Obama Victory Disease.
As his campaign approaches the midway point.
By Moe Lane Posted in 2008 | Barack Obama | fundraising | matching funds — Comments (14) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I was not aware that The Hill was publishing political erotica these days:
Obama could raise $100 million in June, fundraisers say
By Alexander BoltonLeading Democratic fundraisers predict that Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) will raise hundreds of millions of dollars over the next few months if he opts out of public financing and begins raising money for the general election.
Specifically, they say Obama could raise $100 million in June and could attract 2.5 million to 3 million new donors to his campaign.
These fundraisers say Obama could increase his fundraising dramatically because of three factors: a boost of enthusiasm among Obama donors following his clinching of the nomination; the migration of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s (D-N.Y.) donors to his camp; and the mobilization of big Democratic donors who have given little so far this year.
You heard it here first! Well... here, and Hot Air. 100 million! People with names said it, and everything! Must be true!
(deadpan)
Ooh, baby.
Ooh, baby.
Ooh, baby: ooh.
(/deadpan)
Read on.
There are three sets of people who are reading this post. The first is, of course, comprised of the people who actually think that Senator Barack Obama really does ejaculate roses, and so is perfectly capable of squeezing 100 million dollars out of the economy in the next month. Whatever, neighbor. Guess that means you better send in that check right now, huh? In fact, why don't you go ahead and double the amount? That'll show me.
The second group is comprised of people who are just worried that this is actually going to happen. To which I can only say: keep watching the skies. To get to 100 million in a month several things need to happen: constant (as in, more or less daily) fund-raising events, a veritable blizzard of email blasts and solicitations, a concerted effort by Senator Hillary Clinton to get her supporters to shell out for Senator Obama... and, most importantly, a massive bout of publicity to drive this. None of this is actually happening right now, in case you haven't noticed*.
Lastly, there's the third group (and I fervently hope that I'm not the only one in it), which is made up of the folks wondering what's really going on. Answers pretty simple: public financing. McCain's taking it, Obama's got an inconvenient pledge hanging over his head to follow suit, and right now it's actually costing him:
For Obama (D-Ill.), it meant passing up the chance to sock away funds for the general election and continue to collect only half the amount he is legally allowed as he dashes to fundraisers in New York, Philadelphia, St. Louis, Los Angeles and Jacksonville, Fla., in the next two weeks. Aides to Obama said that for now he will continue to forgo the chance to raise $2,300 per donor for the general election on top of the money he is raising for his primary-season account.
Obama's campaign has delayed a decision on whether to accept public financing for the general election, but top donors and aides have urged him to become the first candidate in three decades to turn down public funds. The $85 million federal grant to the candidates is intended to remove questions about the influence of private donations on the presidential contest, and candidates who accept are barred from raising other funds for the fall campaign.
A good month, coupled with the perception that he's going to have a spectacular month, will give the Senator enough wriggle room with his base to let him break his word. And, to be grudgingly fair about it, if I understand campaign finance law correctly (which I probably don't) Howard Dean's DNC is currently acting as one Hell of an albatross around Obama's neck. Nobody expected the Chairman to be quite this bad at keeping a war chest, and the money's got to come from somewhere.
So, there you go. And before you ask, no, I'm not being either brave or foolhardy by confidently declaring that the Obama campaign is not going to bring in 100 million in June. After all, if they completely prove me wrong and do we'll all be too [expletive deleted]ing busy for me to be embarrassed.
Moe Lane
*Don't get me wrong, Obama's going to do well this month: getting the assumed nod as nominee will probably at least plateau his decreasing monthly take. But he has not raised $33 million dollars so far this month. I know this, because if he had the Obama campaign would have paid for ad space here to make sure that everyone knew. He has also not had a Truly Excellent Fund-raising Weekend among the Clinton supporters. I know this because, again, if he had his campaign would be talking about it. In fact, the only thing that I or you really know about the Obama campaign's financial situation is that they haven't quite gotten around to announcing their May totals yet.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Don't talk about my Pot -- look at his Kettle! — Comments (12) »
Obama Victory Disease. 14 Comments (0 topical, 14 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
$100 million in June? I'm game.
The Kool-Aid consumption of Obama's campaign is getting excessive. Now they're bragging about upcoming accomplishments that simply are not sustainable.
Besides the fact they'll discover success in presidential campaigns isn't about quick sprints, but endurance for the long haul, these exceptionally bold claims show a level of immaturity and over-confidence which suggest a remarkable upcoming campaign implosion.
Let's just hope Obama's campaign doesn't implode too early!
Well the bump after Hillary left was expected but come on 100 million. We now know that the DNC hosting party in Denver is down millions in donations and now we hear that Obama wants to enforce a windfall profits tax against oil companies; the same oil companies that many investment funds hold for a lot of people. How are those people going to react once they accept that they will lose valuable income investments to this radical?
Something tells me Rush is onto something when he says that Hillary is not yet out. And if she isn't then that all important donor list is not available to Obama's fund raisers and that would seriously hinder overall efforts. But I still just don;t see many Hillary supporters who are bitter at her loss making the donations to, let alone voting for Obama.
_____________________________
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
--Aristotle
Something tells me Rush is onto something when he says that Hillary is not yet out.
Imagine what would happen if, for any other reason than death or permanent disability (and let's pray we're saved a repetition of that history), the convention would switch to Hillary.
The black vote will shift from 90% Dem to 10% (other 80 may not necessarily go R, but they sure as heck won't vote for the party that betrayed them. The fruits of identity politics.)
Hillary will not get elected, all Clinton haters will be vividly reminded of what they hate about the Clinton machine, and turn out in numbers.
Moreover, down the ticket, every D will have to explain what happenend at the convention and why he voted Obama out. Surely, more than a few will not be able to do so. Combine with the two previous points, and all of a sudden we might get the House back.
I don't mind the D's imploding, but they still have enough wits to realise it's political suicide to shift now - all downsides, no upside. I'd give Obama better odds at raising that 100m....
I have it from a reliable source (retired California Democratic party worker who still has great connections within the party) of what happened at that private meeting held at Diane Feinstein's house.
Obama offered Hillary the VP slot.
Hillary told him very brusquely "Thanks, but no thanks".
She also made it rather apparent that there was no way she was releasing her delegates and if Obama got the nomination he could expect no real help from either her or Bill.
The impression my contact got from her discussions with her friends within the party is that Hillary is not out of it and she expects Obama to be so damaged by the time the convention rolls around that he will either drop out of the race or not get the nomination. The Dems know how the Clinton's roll and they must not be sleeping very well because they do not know when the 16 ton anvil is going to be dropped on Obama. They also know that some of Obama's dirty laundry would be enough to kill his campaign if it came out.
If there is 1 thing the fund raisers know to their very core, The List is the Holy Grail of being able to convey the message. With out it and the campaign shrivels; with a better list and an endorsement and the coffers overflow.
Something that (it appears) Obama did not get from Hillary.
I am sickened to say it, but, you go girl.
_____________________________
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
--Aristotle
Most small-scale investors like ordinary American workers with 401(k) plans have their investments in diversified mutual funds. Most of these investors don't even bother to learn what companies those funds are invested in. It's the fund manager's job to decide what stocks to invest in; and even in the annual report to the shareholders, he doesn't explain his rationale for each and every one.
If you have any friends who own mutual funds, ask them to give you a breakdown of which stocks those funds invest in. I'll bet they can't do it from memory.
So I doubt that anybody with a 401(k) plan is going to care about a windfall profits tax on oil companies affecting their nest egg personally. That's too far removed from their own investment decisions.
The only exceptions to this are investors who invest specifically in oil companies or in funds whose investment objective is the oil sector only. But there aren't enough of those to make a difference on Election Day. (Most 401(k) plans offered by employers don't even offer sector funds as an investment option.)
1) most people invest in index funds or large diversified funds that definitely invest in oil companies. A "windfall profits tax" steals returns from these investments, it is basic theft.
2) there is an old saying about letting the camel get its nose under the tent. Once he gets his nose under the tent, there is no way to stop him from getting in. If people allow the government to steal from one industry, a precedent is set. there would be no logical reason why they could not steal from "big computer", "big movie", or "big soda".
ok, another point. The ONLY ones will that will be hurt by a windfall profits tax are average American investors. The smart money is already moving to international oil companies that will not be subject to this tax. Our foolish government will punish American companies for the price of oil, which is based on a world market, not a domestic one.
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
Of course the windfall tax will be used to pay for new spending programs which will need to be paid for after the windfall runs out so be ready to pay up.
Whenever a politician claims to be raising taxes on "The Rich" or "Big Business" you should check your wallet. It's pretty much the same as a distraction theft.
Your right that it's too far removed from most people's day to day worries to have a direct impact. But we can spread the word that the 401(k)'s are going to be hit; it's easily explained.
You forgot a 4th group.
The group that wonders if Soros can get a complete list of 44,000 employees that he can say donated $2,300 each even though they only make $35,000 a year.
Voting for the Sexy(Pres) - Sexy(VP) Dream Ticket
Jindal/Palin 2012
Was that intentional?
Let's not forget that McCain screwed a female lobbyist because the NY Times claimed that an anonymous source said so, kind of.