But what will Matt Stoller and Cenk Uygur <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-outpaces-gop-rivals-and-his-own-2008-results-in-small-donations/2011/11/04/gIQANhTJWN_story.html?hpid=z1"say?
Even with low approval ratings and an uncertain path to reelection, President Obama is exceeding expectations in one area: His campaign is doing far better at attracting grass-roots financial support this year than his GOP rivals or his own historic effort in 2008, according to new contribution data.
The sheer scale of small donations, totaling $56 million for Obama and his party, has surprised many Democratic strategists and fundraisers, who feared that a sour economy would make it difficult for Obama to raise money from disenchanted and cash-strapped voters.
President Obama’s reelection campaign and DNC together raised $70 million in the third quarter of 2011. Outside of fundraising, the president is ramping up support for his reelection with his visits and talk about focusing on the economy.
A Washington Post analysis shows that nearly half of his campaign contributions, and a quarter of the money he has raised for the Democratic Party, has come from donors giving less than $200. That’s much higher than it was four years ago, and far beyond what the best-funded Republicans have managed.
I thought he had ignored the people who put him in office and lost their support. I thought he was going to suffer an enthusiasm gap. I swear, progressive pundits can be every bit as insulated and clueless as Wall Street traders.
The trouble isn’t the money, the trouble will be gettting enough energized volunteers to hit the pavement for registration drives and gotv.
Plus all the commercials paid for Koch bros. etc. will far exceed what Obama or the Republicans officially spend, and most of that will be going into Congressional races. If Dems don’t retain control of the Senate and/or win back the house (which is no sure bet) than an Obama victory will ring hollow.
And don;t forget, with all the new restrictive voter laws many of Obama’s supporters and Dem supporters will not be allowed to vote. There were two aspects to the Obam victory in 2008: money on equal footing or better than GOP and massive volunteer registration and gotv efforts. Citizen;s United eliminated one advantage and GOP state legislatures and lack of enthusiam for the Dems are hurting the other.
Yet I get called Debbie Downer!!
Gawd bless firebaggers and their OBAMAIZDOOOOOOMED narrative.
Come on. Now you’re saying that if Obama manages to win re-election, something that everyone says will be a very difficult task, it will “ring hollow”? To whom? Certainly not to me, when Ginsberg retires from the bench, or in 2014 when the ACA kicks in for real on we have a man in office who’ll not allow its repeal.
Sometimes, Steven D, I just don’t understand my liberal brothers and sisters.
You’re missing the truly fun part. Firebaggers will simply blame Obama for every congressional seat loss, merrily ignoring their multiple years of 24×7 railing against Democrats, exhorting people to not vote, etc.
Good times, good times.
With you 100%. I just don’t understand how people can miss the connection between their own unwillingness to support the president and the political environment in which Democrats won’t count on liberals.
You think they don’t see you out there, pissing and moaning and giving them zero credit for tough votes like the ACA? So they voted for it, based on pressure from the left, and then the left immediately calls it a shit sandwich and ignores the moment?
Then just a year later, the bill is unpopular so Teabaggers get swept into office and no one on the left sees their own part in all of that?
Look, it’s simple. If you want liberals in office, vote for the most liberal candidates you can find. Convince more of your friends and neighbors to support you, and stop focusing your ire on Democrats and start turning the public against the GOP.
My point is that his ground operation is dwarfing what he put together four years ago and his fundraising is much more lopsided towards ordinary citizens than it was four years ago, despite a much worse economy.
All evidence of an enthusiasm gap has been based on polls. But the place that matters is precisely how many people are motivated to donate money and time.
I don’t necessarily think you’re wrong in the big picture about Obama’s chances. But how much of this is an apples to oranges comparison? At this point in late 2007 (the analogous point in that campaign) Clinton, not Obama, was the presumptive nominee, and Obama showed promise but, pre-Iowa, was just a promising challenger in a crowded field. His field operation and grass roots donations really blossomed later in the campaign. This year, he’s already assured of being the nominee and has his infrastructure much more firmly in place 12 months out.
At what point in 2007-8 is this being compared to?
That was my thought exactly. I would fully expect Obama to be outpacing his campaign funding compared to this time in 2007 for the reasons you stated. As I recall he did experience a surprise surge of money from the grassroots in the fall of 2007, and it did allow his team to alter their strategy, but even then it was a trickle relative to what would pour in in 2008.
So, while this is good news for the campaign it doesn’t settle the question of the level of support he’ll receive next year.
GreenCaboose, I agree that there are a number of reasons why a straight comparison between 2007 and 2011 of donors and dollars raise is of limited value.
And, of course, it’s unknown what will happen in 2012.
As for Obama’s 2007 money, as this Al Giordano article from September 2007 illustrates, Obama had—in the first half of 2007—already rewritten the record books for presidential campaign fundraising.
http://thephoenix.com/boston/news/48290-damn-you-barack-obama/
In fact, it was Obama’s success at small donor fundraising that allowed Giordano to state flatly, “Obama has the upper hand”, despite Clinton’s then front-runner status; and to assert that “if Obama were to win even just one of the first four states…such a victory would slingshot him into a commanding position”.
P.S. Fundraising figures for the first six months of 2007 by the top tier of Democratic presidential candidates:
Clinton – $53 million
Edwards – $23 million
Obama – $58 million
the trouble will be gettting enough energized volunteers to hit the pavement for registration drives and gotv.
Is there any evidence of this shortage? I’ve seen stories from the field that indicate the opposite; that they’re getting a good response.
I guess we’ll see.
You should have dispensed with the “insular and clueless” niceties and just called them “fucking retards.”
You wonderfully represent the new reasonable centrist, the serious people, the “both sides do it” gang.
Yes, they are just like Wall Street traders. It must be time for them to dump McDonald’s applications on this pond. Here you go, dream jobber!
Way to dial into the zeitgeist! Your grasp of the historical sweep of the age of the end of growth is staggeringly, profoundly stupid.
Dude, way to troll your own blog.
Geez, the hurt feelings and kneejerk pessimism on this thread are ridiculous.
Really, it makes you that uneasy and filled with the desire to be a pointless contrarian that supporters of the President…support the President and cheer when he’s doing well? Historically well, in fact?
Newsflash: the little old grannies who can’t wait to send the President their checks for thirty five dollars in the mail? Still a lot of them. Still motivated. Still enthusiastic. The people for whom the First Black President means more than can ever be said? Still on board.
Mysteriously, the President who raised more money as a non-incumbent candidate than anyone in history has once again tapped his grassroots-fat cat fusion finance machine to great success. Except now that he’s the incumbent, he’s doing even better. Shocking. Can’t figure it out.
Mark it down, there’s no surer bet on the planet than Obama winning the 2012 nationwide popular vote.
Well, Geez, look at the competition. What’s the choice? An arrogant and disappointing but capable sitting President versus some yahoo that no one in their right mind would consider for Township Trustee let alone have their finger on the nuclear trigger?
Gawd bless white liberals and their “uppity” dogwhistles.
Yet more confirmation that firebagger = teabagger.
I fugured he wanted to use “uppity” but chose the more PC “arrogant” instead.
Oh yeah. The Dago must be a racist. FUCK YOU.
If you want to feel “disappointed”, that’s your prerogative. But where did we get “arrogant”?
The constant stream of insults coming from the White House. The White House saying Liberals better get on board because they have no where else to go, so “shut up and fall in line”, which I believe is a direct quote from the Chief of Staff. The White House has not offered any olive branch to the Democratic Left, although they practically fawn on Republicans. I call that arrogant.
See the above comments of Sheriffruitfly and LtMidnight for more examples of gratuitous insults.
Please point to me where Obama said the phrases:
“Liberals better get on board because they have no where else to go”
“shut up and fall in line”
…and I don’t mean subject to interpretation. I mean those exact phrases coming from Obama himself.
The liberals are on board.
Don’t attempt to speak for liberals as a group.
I work on the internet all day, and was practically raised on it, so I’m no slouch at googling. Even, the direct quote to “shut up and fall in line”, appears related to 2 different context not a direct quote from Rahm Emmanuel, but specifically parsed phrases from activists and bloggers about what the COS in question must mean.
That you’ve taken such offense, and it is a “constant stream” by a man who is no longer in the White House and equate that with Obama being arrogant, is a strange cognitive leap.
I think it’s even more interesting that the two people who are usually quoted as the most”offensive” are no longer in the White House (Emmanuel & Gibbs). Not that they should be gone and forgotten, but that the “constant insults” you mentioned are usually things said by these 2.
Look at all the emotionally laden words you’re using and what they’re supposed to trigger in the audience reading them, “fawned”, “better get on board”. It’s pretty obvious that you’re disgusted.
Now think about the fact that one of the things you’re angry about isn’t even a direct quote? (If someone can find one that is not parsing and alluding to this is what he meant, I’m more than happy to eat crow. I’m not married to being right).
We all misremember stories and anecdotes like Kitty Genovese, cherubim are cute baby angels, or that guy who did that thing who turned out to be completely the wrong thing I’m remembering. How do you apologize for perceived slights, reinforcement of those slights through limited intake of media, and faulty memories?
There are a lot of people in this country feeling wronged (not that you are one), based on exactly the kind of statement you made above that usually comes from self-referential, insular community, opinion writing.
Rahm was wrong for the “f-ing” retarded” comments. It was offensive (but, I probably have a different opinion as to why). It also gave people the ability to conflate a statement about an action, to a statement about people (fucking-retarded vs. fucking retards). However, that doesn’t make those people right. If they want to damage their credibility with the chunk of America who Google the quote and determine it’s in the boy-wolf mold, that’s their right.
I don’t blame people, because I understand how media functions, how in business headlines are more important than the story, and how conflict drives profits. I understand how it even drives me. What I don’t understand is not taking responsibility for this attitude. You’re not forced to believe the things you do based on other people’s actions.
You’re agreeing and coming to a conclusion of arrogance because it fits a frame that you already believe in. It works the same way for me, but that doesn’t mean I’m a sheeple or fooled. It means that I have a different frame.
It’s reminiscent of the “wipe Israel off the map” non-quote attributed to Mahmoud Ahmedinejad by people who want a war with Iran.
Too good to check.
plenty of them still motivated, enthused, the people for whom the nth bloody-minded idiot president meant more than ever could be said, while he raised a shit load of money from his base, which is the same base as what’s-his-name’s base.
Yes, small donors are desperately clinging to a narrative of democracy, but there is no surer bet on the planet than Wall Street, with a large assist by Obama, is going to stomp their little windpipes flat.
No one argues what Obama means symbolically, and symbolically alone. That people continue to be duped by that patently false symbolism, the winningest marketing campaign in 2008 and beyond is what staggers the imagination. “Obama” is psy-ops, marketing, public relations, perception management, cognitive infiltration, propagating the faith, propaganda infowar conducted by Wall Street as they complete their global looting spree.
Like Bush supporters, other lamps also refuse to be lit.
The silver lining for internet places like this is that everyone should feel entirely free of internet censorship concerns, as they not only pose no threat to existing political structures, they serve them obediently, even as they go through the pantomime of free-thinking.
It’s a fractal world, and redstate.com is the seed equation.
You seriously sound like you are off your meds.
You win the 2011 Joe Lieberman Boggy Cecum Award.
Well thanks, its a great honor, what ever it is. (Slowly backs away…)
Still think the Occupy Wall Street movement will/has sucked the energy from Obama’s agenda?
Quite right.
It’s not a zero-sum game, where any leftist activism elsewhere saps that much from Obama’s campaign.
I’d be worried if OWS started denouncing Obama, actively opposing them. I’d be worried if they nominate Pigasus II for President.
But carrying out anti-Wall Street activism doesn’t erode support for Obama. It opens doors for him.
.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."Everybody is well-aware that firebaggers will be cheering for republican PAC money to try to achieve an Obama loss.
Here’s the big question that the Occupy Wall Street movement poses. What is President Obama’s campaign committee going to do with the donations from all of those under-$200 donors? And what will that mean in terms of the access that those donors have to Presidential decision-making on particular issues?
Those are structural questions, not personal ones.
What will happen is a substantial portion of that money will go to buy advertising placements in media owned by Republican donors. A portion of that money will be recycled into contributions to various Republican campaigns and a little into Democratic campaigns to buy privileged access for those corporations.
The local general assemblies are different in character from place to place. Most are now diverse an not likely to be co-opted for electoral politics – at least not right now. And guarding mightily against that–primarily as a result of feeling that momentum was lost in Wisconsin by going all out in the Supreme Court and Senator recall campaigns only to have Waukesha County play games with the vote. There seems to be a lot of sentiment in the movement that electoral politics right now is a rigged game not worth playing until the process is reformed. Or sentiment that in 2012 they will be going through the motions just to prevent more calamity. But different locations might come to different conclusions he closer we get toward next November. Some groups might spring toward Ron Paul, others toward Obama–those are the two most mentioned. My expectation is that those will be a very small bunch of local Occupy Wall Street groups.
The question most worry about is whether we will have a serious national conversation about our future in the midst of the carpet bombing of negative advertising.
The Democrats can’t just abandon the media.
But I see where you’re going.
The Democrats are never going to be able to compete on money under the Citizens United rules. They’re going to have to move more bodies.
It will be interesting to see what the community organizer’s political staff comes up with for a presidential reelection campaign.
That’s the problem that more Democrats need to try to figure out how to get around. It won’t be the politicians, because they’re trapped in the money chase. It won’t be the consultants and strategists because they’ve gotten fat and happy off the current environment. It has to be grassroots Democrats whose sole focus is changing the communication environment in which we conduct politics so that the American people who are adult can have a serious conversation about the future of the country’s direction without the pundit-babble and spinning and messaging. And include local, state, national, and global politics in that conversation.
Until that happens, national politics are stuck in stall. No matter who is President.
The politicians are bought because that is how they win. That was going on before. Citizens United just upped the ante.
Lesser evil, after all.
The more those conservative crackpots strut their stuff in their primaries, the less evil Obama looks and the more terrified the grass roots become he will lose to one of them.
Pundits may stay home or vote Green.
People out of work and desperate for help won’t do that.