You must be registered to comment and vote on comments.
If he doesn't glad-hand the donors, Romney's edge might come into play.
From the article: "First, why is the Obama team doing so horribly at fundraising? And, second, will Romney's cash advantage actually matter?" $123.7 million is horrible? Politicians can't work together to get the economy back on track because they're out glad-handing fat cat donors? Can there be any clearer evidence that the United States needs public campaign financing?!?!?!
"why is the Obama team doing so horribly at fundraising?" The writer actually needs to ask why? It is not that he is doing horribly at raising money, he is a horrible president and people wised up. Throwing your money at an unqualified candidate in 2008 who had nothing but a slogan to get people excited is not going to happen this time. People are hurting because of obama. Why would you reward him?
Gosh, Owebama's donors arent happy? You mean the Prez mired in a war debacle solely of his own making.
Gitmo still open. Billions lost on bailouts and failed green energy. The boundless debt--approaching 6 T in one term. And of course, still a net loss in jobs....... How could there be unhappiness ;o)
I hope we're finally entering a period where negative ads have a backfiring affect on those that air them. America isn't going to become great through negative advertisements. Go back and watch the Reagan advertisement known as "It's morning again in America" and be reminded on how political campaigns used to be positive. If you watch that ad you'll also be shockingly reminded of the similarities between then and now.
The sad fact is that corporations control american politics. The Koch brothers alone are dumping 400 million on negative ads against Obama.
"Romney is winning the money race. Big-time. And he's pressing that advantage.
This raises two questions. First, why is the Obama team doing so horribly at fundraising? And, second, will Romney's cash advantage actually matter?" " Obama represents working America. He gets his contributions from the working majority whose spending power has been reduced by 28% over the last decade. Obama has 22 million contributors donating $1 - $25 at a time. Romney represents the obscenely wealthy who have benefited by the Bush Tax Cuts. He has such a small percentage of donors that they probably don't count for more than 1% of Americans. They are the ones with everything to lose should Romney not win. They can afford to donate $1B
goferfanz "Gosh, Owebama's donors arent happy? You mean the Prez mired in a war debacle solely of his own making. Gitmo still open. Billions lost on bailouts and failed green energy. The boundless debt--approaching 6 T in one term. And of course, still a net loss in jobs....... How could there be unhappiness ;o)" Gosh folks! Ole Rip Van Winkle aka gofefanz slept thru the entire Bush presidency and woke up believing that Obama started these wars.
"It is not that he is doing horribly at raising money, he is a horrible president and people wised up." ...................... Nailed. Obama 2008 was peceived as a visionary leader. Obama 2012 is a petulant twerp. And no amount of money is going to change that fact.
Obama has two excellent skills, campaigning and fundraising. He has been AWOL from the job he was elected to perform for so long. He has set records for most fundraising time and events, far surpassing any other president in history. Give him credit for those skills, honed by his profession as a community organizer. Perhaps we are fortunate that he is not on the job of leading the country because when he has tried, he has led us into the most predictable economic crisis in history and he has no budget, no plan and no ideas and is totally irresponsible in the fiscal arena. He will go down as the worst president in modern history, topping Jimmy Carter.
Something to remember about big donor campaign donations. They often don't go to the person who the donor thinks is the best candidate. They go to the person the donor thinks will win. Big time campaign donations are considered a down payment on future influence. A group may like a candidate, but if they don't believe he/she will win, they with either hold their money or even give it to the opponent because it's a better investment. That's why Obama gathered up so much Wall Street money in 2008, but can't get the same traction now. The big time donor doesn't flow to the long shot. It goes to the person most likely to win.
Your comment is being reviewed for inclusion on the site.
Comments will be reviewed before being published.
The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.
Poll: How are your seasonal allergies this year?
425 Portland Av. S.
Minneapolis, MN 55488
© 2013 StarTribune. All rights reserved.
StarTribune.com is powered by Limelight Networks