate $100, and one person donate $3000, ~97% of your transactions will be small donors. But only 50% of your total raised will be from small donors.

[RaleighNCDUer]

30. It's not even math - it's arithmetic.

21 million over three months is 7 million per month. Currently.

Jan. 08, 28 million in 1 month for the SAME donor base.

He is getting 1/4 the small donors curently that he had in 08. THAT is reality.

[stevenleser]

3. The amount isn't disturbing since if we all contribute $3 each it makes $1 billion...

what ought to concern people is whether certain groups are putting up a large percentage of that and getting unfair access as a result.

[Whisp]

17. yes it is disturbing, but these are the cards dealt

with the game rules in place.

Would you prefer Obama not collect any money, while the GOP does?

[sad sally]

29. No, it's not democracy; it's all about money.

Howard Schultz, Starbucks CEO, said it very well. (he said he makes no political contributions)

Schultz: In my view, why unemployment has stayed over nine percent is linked directly to Washington, DC. When I examined the cost of what the election cycle was in 2008, which was more than $4 billion, and it's estimated to be in 2012, which is $5.5 billion is gonna be spent on congressional re-election and the presidential election. Just think about that - $5.5 billion when we have 9 percent unemployment in America. And people don't know where their next meal is coming from. The system is completely broken.

[rurallib]

5. Ummmm ----- the Republican super pacs will match that and more

and they will be buying airtime by the buckets.
No - I don't think money will be to the dems advantage
It will take phone calls and doors knocked - all by volunteers while the Repubs buy workers

[elleng]

6. Yes but . . . .

them others, whomever they run, will take advantage of Citizens United and could, in fact, eat our cake, at least money-wise.

[gateley]

7. Until we get public financing in place (glass half full) money is good! nt

[Dr Fate]

9. That makes one of us. n/t

n/t

[Sheepshank]

13. I've come to the conclusion that it's too difficult to limit campaign contributions

...money pours in from all sorts of pac, and anon corporations.

If there is any campaign financing regulation, it will need to be in the arena of SPENDING.

Back to the OP, lots of monty being thrown at Perry (who currently appears unlikely to win). Lots and lots of money being thrown at Mittens, who will squander much of that on fixing/re-branding his own previous faux pas. So long as the GOP field is as broad as it is wide, money is going to be thrown at them and money will be used up. I'm good with that.

[Dr Fate]

14. Simple idea, best argument I have heard to get around the "free speech" BS. nt

nt

[ClarkUSA]

16. No one on Pres. Obama's campaign ever said they could raise $1B. That's a MSM analyst's soundbite.

I doubt if Pres. Obama can raise that much, given OFA's rate of fundraising. And the Republican establishment's secret Citizen-United PACs will be raising tons of money from billionaires like the Koch Bros. and the CEO of Home Depot as well as that hedge fund guy Fisher once they force Perry out of the race so they can coalesce around The Plutocratic Android. We can't anything for granted, especially considering the number of "disappointed" Democrats swearing they won't lift a finger or donate a dime to help our Democratic President.

[AndyTiedye]

20. A Billion is Not Nearly Enough. We Will Be Outspent At Least 4 to 1, Probably far More

Obama has set a fundraising goal of a billion dollars. Twice what he raised in 2008.
Like we all have twice as much to give now as we did then.
It will be an all-but-impossible goal to meet, yet it won't be nearly enough. We will be massively outspent.

"Citizens United" gives the Repiglickins access to unlimited corporate cash.
The Koch brothers alone can easily match Obama's billion-dollar goal out of their own pockets, and there are dozens more like them.

We could have an advantage in grass-roots organizing, at least in some areas, but they will have a lot more money.

[leveymg]

22. In '08 , we had a big advantage in grassroots organizing. The WH and Senate leaders threw that away

To quote Rahm, "Fucking morons." After Citizen's United, the GOP fundraising advantage was inevitable because billionaires tend to be Republicans. Yet, the Dem centrists continued to triangulate in hopes of picking up a few of big money contributors, but without regard for what it would do for the morale of the progressive base of the party.

Fucking morons. Or else, they've done their part of the job, and they'll let the GOP preside over the slash and burn part of the program of restructuring America to fit better into the global economy. I don't like either explanation for what has been an otherwise inexplicable abandonment of Democratic Party principles. It makes me sick to contemplate it.

[ClarkUSA]

24. Are you a member of OFA? I am. I can assure you that Rahm never dissed OFA's grassroots organizers.

Neither has the WH. Quite the opposite. As for "morale", according to the latest CNN poll, 78% of liberals and 76% of Democrats want President Obama renominated. That should tell you something.

[stevenleser]

25. Accuracy isn't really that person's strong suit. If it can be altered to look bad for Obama, that

person is not above doing that.

[ClarkUSA]

26. Ah. Thanks.

:hi:

[leveymg]

32. Give me an example of "alteration" of facts, Steve.

By the way, I wish I were wrong, and would be happy to be convinced of that, if there were some good evidence and argument to convince me of that. You're not offering it, and the ad hominem attack is neither convincing nor appreciated.

[leveymg]

31. It tells me we don't have any viable choices, not that we like what we ended up with and will again

work hard to reelect him. Again, there is a confusion of terms and a failure to adequately illustrate the point by you guys.

If you're going to argue from statistics -- like those popularity figures (as dubious as they are) -- apply them in a way so that they make sense. This does not mean that the morale of the progressive base is high. If you don't know how bad it is, or can't effectively address that, you shouldn't be posting on a progressive political board and associating yourself with OFA.

[AlinPA]

23. With the SC ruling on Citizens United? The republicans will get 10s of billions from businesses and

won't have to raise a nickel. Money won't do it this time. GOTV is the only way.

[jenmito]

27. No he won't...

not with the Citizens United ruling. The Koch Brothers along with Karl Rove's "Crossroads" Super Pac and others, money will be no problem for the Repub. nominee, sadly.

[Marsala]

33. Both sides will have so much money that it won't matter n/t

[Johnny2X2X]

34. Calm down

I know Obama has disappointed some of us, but people here seem to be buying into the RW talking point that Obama faces an uphill battle. He's still the front runner people. Any type of modest economic recovery and he'll win in a landslide.