Obama In 'Impossible Bind' Over Donors..Could it cost him the election?

[red dog 1]

Source:
NPR's FRESH AIR, with Terry Gross
August 23, 2012

Obama is on record as opposing Super PACS for normalizing gigantic donations,
but his campaign has hesitantly decided to accept donations from these outside groups.

In this week's New Yorker article, "Schmooze Or Lose", Jane Mayer details how this new electoral climate has negatively affected the Obama campaign's appeal to Democratic donors -- and the election at large.
"Obama has had to make a terrible choice between his principles and politics, and the practicalities of the political landscape right now -- and it's an impossible bind he's in," Mayer tells FRESH AIR's Terry Gross.

Mayer writes that Romney has overwhelmingly outpaced Obama in the kind of "mega" donations that have flourished since the Citizens United ruling.
"By the end of July, the two biggest Super PACS allied with Romney,
Restore Our Future and American Crossroads, had raised about $122 million;
[while] The most prominent Super PACs allied with Obama, Priorities USA Action and American Bridge 21st Century, had raised only about $30 million," she writes.

The Obama campaign has not been able to maneuver the new campaign landscape as successfully as Romney's, Mayer said.


Read more:

http://www.npr.org/2012/08/23/159768245/jane-mayer-obama-in-impossible-bind

[The Magistrate]

1. A Good Man Often Has To Rise Above Principle, Sir....

"I am a man of principles, and chief among them is flexibility."

[Floyd_Gondolli]

5. Well said, as usual n/t

[louis-t]

2. What choice does he have, really?

[red dog 1]

6. One choice he has is to sometimes be a little more like Bill Clinton.

If you read Jane Mayer's New Yorker article, "Schmooze Or Lose", she describes a fund-raising dinner for Obama at the Four Seasons restaurant where forty contributors paid $30,000 each to dine with the President.

From the New Yorker article:
" At the Four Seasons, the President could [only] spend about seven minutes per table, each of which accommodated eight donors. This was fund-raising as speed-dating."

$1.2 million collected from 40 donors who all thought they were to "have dinner with the President", right?

Bill Clinton would have eaten with them, and he probably would have spent more than seven minutes at each table too.

Don't get me wrong...I'm 100% for Barack Obama;...just the THOUGHT of a President Romney literally makes me nauseous
but if he wants to win against Romney, he NEEDS those big donors, and he needs to make them happy so they will return for more $30,000 a plate dinners.

And don't forget, despite what the polls are saying now, this election can and will be stolen using whatever means the Republicans have, including "messing with the touch screen voting machines", ..not to mention the fact that thirty states are going ahead with so-called Voter-I.D. laws, which could cost Obama millions of votes in key states.

President Obama cannot count on winning re-election if he is outspent ten or twelve to one by the likes of Sheldon Adelson, who has promised "limitless donations to defeat Obama"; and Karl Rove's Super PACS, which he estimates will produce more than $700 million for Romney & Ryan.

[MjolnirTime]

13. The last thing we need is for Obama to be like Bill Clinton. Obama is better.

[Whisp]

20. rec this post.

thankfully Obama isn't anything like Clinton.

[kimbutgar]

3. Here in California Meg Whitman had a ton of money and Jerry Brown ended up winning.

I think back to what Harvey Weinstein said , you can pour a lot of money into a movie advertising it but if it's abad movie people won't go to it. Rmoney is a lousy product who will have a lot of money but he is a lousy candidate and his product is not something that a majority of American people want to buy. Forget the 38% Fox right wingers they care lost. President Obama and the Dem's can win it if they spin a populist tone and appeal to voters. The evidence is there.

[red dog 1]

9. " The evidence is there"?...Where?

"President Obama and the Dems can win it if they spin a populist tone and appeal to voters"?

Jerry Brown was, indeed, outspent by Meg Whitman; but Jerry Brown was well-liked by the voters of California..He successfully did "spin a populist tone"...Meg Whitman did not, and she lost, despite all the millions she spent.

The Brown-Whitman gubernatorial race is not comparable to this fall's presidential race, for several reasons.

California had, and still has, a large Democratic voter majority, a Democratic controlled state legislature, and a Democratic Secretary of State, so vote tampering would have been almost impossible, and there were no "voter I.D. laws in California.

Not so in places like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Wisconsin, and other states, where vote tampering is a distinct possibility, as well as 26 other states where millions of registered voters might not be allowed to vote because of lack of proper photo I.D.

Make no mistake, despite what the polls say now, Karl Rove and the Republican Super PACs will be spending hundreds of millions of dollars attacking President Obama and lying about his record, and blaming him for the mess were in now.

It's not about just the "38 per cent Fox right-wingers"; it's the millions of Independent voters in the key swing states that will decide this election.

Forget about "you can pour a lot of money into a movie advertising it;but if it's a bad movie, people won't go see it."
This might well be true about movies; but not politics, especially when evil bastards like Karl Rove and his secret Super PACs might raise $1 billion or more to defeat Obama

Remember, Barack Obama outspent John McCain in the 2008.election.....You cannot ignore this fact.

[MjolnirTime]

14. Money doesn't buy everything. Can you ignore this fact?

[CitizenPatriot]

18. you cite Brown's likeability as reason

and then fail to note that Obama's likeability is off the charts in polling in comparison to Romney.

Yes, money can and will impact the election, but it is not the only game in town. Furthermore, there are many studies about the negative influence of too much negative advertising (for the candidate doing it). There is a saturation point at which they begin to hurt, and Romney has no control over the SuperPACs. Candidates who go all neg end up painted as negative person, angry person.

Americans do not like negative Presidents.

[red dog 1]

21. "you cite Brown's likability as reason and then fail to note that Obama's likability is

off the charts in comparison to Romney."

You fail to note that I also said that the Brown vs Whitman gubernatorial race
is not comparable to the Obama vs Romney presidential race for reasons totally unrelated to the fact that Jerry Brown was more likable than Whitman.

Namely, that in California,
a) Democrats significantly outnumber Republicans (44% to 31%)
b) Democrats control both houses of the legislature
c) California had, and still has, a Democrat as Secretary of State

I never "cited Brown's likability as reason" ALONE that he won, (despite Meg Whitman spending six times what Jerry Brown spent).

I pointed out that in the California gubernatorial race, voter ID laws were not a factor, nor was the issue of vote tampering, which can happen in states where there is a Republican Secretary of State..


Speaking of Obama's likability, according to the latest Gallup poll,(Aug 24)
"Obama Still wins on Likability; Romney on the economy."

"At this point, it appears that the two candidates' contrasting strengths have essentially canceled themselves out, given that Obama and Romney are exactly tied in Gallup Daily tracking."
http://www.timesnews.net/article/9050857/poll-says-obama-still-wins-on-likaability-

As far as what you said about the "negative influence of too much negative advertising," I agree with you 100%.

[elleng]

4. However,

http://www.democraticunderground.com/125175195

[Tarheel_Dem]

7. I heard that report, and literally had to heave. Selfish rich people pitching a hissyfit because...

they're asses haven't been properly kissed. Go figure. The Lincoln Bedroom, and joy rides on AF1 are off limits in this administration, and the rich & petty will just have to get over themselves.

"Schmooze" my ass.

[progressivebydesign]

8. DU has been..... interesting... this week.

Methinks that some folks are getting scared.

[red dog 1]

10. I can't think of anything more scary than the thought of a President Willard Romney

and, (God help us) Vice President Paul Ryan.

[billky]

11. They just want him to roll over like a dog and give up...

That's a bunch of crap. He couldn't possibly let them get all the money and just sit back and do nothing. Fight fire with fire.

[MjolnirTime]

12. You'd like that wouldn't you? Sorry, Obama will be fine.

[red dog 1]

19. "You'd like that wouldn't you?" is a personal attack on me; and I strongly resent it.

You are implying that I want President Obama to lose; which is absolutely untrue.

I suggest you read DU's Community Standards, which preclude any posts that are "disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate."

[NYC Liberal]

15. Doesn't seem like all that money is getting them very far.

If everything revolves around the money, Romney should be way ahead in the polls. He's not.

[Arkana]

16. We knew this would happen going in.

There is a law of diminishing returns when it comes to money and Mitt Romney is going to find that out quickly.

[red dog 1]

17. I hope you're right.