A "mogul," which originally referred to "the successive heads of the Muslim dynasty founded by Zahīr-ud-Dīn Muḥammad Bābur (1483–1530), which ruled an empire covering a large part of South Asia from the 16th to the 19th centuries," now denotes "An important, influential, or dominant person; an autocrat," according to the OED, which gives the early example "I am the Sultan of this place: Mr. Limberham is the Mogol of the next Mansion" — a line spoken by a character named Brainsick, in the play "Limberham (or The Kind Keeper)," by John Dryden.
The photo of Adelson in the L.A. Times makes him seem capable of moving skyscrapers like big chess pieces. What a manipulative fellow! He gave $10 million in June to a Romney super PAC called Restore Our Future. ("Restore" means to bring back. Back to the future.) Restore Our Future raised $20.6 million in June. Meanwhile, Obama's super PAC, Priorities USA Action took in only $6 million.
Romney's campaign raised much more money than did Obama — $106 million to $70 million (in June). So Obama is lagging in the fundraising and also spending much more.
Heading into July, Romney and his party allies were left with nearly $170 million on hand, while Obama and the Democrats had $147 million.That's not that huge of a difference, but Obama is such a big spender. And what did he get for all that spending? I think the idea was to frame Romney as an evil capitalist, and it hasn't worked out that well. 1. Despite the heavy attack on Romney, Obama hasn't moved up in the polls, and 2. The attack on capitalism went too far and touched off an effective counterattack. Not only has Obama depleted his funds, he's depleted his argument against Romney.
The Obama campaign’s attempt to portray Mitt Romney as the villainous Bane from “The Dark Knight Rises” appears to be a big flop. And the problem for Obama is, he really doesn’t have a Plan B.ADDED: The Obama campaign spent more than $2.6 on polling alone, just in June. What are they finding out? Why isn't that information giving them more useful ideas about how to win? Reminds me of the stimulus program, dumping huge amounts of money on things that done even pan out.
Posts
58 comments:
I heard el-rushbo complaining that Mitt has to hit back hard against Teh w0n and stop hoarding his money.
That could be right.
My take is that Mitt is putting organization in place for an end game and looking for things he can really exploit.
That's how he's always run business and is the essence of the P/E game.
We'll know, I guess, soon.
-XC
Oh, well. Back to the Race Card.
Dunno. I would feel much more confidence in all the confident predictions of conservatives if Mr. Obama wasn't continuing to lead in most of the polls. I feel like that newslady back with George W Bush: I don't know anyone who'd vote for him; how come he's doing so well?
My impression is that the real campaign battle hasn't yet begun, and won't for a couple of weeks yet. Romney and his big-money allies could be just holding their powder dry, waiting until August or so to really mix it up. Obama and his allies, aware of that possibility, may have arguments in waiting, though what they might be escapes my imagination.
Xpatish, I should have read your comment before writing mine! We seem to see things similarly.
MikeR, that quote usually goes to Pauline Kael RE: Nixon, though there seems to be some dispute about which liberal journalist might have said it. It seems to be one of those "too good to check" items for some conservative analysts.
Obama and his campaign are bright enough to realize that if people fell for Obama's bullshit the first time, they probably do it again rather than admit they made a mistake.
Team Obama has nothing to use except recycled class warfare nonsense. That will resonate with his base, but he doesn't need to wake them up. He's losing the swing voters who bought the "Hope and Change" message in 2008. If they realize that Obama hasn't delivered, and most important, that his economic policies can't work, then he can go back to being a Con Law lecturer. Assuming that any law school would hire him.
The Bane analogy is just stupid for reasons that are obvious when you see the film.
Romney and his big-money allies could be just holding their powder dry, waiting until August or so to really mix it up.
That's what I'm thinking too. The attack on Obama won't be his ties to radicals. It will be his ties to investment bankers and opportunist capitalists.
Like Rahm Emmanual, from whose wikipedia page comes a description of how the left takes care of its pols.
After serving as an advisor to Bill Clinton, in 1998 Emanuel resigned from his position in the Clinton administration and joined the investment banking firm of Wasserstein Perella, where he worked until 2002.
Although he did not have an MBA degree or prior banking experience, he became a managing director at the firm’s Chicago office in 1999 and, according to Congressional disclosures, made $16.2 million in his two-and-a-half-years as a banker.
AllenS, I don't think you're right. The 1980 election looks like a good comparison to 2012. We think of Reagan now as a charismatic leader, but back in 1980, many people were saying he was a lunatic. That was a common perception even in center-right Arizona, where I grew up. But the election results were a big surprise. The electorate didn't buy Carter's spin; they just fired him in a big way.
Romney doesn't have Reagan's strong positive base, but he doesn't have his negatives, either. Obama's negatives look as bad as Carter's right now.
but Obama is such a big spender.
Right. Because it has never been his money.
Yeah, well where I'm from, Reagan wasn't considered a lunatic. 1980? Let me do the math, that was 32 years ago. I shall mention a date, 1827. What happened in 1827? Nothing that has to do with today.
Obama and his campaign are bright enough to realize that if people fell for Obama's bullshit the first time, they probably do it again rather than admit they made a mistake.
No way.
Each party has a lock on 35%-40% of the people. Even in a wipeout the losing party will get a sizable number of votes.
What you can't count on is that your iffy voters will stay with you in bad times.
They don't have to admit to anybody they were wrong.
Has Althouse said she was wrong? No.
Will Althouse vote for Obama again? No way.
I'll go further and say that Obama lost this election several years ago, when he passed Obamacare. When did Obama lose Althouse? Sometime in 2009, right?
He ran as a moderate, and he governed as a hard left quasi-socialist.
This campaign was over before it began. Ask Bill Clinton, he knows. Ask all the Democrats who are avoiding Obama like he's radioactive.
The Obama campaign’s attempt to portray Mitt Romney as the villainous Bane from “The Dark Knight Rises” appears to be a big flop.
And he can't make that analogy anymore.
Obama is saving for the last weekend of the campaign devastating attacks on Romney's record of library fines in middle school.
devastating attacks on Romney's record of library fines in middle school
And they've got some fellow high school students lined up to come forward and tell how they heard Romney drop the F-bomb a couple of times when he was a junior.
And the media is hiding the size of the disaster, which the media always does. They do that by undersampling Republicans and oversampling non-voters. Their polls are flawed and their results are flawed.
The simplest explanation is the real explanation:
Obama cannot run on his stewardship, therefore he has to make the other guy look like a worse guy.
"Hey, I might not be good, but this other guy? Seriously? Do you know how bad HE is?"
Hmmmm, that worked for Ford and Carter, right?
Romney dose not have to release anymore tax returns or "explain" Bain. He just needs to continue being Carol Merrill and keep revealing what's behind the economy curtain and effectively ask every day "are you better off now than you were 4 years ago"? Obama's base is dispirited, Romney doesn't need anything more than to switch 2% of the independent vote and turn out more of the conservatives and center right that stayed home in 2008 and he will win. Remember also that there was no Tea Party in 2008, and the fervor of 2010, well . . .
Obama knows this. Stupid people do not.
Has Althouse said she was wrong? No.
She will never do that but she will cling to her rationalization that McCain was worse. But being a smart woman she has to recognize that the real election of 2008 was really the Democratic primary. In a perverse way she will have to admit she was wrong about picking Obama over Clinton in the 08 primary to admit she was wrong. And given her hatred of the Clintons she will never do that.
The Obama campaign’s attempt to portray Mitt Romney as the villainous Bane from “The Dark Knight Rises” appears to be a big flop.
Um, Bane is the OWS type who hates Capitalism.
But of course that won't stop them.
How many workers, against their will, belong to the biggest and most obscene slave mogul in America today, Donald Trumka?
That's the same mogul Trumka who has had what? 50 sit-downs, 100 sit-downs in the White House with Obama? Talk about thugs in glass houses tossing stones!
This article deserves its own post because mainstream media won't be talking about it.
On the shooting, the left is really going to be butt hurt.
1. The Dem Gov of Colorado said: "Stricter gun laws would not have stopped killer"
2. The AR-15 jammed. So the hysteria over "assault weapons" can now move aside for them to reveal they really do want to ban guns.
1• Ann may or may not change her Obama vote this year. I read everyday for the last 7 years and I'm not so sure which way she's decided yet.
2• The Obama team reads this blog, so here's some fast advice:
a• Stop the dishonesty. Now.
b• Stop running on "it could be worse".
c• If you want a chance, make a mea culpa, say that you learned a lot of lessons and this is where we're going to change that and do some conservative measures to fix the economy. You will actually win consideration from some Republicans and conservatives.
d• As an act of good measure, replace Eric Holder and throw Fast and Furious on him. Don't prosecute him, just say that it's time to restore faith in the Justice Department for all Americans, including the majority (how I hate saying this) of white Americans who in polls want him gone, not to mention a ton of Democrats want him gone as well. You will not win with him being an example of crony government.
Start there and you can at least slow thoughtful, likely voters of the independent center right to maybe take a second look.
But - and bookmark and pass it around the White house like you have other times with this blog - if you don't do the list above, you can attache a copy of this to your next resume with the note "lessons I should have learned".
Mr. Obama wasn't continuing to lead in most of the polls. I
What Saint Croix said. They fudge their data by using a high proportion of Dems, as happened in 2008 but won't this year.
wv - simtex - Call Homeland Security, this blog is gonna blow!
Obama has lost his aura of invincibility, and of being cool, and that is starting to hurt him. He, and his team, are making gaffes, Romney and his team are responding forcefully and successfully almost immediately, and the President's people are left floundering around. Its been better than a week now since Obama made his "you didn't build that" gaffe, and they still don't have a good response. Saying that he didn't say that, when he so demonstrably did, was just a waste of breath, and in the context of this post, money. Not only could the right ridicule the original statements, they could ridicule their responses to being attacked for it.
The enemy of cool is ridicule, and Obama's political opponents have been able to successfully mock him on multiple occasions over the last month or two. There were all those clever pictures about eating dogs, etc., and now all the stuff about what people didn't build according to Obama. The more rattled he and his campaign get, the more of this will happen in the next couple of months.
This is starting to have a serious effect on swing voters. More than one of them I know, who were gung ho for Obama last time around, are now saying that no, they didn't vote for him last time, but stayed home instead. Right. They are now embarrassed about their vote four years ago, and are not about to admit it to those who are now telling them "I told you so" back then. And, of course, the most susceptible to voting for coolness are the youngest tier of voters, and many of them have moved back home with their parents because they can't get good paying jobs, thanks to Obama's economic policies. Not all that cool any more.
Wasting money on half filled stadiums and ads saying that the Romney campaign took Obama's statements a little out of context, are just wasting money. Romney's campaign, on the other hand, seems to be husbanding their cash and spending it wisely. Sure, some of Obama's strongest supporters can be enticed to kick in more to make up for this, but not those in the middle. People like going with the winner, and once that aura of invincibility and inevitability has worn off, they are cooling on giving.
And, then there is the "smart" money. This money is from the people who want to have contributed to the winning side when it comes to getting access to the winners, whoever they are, after the election. Wall Street is one of the biggest players here. Right now, a lot of these people seem to be contributing to both sides, in contrast to last election when Obama was getting much more of their money. But, the tide seems to be shifting - Who wants to be shut out of the majority side in both Houses of Congress AND the White House because they gave just to Democrats? (Though a switch of the Senate seems a little less likely than a couple of months ago).
Which is why, I think, that the Obama people are starting to panic, as evidenced by their overspending. My guess is that if they don't turn the race around by Labor Day, they may be in for a historic rout, and they know it. The further they fall behind, both financially and in the minds of the voters, the worse it will likely to be. They know that Romney is sitting on a pile of cash, and is bringing it in faster than they are. They also know that he is spending it much more effectively right now than they are.
I voted for McCain because of Trigg's mom. But Obama didn't win the election, McCain lost it and blamed Mom.
After the convention, McCain was closing in on Obama, then McCain ran around like a headless chicken when the whatever-hit-the fan. Remember that? McCain SUSPENDED his campaign to get back to Washington. Palin was horrified. McCain's campaign accused her of going rogue.
Yup, McCain pulled a Perot.
McCain would not be worse, even Carter could not be worse. But the economy would not do any better. McCain is at least as incompetent and as full of it as the Joker occupying the White House. There would not be Obamacare, but Republicans would have lost big time in 2010 and blames would be on "unfettered" capitalism.
Brent, all good ideas, although unlikely to be adopted because it's becoming increasingly apparent that Obama and friends actually believe< their socialist cant.
The "You didn't build that" speech appears to have made even Romney awaken to the idea that maybe he's not a nice guy after all, and fully intends to dismantle the free market in the USA.
Remember that? McCain SUSPENDED his campaign to get back to Washington.
LOL, and which 5 people in America actually thought John McCain could "fix" the economic catastrophe unfolding in America at the time?
Look at the photos:
Obama Paid $93k for Half-Empty Stadium Kick-Off Event
Choom spent 4 times as much as the Romster and he's only dead even. He also spent 5 mil more than he took in.
Xpatish said...
My take is that Mitt is putting organization in place for an end game and looking for things he can really exploit.
Precisely. The Choom Gang has shot its wad and still can't get ahead, and the Romster can pick his targets at will.
MikeR said...
Dunno. I would feel much more confidence in all the confident predictions of conservatives if Mr. Obama wasn't continuing to lead in most of the polls.
Just about all those polls are skewed toward the Demos 5 to 9 points. Factor that in and you see why he's blowing so much money.
leslyn said...
Romney will (unwittingly) provide plenty of fodder for attack ads between now and the election. Don't worry about it.
leslyn better worry because the real slips are being made by the Choom Gang.
Graveyard, walking past, whistling.
Do the math.
Nothin' kills a bad product quicker than good advertising ... Indeed as mittens isn't runnin' against train wrecks Newt/Santo/Cain/Perry anymore, eh.
Good to see Althouse is still trying very hard to keep her con lemmings extremely happy w/pro mitens, anti-Obama threads!
As per usual.
See you people in Nov. :-P
Actually, the Romster is running against the train wreck right now.
" Reminds me of the stimulus program, dumping huge amounts of money on things that done even pan out. "
Think you meant don't or do not.
The strange thing about the stimulus is "Where did all the money go?" I think it got sucked back up into the system, back to the ownership class or over to China, very quickly, with no bouncing around, and done. No useful multiplier on the money.
That's a danger of all this international trade. Can't stimulate your own economy. When you do, you may end up stimulating someone else's economy.
Pogo,
I believe you are correct. I used to defend the President's honor on this very blog, but I am so disgusted about his willingness to be dishonest and so lacking in integrity and basic decency that I can't do it anymore. Although I ill never support Obama, it was never personal - I simply don't agree with his basic political philosophy. But I am seeing things that are beyond the pale and it is downtright sickening to think this man is in the White House.
The list I gave earlier above is a prescription for Obama to have a possible fighting chance, though I do believe it's too late for him. That doesn't mean he and his amoral team aren't holding cards they have yet to play, even if the cards are 90% lies wrapped around a 10% truth (see the Serpent in the Garden of Eden, book of Genesis).
But here is Obama's personal Ace in the Hole no matter what happens: If he loses, he can run again.
Odds are totally in favor that he will run again. And that will ease a lot of pain for Barack and Michelle when the results are in November 6th.
See you people in Nov. :-P
Promise?
I'll meet you here on Wednesday November 7, Shiloh, whatever the outcome. Will you?
What's the schoolyard taunt you probably used as a young kid "Put up or shut up"?
So - you in? Here, Wednesday am on Ann's first post of the day about the election, no matter what.
And the problem for Obama is, he really doesn’t have a Plan B.
Sure he does. I've seen it in the ads here in Northern Virginia. And that is to attack Romney for pledging to cut off funding for Planned Parenthood -- if you elect Romney, he'll destroy choice! and millions of women will die in back alleys every week!
Or maybe that is Plan A -- it's always Plan A -- and the rich-guy stuff is all Plan A-2?
Speaking for the battleground state of FL, we are getting buried in Obama spots here. He's saturating the airwaves like this was October. Methinks the polling in his camp is very bleak and he decided to shoot his ad budget now.
There is even more bullshit in the industry of political campaign management than there is in politics itself. Look at Joe Trippi, famous political consultant and talking head. What is he famous for? Supposedly the groundbreaking use of online fundraising for a presidential candidate (Howard Dean, 2004). How'd that work out? Oh, the patient died, but the operation was a success in that it generated a reputation for Trippi to live off of as a genius in campaign management.
Likewise in this year's campaign, I think the story will be the unprecedented polling, analytics, and web integration by the Obama campaign, which will get them rave reviews inside the campaign management industry, but will nonetheless lead to failure.
Dante said:
The strange thing about the stimulus is "Where did all the money go?" I think it got sucked back up into the system, back to the ownership class or over to China, very quickly, with no bouncing around, and done. No useful multiplier on the money.
That's a danger of all this international trade. Can't stimulate your own economy. When you do, you may end up stimulating someone else's economy.
EXCELLENT!
Romney should use this like this:
1) Point out repeatedly until America hears it in their sleep: The Stimulis is NOT TARP
2) Use all of Dante's points and press them everyday and ask American's if they think we can afford more of the same failure
DELICIOUS!
Romney will (unwittingly) provide plenty of fodder for attack ads between now and the election. Don't worry about it.
I think what will happen is "play-it-by-the-rules" Romney will become increasingly careful about what he says.
He will be more scripted in his responses, because he knows it's not the substance and meaning of what one says, but whether or not the press and ones rivals can exploit out of context sound bites.
To put the spending in perspective, it should be noted that unemployment is up in 27 states, including 6 of 10 swing states, including MI, PA, and VA; the only one where it rose was OH (thank you, Governor Kasich).
That should explain some of the flailing.
As Dante suggests, Mr Romney is far more disciplined than is Mr Obama. Rattle Obama and get him off his teleprompter and we get his many gaffes. He simply cannot speak extemporaneously without fucking it up. In the meantime the economy remains the 900 pound gorilla in the room. Moreover, food prices will be going up and gas prices are already inching up again. Americans know when they are hit in the pocket book more than the effects of the evil Koch brothers and Bain Capital.
I think what will happen is "play-it-by-the-rules" Romney will become increasingly careful about what he says.
He will be more scripted in his responses, because he knows it's not the substance and meaning of what one says, but whether or not the press and ones rivals can exploit out of context sound bites.
Which is why his almost immediate response to Obama's "you didn't build it" gaffe was so surprising. He was speaking w/o teleprompter, probably at least somewhat extemporaneously, and yet, hit it out of the park.
Romney seems to be at his best when the least scripted, yet is, by nature, very cautious and methodical. It should be interesting though the campaign to see which wins out.
"I think the idea was to frame Romney as an evil capitalist, and it hasn't worked out that well."
In that NPR dialogue between Left and Lefter (Brooks and Dionne) that Althouse blogged about a few days ago, after they finished with the gun-control hand wringing and Mayor Bloomberg fellating, they moved on to discussing "You didn't build that", and all agreed that it was inconsequential (indeed, Dionne could not even bring himself to seeing what could possibly be controversial). And then they all agreed that Romney had a terrible week, just awful, things were going soooo poorly for him, poor guy. Sounded like America's Politico talking to himself, it did.
Which is why his almost immediate response to Obama's "you didn't build it" gaffe was so surprising. He was speaking w/o teleprompter, probably at least somewhat extemporaneously, and yet, hit it out of the park.
I think he was reading from notes. At least, that's the way it seemed to me. And I'll bet he worked on that pretty hard.
Incidentally, I watched those moments, because it seemed to contradict what I was thinking at the time. Look carefully. I think those were practiced carefully for words. The emotions were real, which is unusual for a guy like Romney. It's the first time I ever felt any affinity for the guy.
Choom needs to do something, anything, to turn the tide rising against him. I heard on the Fox News affiliate last night that Choom would visit Aurora today. This will accomplish two things:
Choom will use the CO tragedy to distract from his trainwreck administration and give the appearance of caring.
Jim Holmes has raised the bar on reaction to mass murder; he got the Preznident to jump. Top that, you next Jim Holmes.
wv:thiskil
Dionne and Brooks live in their own cocoon--their "dialoge" will reassure the faithful NPR listeners but will not resonate with the rest of the country. Keep them in their own cocoon. That is a strength for the Romney campaign (viz Leslyn's comment above) They couldnt find their asses with both hands in the dark outside the BosWash corridor.
Carol Merrill
¿
Oh Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha.
Sheldon Adelson was, of course, a Gingrich donor who spent several million dollars thrashing Romney. And did so from the left, I might add.
Q: and how did that work out for him and where is his money going now. Current history is the important thing now.
Good to see Althouse is still trying very hard to keep her con lemmings extremely happy w/pro mitens, anti-Obama threads!
.. sneered shiloh, before flouncing off back to Daily Kos to discuss serious topics with the serious, non-lemming-like, free-thinking, apolitical Kossacks.
I mean it it - check out his user profile.
Zero going to Aurora must be his campaign's hope and prayer that Choom can "pull a Clinton" like Willie did with the OKC bombing. You know, be our national therapist who feels our pain, bites his lip, maybe sheds a tear, even.
Doubt the cold commie bastard's got that in him, but you know that's the wish & dream.
where is his money going now. Current history is the important thing now
Not to Romney, according to Open Secrets.
http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/donor_detail.php?cycle=2012&id=U0000000310&type=I&super=N
I see twenty million dollars to Gingrich, and nothing to Romney.
Not that I'm objecting - Adelson seems like the sort of person I'd prefer the GOP not associate with.
Q: the problem with tainted money is there 'taint enough of it :)
The Obama campaign spent more than $2.6 on polling alone, just in June. What are they finding out? Why isn't that information giving them more useful ideas about how to win?
Their polls are telling them the same thing that the published polls are telling everyone - that the Economy is seen as a problem by two thirds of the electorate, and that nothing else breaks the twenty percent mark.
There are no useful ideas to be had in the polls.
And so you see a series of tactical efforts driven by 15% poll returns, targeting particular coalition groups - Sandra Fluke, that sort of thing. It's nothing but nibbling around the edges while the campaign hopes desperately for something to change the dynamic.
Hard to see that happen while employment and earnings are depressed.
I think what will happen is "play-it-by-the-rules" Romney will become increasingly careful about what he says.
Perhaps. But there's a difference between "careful" and "timid." Take e.g. the NAACP speech: the content of that may have been carefully planned out, but it wasn't timid-- it had balls. It eschewed pandering, it frankly said things that audience would be expected to reject, the MSM predictably led with that rejection (e.g. headlined the booing, as opposed to the applause and praise at the end). Romney wasn't taken aback or off balance by the booing, but doubled down with vigor and conviction. The NAACP speech was not prepared or delivered in a cringing posture-- afraid of booing or potential MSM spin. It was written and delivered with frankness and confidence, and IMO it was a winner.
And the PA speech, as you point out, was delivered with genuine emotion. And that too wasn't written with a timid worried eye on what the MSM might say.
I agree with Bruce that "Romney seems to be at his best when the least scripted, yet is, by nature, very cautious and methodical." But remember Romney's background, experience, the type of thing he thrived and excelled in, e.g. at Bain. That rewards a careful and methodical actor-- but also one who takes risks. It sounds paradoxical, but risk-taking can be at once methodical and bold. It's in the name itself: not "vulture" capitalism, not "vampire" capitalism, but venture capitalism. As a venture capitalist, I think Romney more than most knows that to win you have to take risks and act boldly (but intelligently)-- knowing and accepting in advance that there will be losses, that results will be mixed. You roll with the punches and go on.
The Obama campaign spent more than $2.6 on polling alone, just in June. What are they finding out? Why isn't that information giving them more useful ideas about how to win?
I guess Obama really meant what he said about "stories"-- his campaign must be working hard testing different stories, trying to find the right stories. After all, according to Obama he's got the policies right-- the problem is the stories.
I think that the most important measure here should be how many votes have been "saved".
I'm sure that we'll find that many have been "created" on election day.
Post a Comment