March 19, 2012

"Obama lags behind Republican front-runner Mitt Romney in finding donors willing to give $2,000 or more..."

"... a surprising development for a sitting president, and one that could signal more worrisome financial problems heading into the general election," writes WaPo.
At this point in the last election cycle, Obama had received such large donations from more than 23,000 supporters, more than double the 11,000 who have given him that much this time....

At the end of January, President Obama and the DNC had $74 million on hand for the period before the conventions, according to the latest Federal Election Commission reports. Bush and the Republican National Committee had $144 million at the same point in 2004.

Some bundlers have decided to stop supporting Obama entirely, including several in the finance sector, which has been hit with stringent new regulations pushed by Democrats.

“There’s a lot of disaffection and buyer’s remorse among the people I know,” said one 2008 Obama fundraiser, who is no longer working for the president and was interviewed on the condition of anonymity in order to speak freely. “At the end of the day, would they vote for him? Maybe, but they’re certainly going to be less active.”

49 comments:

The Drill SGT said...

Seriously Bad news for the O'bama.

Last time he wasn't a sure thing for the nomination. Now he has all the power of the executive branch to help/hurt potential donors and he can't get bundlers and he can't get folks fired up enough to send a 2k check.

How's all that talk of pitchforks and torches marching on Wall Street going? Those guys know how to take risks and know how to cut their losses as well. Fooled me once, etc.

Whereas Rommney, who's not even the nominee can do better?

Toast. Better dust off the non-validated Web based credit card donatuion sw again.

chickenlittle said...

What's the Maher with Kansas?

Quayle said...

This may be one of those deals where Obama looks competitive right up to the week of the election, and then he gets wiped out.

Given the social hegemony of the left, I'm wondering how many secret not-Obama voters there will be.

A lot, I bet.

The Drill SGT said...

WaPo tries to put a good spin on it, but these sorts of nuggets slip through

1. collecting 1/4 the number of 2k checks that Bush had at the same time in 2004
2. spending money at nearly double that rate it's coming in.
3. Comparing Obama PLUS DNC totals to just Romney, without factoring in the RNC
4. The DNC declaring that it wont give a dime to Congressional campaigns. The DNC is now just another name for the Obama slush fund.
5. and all this trouble is because the GOP is too weak so no money is needed :)

AJ Lynch said...

But Obama has Elle McPherson's vote!


wv = modistan [what America will become if Saintorum is elected]

AJ Lynch said...

Sgt & Quayle & CL:

When Prez Obama gets swamped in the election, a lot of MSM will be heartbroken, shocked and angry. The journolisters will be vying to write books entitled "What's The Matter With All 57 States?"

David said...

Well, he doesn't need as much money not that he's using taxpayer money to jet around the country having political events in nonpolitical clothing. This week he's going to visit an oil field on federal lands in New Mexico.

On the ladder of legal but corrupt activity by Washington politicians this is probably only middle rung, but it's pathetic nevertheless. Especially pathetic is that the press never addresses the issue, and the public seems to acquiesce.

David said...

"now that"

I ♥ Willard said...

Willard has many wealthy friends. Why is anyone surprised by this news?

Palladian said...

I ♥ Willard has no friends at all. Why is anyone surprised by this news?

Insufficiently Sensitive said...

Despite the best efforts of Obama's media lackeys, the public is learning that every one of the swoon-engendering promises he made in 2008 is long past its expiration date.

Fool me twice? HELL, no.

I ♥ Willard said...

I ♥ Willard has no friends at all. Why is anyone surprised by this news?

Oh dear! It looks like poor Palladian doesn't play well with others. :(

roesch/voltaire said...

This year most of my political contributions are going towards local and state candidates as that is where I think my money can make a difference. The Super Pac sweet daddies now own the national elections and it doesn't seem to make much difference who is elected-- as in the case of George W. Obama whose Annualized Growth in Real per Capita Government spending is actually less than the Republicans, and who has kept in place all of W's wars, while disabling many al Qaeeda through drone attacks, and extended secrecy in the name of national security-- So yes I will not contribute to Obama this time around.

I ♥ Willard said...

Fool me twice? HELL, no.

Finally! I've managed to find an Althouse reader who didn't vote for George W. Bush twice! :D

Robert Cook said...

"What's the Matter with America?"

Those who voted for Obama don't like being swindled, and Obama, who promised a "change" from what came before, and "hope" for better, has provided only "more of the same (and worse)," (i.e., more and continuing war, and more and continuing preferential treatment for Wall Street and the wealthy elites, and threats of "austerity" for the rest of us).

Jay said...

How is King Putt doing with the little donors?

Friend –
I see this happen a lot:

Someone in a crowd yells at my husband, “We love you, Barack.”

That’s when he interrupts himself, smiles really big, and says, “I love you back.” And he does.


That’s why Barack’s dinners with supporters mean so much to him — because they give him a chance to show it and to say thanks.

I can say from experience you won’t want to miss out on the next dinner. I hope you’ll consider donating $3 — or whatever you can to support the campaign — and be automatically entered today:

https://donate.barackobama.com/Dinners-with-Barack

Thank you,

Michelle


I can't believe it isn't working!

pm317 said...

No problem. He will just cheat (like he did last time). If those donors did more than just not give money to stop him, then he is in trouble.

Quaestor said...

“There’s a lot of disaffection and buyer’s remorse among the people I know,” said one 2008 Obama fundraiser, who is no longer working for the president and was interviewed on the condition of anonymity in order to speak freely.

Hmmm... Is this person afraid of the Obama secret police, or his he just reluctant to open a political rift between himself and friends, colleagues, etc? I suspect the latter. If the former fundraiser is an academic or in the entertainment business the revelation of his identity might even be career threatening. Mention blacklisting in any gathering and the example which immediately comes to mind is the Republican-dominated HUAC of the 1950s, yet a much more effective blacklist has been in effect for a much longer time across a wider cross section of society.

I also suspect a similar reluctance works to inflate Obama's positive poll numbers. Asking the question about Obama is similar to asking someone about their consumption of pornography. If such a poll implied 25% of men view online porn material daily one would be justified to assume the real number to be consider higher than the poll's technical upper boundary, particularly if the poll-takers were predominantly female.

BTW, in case somebody asks -- I never look at porn, and I trust and admire Barack Hussein Obama, and plan to vote for him come November 6th.

Bart Hall (Kansas, USA) said...

The important thing is that by this point he's gathered all easy money he's going to get. From here forward it will require greater and greater expense and effort for each $1000 harvested. You can already see that in January & February expense levels.

And just a few reminders: January 1980, Carter +31; August 1980, Carter +4; July 1988, Dukakis +17; March 2004, Kerry +12.

Obama's own side are voting with their checkbooks.

Robert said...

Add the Obama and Clinton numbers from 2008 and the difference is even more readily apparent.

One term. Good-bye.

Joe said...

But, I thought money was all persuasive. Give money to a politician and they do whatever you ask. Isn't that the money-in-politics meme?

Is is just possible that donors give money to those politicians already inclined to do what they want?

george said...

He is hitting six fund raisers a day now. This guy has only two talents... separating fools from their money and then wasting it. It will probably all end up going to a solar powered teleprompter that catches on fire.

Clyde said...

I guess this recession is hitting the fatcats hard, too. Or perhaps the scales have fallen from the eyes of some of them since the last election cycle.

"Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice..."

cubanbob said...

George: brilliant!

Years to come Obama will be seen as the jump the shark moment for the American left. Cue in Lincoln's fool the people adage.

edutcher said...

The WaPo is finally acknowledging what has been out there for some time - months, in fact.

The $1B war chest was a lot of "get in their faces" to bluff everybody.

What I'm now wondering is - is this the beginning of what Insta predicted, that, once the media figured GodZero would lose, they'd turn on him to save something of their reps?

(won't work, of course)

PS Very droll, chick.

PPS Actually, it wasn't Dubya, it was Willie who didn't get the second vote.

cubanbob said...

Clyde its easy being a socialist at 15%. The rubes are now starting to understand that Obama isn't kidding when he said they have to pay "their fair share".

traditionalguy said...

The trouble with Kansas is a strong private property bias. They actually want to keep their own inheritance.

Socialists offer to change the world and make life without work free, IF only the people will sign over their inheritance as voted on in a Congress by the bribed Politicians.

That means it is Tea party time.

Mitt has a win unless he gets too stingy, and then the indies could go back to the smiling and loving Barack.

Robert Cook said...

Trad Guy, given that we have no socialists running for President, your post is a non-sequitur.

Levi Starks said...

Looks like we're going to need about a 1,000 more solyndras , at 500 million pop that will be a half a trillion to give him a billion in kickbacks. It'd be a lot cheaper to just give him the money.

Levi Starks said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Fen said...

Cook still thinks Marx is "too much the capitalist"...

edutcher said: The WaPo is finally acknowledging what has been out there for some time - months, in fact. ... is this the beginning of what Insta predicted, that, once the media figured GodZero would lose, they'd turn on him to save something of their reps?

No. Having watched the MSM in action for some 30 years, this is the part where the corrupt umpire makes a non-essential bad call in favor of the team he's going to rob the win from later in the 9th.

Its positioning so they can pretend they aren't in the tank for Obama.

Just wait until he loses. Allofasudden, there will be a rash of homelessness.

Nathan Alexander said...

At some point, you've fundraised enough money, no?

I think I heard someone saying something extremely similar to that, once.

Like a true Socialist, however, President Obama seems more willing to apply "spreading the wealth" to others than to himself.

PatCA said...

It's almost like Obama's villification of capitalism is turning off business people.

Hoosier Daddy said...

It's also possible that the infatuation is over and people are realizing he has no idea what he's doing.

MadisonMan said...

Obviously, he needs to fly to the nearest big city at Rush Hour and extract money from donors that way.

I would say, though, that R-V makes a great point. With Super-PACS, can you really compare this election cycle to the last one?

(Well, sure, you can compare them, but does the comparison mean anything?)

Skyler said...

B. Hussein doesn't need donors. He has almost a trillion dollars of TARP funds he's doled out. You don't think he wasn't expecting that money back, do you?

bgates said...

The $1B war chest was a lot of "get in their faces" to bluff everybody.

I don't know. As Chief Executive, he oversees nearly $3,600,000,000,000 in spending per year. Suppose he redistributes a third of a tenth of a percent of that for his reelection. What's to stop him - investigative journalists? Government workers opposed to Democratic rule?

I ♥ Willard said...

Actually, it wasn't Dubya, it was Willie who didn't get the second vote.

So edutcher CAN be fooled twice. Shame on him!

edutcher said...

No, I did not vote for Lurch.

Nor the Serial Rapist In Chief.

Obviously, though, someone else was dumb enough to.

I ♥ Willard said...

But you voted for Dubya in 2000 and then again in 2004, so obviously you can be fooled twice.

Shame on you!

edutcher said...

Hardly.

Dubya was the better choice; against Earth Unbalanced and Lurch.

Obviously, I made the right choice.

Guess who made the dumb one?

Christy said...

Hey! Not so fast. Now that Oprah's dumped Rosie, she's freed up all kinds of money for Obama.

Will it be enough to offset the now toxic contributions by the drug cartels?

I ♥ Willard said...

Obviously, I made the right choice.

Oh, edutcher! You've already proven you can be fooled more than once. You can stop now.

If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. Try to remember that. :)

Chip S. said...

Roesch-Voltaire said...

as in the case of George W. Obama whose Annualized Growth in Real per Capita Government spending is actually less than the Republicans

Through the incoherent fog of this statement I presume you mean to compare growth rates of real federal spending under Bush II and Obama.

If so, I call bullshit.

Actual figures: Bush, 2.86%/yr, Obama 3.39%/yr.

It's getting to be a pattern with you.

Rick67 said...

It shows Romney's a man of the *rich fat cats* when he pulls $2000+ donations.

When Obama did it - well so what?

edutcher said...

I ♥ Willard said...

Obviously, I made the right choice.

Oh, edutcher! You've already proven you can be fooled more than once.


Clearly not. But ♥ has yet to mount a rebuttal.

Surrender accepted.

Joe Schmoe said...

Quaestor said:
Mention blacklisting in any gathering and the example which immediately comes to mind is the Republican-dominated HUAC of the 1950s, yet a much more effective blacklist has been in effect for a much longer time across a wider cross section of society.

Great observation. Spot on. Actually your whole post was great.

BTW, in case somebody asks -- I never look at porn, and I trust and admire Barack Hussein Obama, and plan to vote for him come November 6th.

And you'd just love to buy a one-passenger solar-powered car if you could just figure out a way to carry groceries in it...

John Stodder said...

Sounds like Obama is on double-secret probation from the bundlers.

cubanbob said...

I ♥ Willard said...
But you voted for Dubya in 2000 and then again in 2004, so obviously you can be fooled twice.

Shame on you!

3/19/12 12:57 PM

Willard stop beclowning yourself. You can do better. And remember in November "its the economy, stupid!"