Reply With Quote
Obama posts 10-1 financial edge over Romney, putting $104M into campaign war chest
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...#ixzz1seem9DzT
Obama Sees Steep Dropoff in Cash From Major Donors
From Wall Street to Hollywood, from doctors and lawyers, the traditional big sources of campaign cash are not delivering for the Obama campaign as they did four years ago. The falloff has left his fund-raising totals running behind where they were at the same point in 2008 — though well ahead of Mr. Romney’s — and has induced growing concern among aides and supporters as they confront the prospect that Republicans and their “super PAC” allies will hold a substantial advantage this fall.
Obama posts 10-1 financial edge over Romney, putting $104M into campaign war chest
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...#ixzz1seem9DzT
Yes, but how will that change once Romney becomes the official nominee?
What makes you think power donors are expecting a dark horse at this stage in the game? Romney has been the de facto GOP nominee since he won Illinois in mid-March..
say what you wish, but it's not official yet.
Think the big money wants him to spend anything they give him now on the primaries?
There is such a thing as a restricted donation which allows donors to stipulate how and when their contribution will be spent. It is very common -- particularly among generous donors.
Fine.
Just what happens if for some freak reason, Romney doesn't become the nominee?
It is not yet official yet.
If the restrictions stipulated (and they would if they were prepared by a semi-competent CPA, attorney, money manager, etc) that Romney had to give funds back if they weren't spent on their restricted purpose, that's yet what would yet happen.
They'll both have plenty of money.
I do find it interesting that elected Democrats seem to be abandoning him though.
Franks on Obamacare and both Houses on the Keystone Pipeline, for instance.
Last edited by Yonivore; 04-21-2012 at 11:05 AM.
So...
What sense does it make to bring in cash now rather than later when it may cause extra paperwo0rn if done now?
I agree and disagree with this.why would any body put $$$ behind romney, who's sure to lose
or
I don't see that outcome as the sure thing.
What makes you think Obama is a shoe in?
or
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...untry-902.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...oval-1044.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...pose-1947.html
shoo in?
(googles)
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?...wed_in_frame=01620s, "to drive away by calling 'shoo,' " from the exclamation (late 15c.), instinctive, cf. Ger. schu, It. scioia. Shoo-in "easy winner (especially in politics)" (1939) was originally a horse that wins a race by pre-arrangement (1928; the verb phrase shoo in in this sense is from 1908). Shoo-fly, admonition to a pest, was popularized by a Dan Bryant minstrel song c.1870, which launched it as a catch-phrase that, according to H.L. Mencken, "afflicted the American people for at least two years." Shoo-fly pie is attested from 1935.
“Shoo-fly pie” is popular among the Amish of Pennsylvania as well as in the US South, and is really more of a molasses crumb-cake than a pie. The name, which first appeared in print in 1935, is said to come from the understandable attraction the molasses holds for hungry flies. Less clear is why a rocking horse with a seat between two wooden cutouts of a horse would be known as a “shoo-fly rocker,” but it has, since at least 1887. Ten years earlier, “shoo-fly” had also appeared in print meaning “a police officer detailed to check up on other police officers,” a use most likely drawn either from the expression “no flies on him” meaning “alert and perceptive” or referring to the role of the officer is “shooing” away metaphorical “flies” of corruption.
“Shoo-fly” meaning “temporary bypass” first appeared in railroad jargon around 1905. The logic of this use is unclear, but I think it’s significant that around the same time “shoo-fly” was also being used to mean “a local or commuter train.”
“Shoo-fly pie” is popular among the Amish of Pennsylvania as well as in the US South, and is really more of a molasses crumb-cake than a pie. The name, which first appeared in print in 1935, is said to come from the understandable attraction the molasses holds for hungry flies. Less clear is why a rocking horse with a seat between two wooden cutouts of a horse would be known as a “shoo-fly rocker,” but it has, since at least 1887. Ten years earlier, “shoo-fly” had also appeared in print meaning “a police officer detailed to check up on other police officers,” a use most likely drawn either from the expression “no flies on him” meaning “alert and perceptive” or referring to the role of the officer is “shooing” away metaphorical “flies” of corruption.
“Shoo-fly” meaning “temporary bypass” first appeared in railroad jargon around 1905. The logic of this use is unclear, but I think it’s significant that around the same time “shoo-fly” was also being used to mean “a local or commuter train.”
word up
Even if you like Barack Obama, we can't afford Barack Obama."
That was Mitt Romney's line of attack this week in Charlotte, N.C., during a speech that his campaign ridiculously dubbed a "prebuttal" to the president's convention speech, which is scheduled to be given in that city this summer.
This appears to be an attempt to address Romney's connection conundrum. The president is personally popular; Romney isn't.
According to the ABC News pollster Gary Langer, "Mitt Romney has emerged from the Republican primary season with the weakest favorability rating on record for a presumptive presidential nominee in ABC News/Washington Post polls since 1984, trailing a resurgent Barack Obama in personal popularity by 21 percentage points."
Langer continued, "He's the first likely nominee to be underwater - seen more unfavorably than favorably - in ABC/Post polls in eight presidential primary seasons over the past 28 years."
If Romney is to have a shot in November, he must convince voters that their affinity for the president can diverge from their support of him, that they can be for the president as a person but vote against him, that they can't afford their own affection.
It is an interesting tactic that likely has limited application, but one group that, at this point, seems to me to be most receptive to that argument is unmarried men.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=...&sub=Columnist
Mitt Romney and his Rivals Are Running Short on Cash
http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...t-on-cash.html
I have no doubt that Citizens United will keep Willard Gecko afloat
Because a restricted donation can generate unrestricted interest (financially) which campaigns can spend, and because -- for better or worse -- campaign wealth is correlated with political momentum. In other words: it's good press.
Obama 'super PAC' out-raises American Crossroads in March
http://mobile.chicagotribune.com/p.p...%3D0%26DPL%3D3
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
