QuoteGOP groups plan record $1 billion blitz
By: Mike Allen and Jim VandeHei
Politico.com
May 30, 2012 04:34 AM EDT
Republican super PACs and other outside groups shaped by a loose network of prominent conservatives – including Karl Rove, the Koch brothers and Tom Donohue of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce – plan to spend roughly $1 billion on November's elections for the White House and control of Congress, according to officials familiar with the groups' internal operations.
That total includes previously undisclosed plans for newly aggressive spending by the Koch brothers, who are steering funding to build sophisticated, county-by-county operations in key states. POLITICO has learned that Koch-related organizations plan to spend about $400 million ahead of the 2012 elections - twice what they had been expected to commit.
Just the spending linked to the Koch network is more than the $370 million that John McCain raised for his entire presidential campaign four years ago. And the $1 billion total surpasses the $750 million that Barack Obama, one of the most prolific fundraisers ever, collected for his 2008 campaign.
Restore Our Future, the super PAC supporting Mitt Romney, proved its potency by spending nearly $50 million in the primaries. Now able to entice big donors with a neck-and-neck general election, the group is likely to meet its new goal of spending $100 million more.
And American Crossroads and the affiliated Crossroads GPS, the groups that Rove and Ed Gillespie helped conceive and raise cash for, are expected to ante up $300 million, giving the two-year-old organization one of the election's loudest voices.
"The intensity on the right is white-hot," said Steven Law, president of American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS. "We just can't leave anything in the locker room. And there is a greater willingness to cooperate and share information among outside groups on the center-right."
In targeted states, the groups' activities will include TV, radio and digital advertising; voter-turnout work; mail and phone appeals; and absentee- and early-ballot drives.
The $1 billion in outside money is in addition to the traditional party apparatus – the Romney campaign and the Republican National Committee – which together intend to raise at least $800 million.
The Republican financial plans are unlike anything seen before in American politics. If the GOP groups hit their targets, they likely could outspend their liberal adversaries by at least two-to-one, according to officials involved in the budgeting for outside groups on the right and left.
By contrast, Priorities USA Action, the super PAC supporting President Barack Obama's reelection, has struggled to raise money, and now hopes to spend about $100 million. Obama's initial reluctance to embrace such groups constrained fundraising on the Democratic side, which is now trying to make up for lost time.
Labor could add another $200 million to $400 million in Democratic backing.
The consequences of the conservative resurgence in fundraising are profound. If it holds, Romney and his allies will likely outraise and outspend Obama this fall, a once-unthinkable proposition. The surge has increased the urgency of the Democrats' thus-far futile efforts to blunt the effects of a pair of 2010 federal court rulings – including the Supreme Court's seminal Citizens United decision – that opened the floodgates for limitless spending, and prompted Obama to flip-flop on his resistance to super PACs on the left.
"We're not making any attempt to match American Crossroads or any of those groups with television ads," said Michael Podhorzer, political director for the AFL-CIO. Instead, much of labor's money will be spent on talking directly with union members and other workers.
"Progressives can't match all the money going into the system right now because of Citizens United, so we have to have a program that empowers the worker movement," Podhorzer said.
Much of the public focus has been on how these outside groups will tilt the balance of power in fundraising at the presidential level. But POLITICO has learned that Republicans involved with the groups see the combined efforts playing out just as aggressively at the congressional level, in below-the-radar efforts designed to damage Democratic candidates for the House and Senate.
The officials said that if Romney looks weak in the final stretch, the vast majority of the money could be aimed at winning back the Senate. Republicans need four seats to do that, if Obama is re-elected.
Republicans have taken one big lesson away from campaigns conducted to date in 2011 and 2012: outside money can be the difference-maker in elections.
It was outside money from casino magnate Sheldon Adelson that single-handedly kept Newt Gingrich afloat against Romney. A super PAC spending surge fueled by Wyoming mutual fund guru Foster Friess was credited with powering Rick Santorum to an upset win in the Iowa caucuses. And outside money has helped lift tea party challengers past incumbents like Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) in this year's primaries.
Restore Our Future, the pro-Romney super PAC, spent twice as much on the air as the campaign did in the thick of the primaries: Through March, the campaign had put $16.7 million into TV, while ROF shelled out $33.2 million.
In Florida, the super PAC outspent the campaign, $8.8 million to $6.7 million. (The campaign can get more spots per dollar because of more favorable rates.) In Michigan, it was $2.3 million to $1.5 million. In Ohio, ROF outspent the campaign, $2.3 million to $1.5 million.
Now Republicans are applying this approach - on steroids - to the remainder of the campaign:
—Groups affiliated with Charles and David Koch, the billionaire industrialists who are among the biggest behind-the-scenes players in Republican politics, will spend the most of any outside outfit on either side: roughly $395 million for issue and political advocacy by groups they support – twice the amount they previously had been expected to commit.
"People are energized because the future of our country and economy is at stake," said an ally familiar with the Koch effort.
The flagship group in the Koch network is Americans for Prosperity, which gets about half its funds from other donors.
— American Crossroads and Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies (GPS) plan to do about two-thirds of their spending on advocacy related to the presidential race, and the rest relating to House and Senate races. Crossroads (a super PAC) was founded in April 2010, Crossroads GPS (a 501(c)4 non-profit group) started the next month.
—The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has a goal of $100 million, according to outsiders familiar with the plans. All of that will be focused on congressional races, with the House as the top priority – what organizers call "the first insurance policy" if Obama were to get reelected.
But the Chamber's message, which includes attacks on Obama's health-care plan, can be expected to help Romney in several states with competitive Senate races that are also presidential battlegrounds – Florida, Ohio, Virginia, New Mexico, Nevada and Wisconsin.
—The YG Action Fund, the super PAC started by aides of the two self-styled "Young Guns" – House Republican Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and House Republican Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) — has a goal of raising about $30 million, including the YG Network.
—American Action Network, chaired by former senator Norm Coleman, raised about $30 million in the 2010 election cycle and is likely to try to at least match that amount in 2012, with most of that going toward congressional races.
—The Congressional Leadership Fund, a super PAC supported by Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and other House GOP leaders, has reported raising $5 million so far.
—The pro-Romney super PAC, Restore Our Future, is likely to raise $50 million to $100 million for the general election. "They saw that the spending worked before, and with the race this competitive, it will be even easier for them to raise money now," said a source close to the group.
Charlie Spies, co-founder and counsel of Restore Our Future, said: "While there are multiple other groups doing important work to assist Republicans up and down the ticket, ROF is the only group dedicated solely to electing Mitt Romney, and targeting every dollar that we raise towards supporting him. ROF will spend our resources fighting back against the Obama team's distortions and smears."
—FreedomWorks, the Dick Armey-led tea party outfit that has backed challengers in GOP congressional primaries, is expected to spend $30 million or more on issue advocacy, campaign ads and organizing — between its super PAC and 501(c)4.
—The Republican Jewish Coalition, a 501(c)4 group that works closely with the Crossroads outfits and the American Action Network, plans to spend more than $6 million on "the largest, most expensive, most sophisticated outreach effort ever undertaken in the Jewish community," according to a source familiar with its plans.
—Club for Growth plans spending in congressional races but does not reveal totals.
It's important to step back for a moment to understand the currents racing through the money chase right now. Republicans, back in the era of soft money, dominated fundraising, thanks in large part to big business donors. But when soft money was outlawed in 2002, a lot of business donors got uneasy about feeding their money through outside groups. Many sat out. At the same time, liberals got into the business of using tax-exempt and other groups to build their own web of think tanks, media monitors, vote-trackers and advocacy groups to influence politics. Rich liberals such as George Soros and union leaders funded much of it.
By the time 2008 rolled around, Obama and the Democrats were rolling over Republicans in the race for campaign cash raised in limited chunks, and Obama largely discouraged big-money outside efforts. Things have changed rapidly – and, in some respects, radically — since then.
First, Citizens United made it easy and less risky for rich donors to get back in the game. Second, a subsequent lower court case paved the way for the creation of super PACs, giving mega-donors arguably the most effective vehicle for funding ads in the modern campaign finance era. Third and perhaps most important, Obama scared many free-market millionaires into action with what they perceive as his outright hostility to capitalism.
Holy crap, that's a lot of speech.
Quote from: DGuller on May 30, 2012, 07:10:26 PM
Holy crap, that's a lot of speech.
You'll all be getting a bill in the mail for all the speech of mine you have consumed over the years.
More money = more democracy :bowler: :bowler:
Quote from: FunkMonk on May 30, 2012, 07:28:34 PM
More money = more democracy :bowler: :bowler:
How much democracy do you have?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 30, 2012, 07:29:28 PM
Quote from: FunkMonk on May 30, 2012, 07:28:34 PM
More money = more democracy :bowler: :bowler:
How much democracy do you have?
It is for the glorious
job creators to decide how much to give the average American
serf citizen.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 30, 2012, 07:09:40 PM
The flagship group in the Koch network is Americans for Prosperity, which gets about half its funds from other donors.
An odd name, given that they want to impoverish most of the American people.
Quote—The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has a goal of $100 million, according to outsiders familiar with the plans. All of that will be focused on congressional races, with the House as the top priority – what organizers call "the first insurance policy" if Obama were to get reelected.
These guys are utterly evil.
Quote—The Republican Jewish Coalition, a 501(c)4 group that works closely with the Crossroads outfits and the American Action Network, plans to spend more than $6 million on "the largest, most expensive, most sophisticated outreach effort ever undertaken in the Jewish community," according to a source familiar with its plans.
Well, not that sophisticated. These are Siegebreakers they're going after, who are liable to fall victim to 'Obama will allow Iran to nuke Israel' arguments.
Quote from: DGuller on May 30, 2012, 07:10:26 PM
Holy crap, that's a lot of speech.
Yeah, it is just fine that news organizations are going bankrupt, we will have more ads than ever before to keep the electorate informed.
Quote"Progressives can't match all the money going into the system right now because of Citizens United, so we have to have a program that empowers the worker movement,"
Hopefully the Democrats have a plan B, because the worker movement died a couple decades ago.
Hehe, $6 million, how subtle.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 30, 2012, 07:43:37 PM
Hopefully the Democrats have a plan B, because the worker movement died a couple decades ago.
There's always voter registration. Oh, wait.
Quote from: Neil on May 30, 2012, 07:40:51 PM
Quote—The Republican Jewish Coalition, a 501(c)4 group that works closely with the Crossroads outfits and the American Action Network, plans to spend more than $6 million on "the largest, most expensive, most sophisticated outreach effort ever undertaken in the Jewish community," according to a source familiar with its plans.
Well, not that sophisticated. These are Siegebreakers they're going after, who are liable to fall victim to 'Obama will allow Iran to nuke Israel' arguments.
I hope for their sake they are going after Siegebreakers and not DGullers. Although the true test of whether this outreach is sophisticated and successful is whether DGuller is ardently pro Romney in November.
Quote from: DGuller on May 30, 2012, 07:44:14 PM
Hehe, $6 million, how subtle.
I wonder if they'll mention that Obama is black, and the SS wore black, so that's basically the same thing, right?
Quote from: alfred russel on May 30, 2012, 07:50:58 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 30, 2012, 07:40:51 PM
Quote—The Republican Jewish Coalition, a 501(c)4 group that works closely with the Crossroads outfits and the American Action Network, plans to spend more than $6 million on "the largest, most expensive, most sophisticated outreach effort ever undertaken in the Jewish community," according to a source familiar with its plans.
Well, not that sophisticated. These are Siegebreakers they're going after, who are liable to fall victim to 'Obama will allow Iran to nuke Israel' arguments.
I hope for their sake they are going after Siegebreakers and not DGullers. Although the true test of whether this outreach is sophisticated and successful is whether DGuller is ardently pro Romney in November.
Dorsey's a Slav. So long as Obama keeps 'resetting' relations with Russia, his handler will order him to keep the faith.
Neil is right. The Chamber of Commerce is an evil institution. I remember they kept wanting the City to just give them money to entice business to come to Jefferson City. When asked what kind of business they were enticing they said they couldn't say. Secret contracts and such.
Quote from: Neil on May 30, 2012, 07:55:33 PM
Dorsey's a Slav. So long as Obama keeps 'resetting' relations with Russia, his handler will order him to keep the faith.
:rolleyes: You clearly have no idea how handlers operate.
DG is Dalchimsky.
Yahoo!! Hang onto your asses this election! Both sides and their super pacs are going to blast your doors off with all the nasty assed campaign ads!!
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 30, 2012, 08:10:51 PM
DG is Dalchimsky.
I have something to tell you. Can you PM me your phone number? :)
Quote from: Razgovory on May 30, 2012, 08:01:14 PM
Neil is right. The Chamber of Commerce is an evil institution. I remember they kept wanting the City to just give them money to entice business to come to Jefferson City. When asked what kind of business they were enticing they said they couldn't say. Secret contracts and such.
The whole thing is a scam. They're more like gangsters or lobbyists than a proper business organization.
Quote from: DGuller on May 30, 2012, 08:17:25 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 30, 2012, 08:10:51 PM
DG is Dalchimsky.
I have something to tell you. Can you PM me your phone number? :)
:lol:
DG gains a level. +500 exp.
Quote from: KRonn on May 30, 2012, 08:15:57 PM
Yahoo!! Hang onto your asses this election! Both sides and their super pacs are going to blast your doors off with all the nasty assed campaign ads!!
Yeah, Obama went negative a lot sooner than I expected. Objectively, I think he's already starting to overplay that angle.
Quote from: derspiess on May 30, 2012, 09:15:12 PM
Yeah, Obama went negative a lot sooner than I expected. Objectively, I think he's already starting to overplay that angle.
It's a winning hand.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 30, 2012, 09:16:53 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 30, 2012, 09:15:12 PM
Yeah, Obama went negative a lot sooner than I expected. Objectively, I think he's already starting to overplay that angle.
It's a winning hand.
Not sure about that. One could make the case that it's already backfiring.
Quote from: derspiess on May 30, 2012, 09:15:12 PM
Yeah, Obama went negative a lot sooner than I expected. Objectively, I think he's already starting to overplay that angle.
What, sit around and take the "high road", not respond to negative campaigning bankrolled by the most PAC money ever in presidential politics, waiting to be Willie Hortoned and Swiftboated? Fuck that shit. It's on.
Quote from: derspiess on May 30, 2012, 09:18:59 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 30, 2012, 09:16:53 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 30, 2012, 09:15:12 PM
Yeah, Obama went negative a lot sooner than I expected. Objectively, I think he's already starting to overplay that angle.
It's a winning hand.
Not sure about that. One could make the case that it's already backfiring.
One would, if one would prefer him to be a nice, juicy target that doesn't bite back.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 30, 2012, 09:19:27 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 30, 2012, 09:15:12 PM
Yeah, Obama went negative a lot sooner than I expected. Objectively, I think he's already starting to overplay that angle.
What, sit around and take the "high road", not respond to negative campaigning bankrolled by the most PAC money ever in presidential politics, waiting to be Willie Hortoned and Swiftboated? Fuck that shit. It's on.
Fine, on it is. But if I were an Obama supporter I'd be a little worried about how his campaign has been run thus far. Being on the other side of course, I welcome it.
Re: the money, given what Obama did in 2008 I'm happy to see the chickens come home to roost.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 30, 2012, 09:20:02 PM
One would, if one would prefer him to be a nice, juicy target that doesn't bite back.
No, I prefer him to do what he's doing so far :hug:
Quote from: derspiess on May 30, 2012, 09:33:38 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 30, 2012, 09:19:27 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 30, 2012, 09:15:12 PM
Yeah, Obama went negative a lot sooner than I expected. Objectively, I think he's already starting to overplay that angle.
What, sit around and take the "high road", not respond to negative campaigning bankrolled by the most PAC money ever in presidential politics, waiting to be Willie Hortoned and Swiftboated? Fuck that shit. It's on.
Fine, on it is. But if I were an Obama supporter I'd be a little worried about how his campaign has been run thus far. Being on the other side of course, I welcome it.
Re: the money, given what Obama did in 2008 I'm happy to see the chickens come home to roost.
As his supporter, I'm worried about his tendency to bend over and ask politely, and in vain, for GOP to go easy on his rectum.
Btw, why the hell aren't we hearing anything about the Wisconsin recall election these days? :lol:
Quote from: derspiess on May 30, 2012, 09:33:38 PM
Re: the money, given what Obama did in 2008 I'm happy to see the chickens come home to roost.
It isn't as though had Obama taken public financing the republican attack machine would refrain from going into hyperdrive in 2012.
Quote from: derspiess on May 30, 2012, 09:38:37 PM
Btw, why the hell aren't we hearing anything about the Wisconsin recall election these days? :lol:
I give up. Why? :unsure:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 30, 2012, 09:52:13 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 30, 2012, 09:38:37 PM
Btw, why the hell aren't we hearing anything about the Wisconsin recall election these days? :lol:
I give up. Why? :unsure:
Answer: Because Walker looks likely to win. It was a huge deal in the press a few weeks ago, but now we're hearing why it's not such a big deal. If Walker does win, the whole recall effort will end up being a colossal waste of time & money, all thanks to the Democrats and their union thug allies.
My God our elections waste so much time and resources. Ah well.
Quote from: derspiess on May 30, 2012, 10:05:23 PM
Answer: Because Walker looks likely to win. It was a huge deal in the press a few weeks ago, but now we're hearing why it's not such a big deal. If Walker does win, the whole recall effort will end up being a colossal waste of time & money, all thanks to the Democrats and their union thug allies.
Interesting. I thought polls had them pretty close.
What kind of poll lead we talking here? 6, 7 points?
Quote from: derspiess on May 30, 2012, 10:05:23 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 30, 2012, 09:52:13 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 30, 2012, 09:38:37 PM
Btw, why the hell aren't we hearing anything about the Wisconsin recall election these days? :lol:
I give up. Why? :unsure:
Answer: Because Walker looks likely to win. It was a huge deal in the press a few weeks ago, but now we're hearing why it's not such a big deal. If Walker does win, the whole recall effort will end up being a colossal waste of time & money, all thanks to the Democrats and their union thug allies.
Far from a done deal, foetus loever. I did hear that he transferred quite a bit from his legal defense fund to the campaign, though.
Quotetheir union thug allies.
:lol: Billionaires are trying to fuck you over in so many ways you don't even see it, and you're bitching about teachers. :lol: So typical. Sucker.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 30, 2012, 10:10:12 PM
:lol: Billionaires are trying to fuck you over in so many ways you don't even see it, and you're bitching about teachers. :lol: So typical. Sucker.
To be fair, both groups hate you about the same, and want nothing more than to fuck you over.
Quote from: Neil on May 30, 2012, 10:19:52 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 30, 2012, 10:10:12 PM
:lol: Billionaires are trying to fuck you over in so many ways you don't even see it, and you're bitching about teachers. :lol: So typical. Sucker.
To be fair, both groups hate you about the same, and want nothing more than to fuck you over.
Explain to me how unions are trying to fuck me over by protecting themselves.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 30, 2012, 10:21:33 PM
Explain to me how unions are trying to fuck me over by protecting themselves.
That's easy: by taking money out of your pocket or bankrupting your state government.
Please explain to me how the Koch brothers are fucking me over.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 30, 2012, 10:23:51 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 30, 2012, 10:21:33 PM
Explain to me how unions are trying to fuck me over by protecting themselves.
That's easy: by taking money out of your pocket or bankrupting your state government.
Please explain to me how the Koch brothers are fucking me over.
I wasn't fucking talking to you.
:lol:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 30, 2012, 10:07:46 PM
Interesting. I thought polls had them pretty close.
What kind of poll lead we talking here? 6, 7 points?
Last poll I saw had Walker by 7: http://news.yahoo.com/wisconsins-walker-widens-lead-recall-election-poll-175216641.html
The shit was clearly hitting the fan for Barrett last week when his own campaign's poll had him down by 3 or 4. Shortly after that was made public, there were all kinds of rumors of Democrats pulling back funding & appearances.
Obama's campaign is certainly distancing itself:
http://news.yahoo.com/wisconsins-walker-widens-lead-recall-election-poll-175216641.html
Quote"This is a gubernatorial race with a guy who was recalled and a challenger trying to get him out of office," Obama deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter said on MSNBC Wednesday. "It has nothing to do with President Obama at the top of the ticket."
Where I disagree with a lot of the over-excited GOP analysts is the effect a Walker win will have in November. I think it's entirely possible that Walker wins and then Obama takes the state. I don't see the linkage between the two races, given that they're taking place 5 months apart.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 30, 2012, 10:28:25 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 30, 2012, 10:23:51 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 30, 2012, 10:21:33 PM
Explain to me how unions are trying to fuck me over by protecting themselves.
That's easy: by taking money out of your pocket or bankrupting your state government.
Please explain to me how the Koch brothers are fucking me over.
I wasn't fucking talking to you.
What Yi said, then.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 30, 2012, 10:23:51 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 30, 2012, 10:21:33 PM
Explain to me how unions are trying to fuck me over by protecting themselves.
That's easy: by taking money out of your pocket or bankrupting your state government.
Please explain to me how the Koch brothers are fucking me over.
Stealing millions of dollars worth of oil on public land.
Quote from: derspiess on May 30, 2012, 10:36:54 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 30, 2012, 10:28:25 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 30, 2012, 10:23:51 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 30, 2012, 10:21:33 PM
Explain to me how unions are trying to fuck me over by protecting themselves.
That's easy: by taking money out of your pocket or bankrupting your state government.
Please explain to me how the Koch brothers are fucking me over.
I wasn't fucking talking to you.
What Yi said, then.
:lol: Even more convenient than my answer.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 30, 2012, 10:23:51 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 30, 2012, 10:21:33 PM
Explain to me how unions are trying to fuck me over by protecting themselves.
That's easy: by taking money out of your pocket or bankrupting your state government.
Please explain to me how the Koch brothers are fucking me over.
By trying to roll back a hundred years of social progress, and by making unions necessary again.
Yi and Derspeiss are just jealous of success.
Quote from: Neil on May 30, 2012, 11:11:23 PM
By trying to roll back a hundred years of social progress, and by making unions necessary again.
Can you be a little more specific?
What? Millions of dollars of stolen oil isn't enough for you Yi?
Oh, it's fine. Let the rich make their stupid case for a third world country. Their calls for anarchy will be the nails in their own coffins.
Quote from: Neil on May 30, 2012, 08:18:45 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 30, 2012, 08:01:14 PM
Neil is right. The Chamber of Commerce is an evil institution. I remember they kept wanting the City to just give them money to entice business to come to Jefferson City. When asked what kind of business they were enticing they said they couldn't say. Secret contracts and such.
The whole thing is a scam. They're more like gangsters or lobbyists than a proper business organization.
I always thought that the "Chamber of Commerce" sounds like a place you get locked up in and tortured by being forced to short-sell derivatives and soya bean futures. :blush:
"Take him to the Chamber of Commerce!" :menace:
Quote from: derspiess on May 30, 2012, 09:33:38 PM
Fine, on it is. But if I were an Obama supporter I'd be a little worried about how his campaign has been run thus far. Being on the other side of course, I welcome it.
Right now I think his campaign's losing. That it pleases DG that he's not bending over and taking it any more is a worry for me.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 31, 2012, 05:58:21 AM
Quote from: derspiess on May 30, 2012, 09:33:38 PM
Fine, on it is. But if I were an Obama supporter I'd be a little worried about how his campaign has been run thus far. Being on the other side of course, I welcome it.
Right now I think his campaign's losing. That it pleases DG that he's not bending over and taking it any more is a worry for me.
Don't worry. :hug:
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 31, 2012, 05:58:21 AM
Quote from: derspiess on May 30, 2012, 09:33:38 PM
Fine, on it is. But if I were an Obama supporter I'd be a little worried about how his campaign has been run thus far. Being on the other side of course, I welcome it.
Right now I think his campaign's losing. That it pleases DG that he's not bending over and taking it any more is a worry for me.
I don't think it is even close. Romney has no chance against Obama.
Congress is where the real battle is happening, I suspect.
Quote from: Berkut on May 31, 2012, 09:17:04 AMI don't think it is even close. Romney has no chance against Obama.
Maybe. As I say, in my view Obama's running a very bad campaign. Also I think Romney could still win, though I hope he doesn't.
There's also the known unknowns out there. I think Eurozone collapse would, for example, entirely change the nature of the race.
Quote from: Berkut on May 31, 2012, 09:17:04 AMI don't think it is even close. Romney has no chance against Obama.
Meh, I disagree. Between the billyuns and billyuns the special interests are going to pour into 6 specific states, plus the concentrated effort to remove voters from rolls in swings states Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, the GOP will get back Der Weiss Haus from Der Schvartzenfuhrer.
There's still plenty of time for Obama to campaign. It's only the end of May.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 31, 2012, 09:55:58 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 31, 2012, 09:17:04 AMI don't think it is even close. Romney has no chance against Obama.
Meh, I disagree. Between the billyuns and billyuns the special interests are going to pour into 6 specific states, plus the concentrated effort to remove voters from rolls in swings states Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, the GOP will get back Der Weiss Haus from Der Schvartzenfuhrer.
I'm not getting my hopes up. At one point you seemed convinced Bachmann would become prez.
Quote from: derspiess on May 31, 2012, 01:07:59 PM
At one point you seemed convinced Bachmann would become prez.
And for a couple of weeks, you were just as scared, too. :P
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 31, 2012, 01:16:47 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 31, 2012, 01:07:59 PM
At one point you seemed convinced Bachmann would become prez.
And for a couple of weeks, you were just as scared, too. :P
Nah, I told you guys from the beginning it's Mitt's turn.
Quote from: derspiess on May 31, 2012, 01:25:43 PM
Nah, I told you guys from the beginning it's Mitt's turn.
He's the wrong guy for the job, esse.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 31, 2012, 01:34:13 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 31, 2012, 01:25:43 PM
Nah, I told you guys from the beginning it's Mitt's turn.
He's the wrong guy for the job, esse.
OH NO HE'S NOT
Regardless, I was talking about the GOP nom, not Presidency. I'd still say Obama has a (very) slight edge, sadly.
Ed Rendell is already calling the Wisconsin recall election a mistake :lol:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/06/01/rendell_recalling_scott_walker_was_a_mistake.html
What i find fascinating about the Wisconsin recall is how Walker is barely in the lead (considering a 25 to 1 spending ratio) but on the Presidential level, Obama's about 15 points ahead. Go fig.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 01, 2012, 11:30:23 AM
What i find fascinating about the Wisconsin recall is how Walker is barely in the lead (considering a 25 to 1 spending ratio) but on the Presidential level, Obama's about 15 points ahead. Go fig.
Ed Schultz dined and dashed too much up there. I bet that fat fucker ate so many pancakes, he had to waddle out.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 01, 2012, 11:30:23 AM
What i find fascinating about the Wisconsin recall is how Walker is barely in the lead
He's up by 7 points. I wouldn't call that 'barely'.
Quote(considering a 25 to 1 spending ratio)
So does his lead need to be in direct proportion to spending? Your union thug buddies wanted a fight & they got one :D
Quotebut on the Presidential level, Obama's about 15 points ahead. Go fig.
Where are you getting that figure? Obama's lead is about half that. Anyway, I don't see how Obama's lead has much to do with the amount of money spent on Walker's campaign. I've said that I think Walker and Obama may both win, even though lots of people seem to think a Walker win will somehow help Romney later on.
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 01, 2012, 11:40:47 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 01, 2012, 11:30:23 AM
What i find fascinating about the Wisconsin recall is how Walker is barely in the lead (considering a 25 to 1 spending ratio) but on the Presidential level, Obama's about 15 points ahead. Go fig.
Ed Schultz dined and dashed too much up there. I bet that fat fucker ate so many pancakes, he had to waddle out.
You know, some people call him Sgt. Schultz. I call him Special Ed.
Quote from: derspiess on June 01, 2012, 11:41:46 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 01, 2012, 11:40:47 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 01, 2012, 11:30:23 AM
What i find fascinating about the Wisconsin recall is how Walker is barely in the lead (considering a 25 to 1 spending ratio) but on the Presidential level, Obama's about 15 points ahead. Go fig.
Ed Schultz dined and dashed too much up there. I bet that fat fucker ate so many pancakes, he had to waddle out.
You know, some people call him Sgt. Schultz. I call him Special Ed.
Hey now, at least he isn't Martin 'Flag Code' Bashir. Now there is a seriously stupid shithead.
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 01, 2012, 11:46:49 AM
Quote from: derspiess on June 01, 2012, 11:41:46 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 01, 2012, 11:40:47 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 01, 2012, 11:30:23 AM
What i find fascinating about the Wisconsin recall is how Walker is barely in the lead (considering a 25 to 1 spending ratio) but on the Presidential level, Obama's about 15 points ahead. Go fig.
Ed Schultz dined and dashed too much up there. I bet that fat fucker ate so many pancakes, he had to waddle out.
You know, some people call him Sgt. Schultz. I call him Special Ed.
Hey now, at least he isn't Martin 'Flag Code' Bashir. Now there is a seriously stupid shithead.
HEY NOW
Quote from: derspiess on June 01, 2012, 10:59:21 AM
Ed Rendell is already calling the Wisconsin recall election a mistake :lol:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/06/01/rendell_recalling_scott_walker_was_a_mistake.html
I was up in Wisconsin recently. Constant pro-Walker ads. Didn't see one for the other guy. Not one.
Quote from: derspiess on May 31, 2012, 01:36:47 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 31, 2012, 01:34:13 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 31, 2012, 01:25:43 PM
Nah, I told you guys from the beginning it's Mitt's turn.
He's the wrong guy for the job, esse.
OH NO HE'S NOT
Regardless, I was talking about the GOP nom, not Presidency. I'd still say Obama has a (very) slight edge, sadly.
If Romney had the same record and was running as a Democrat for President, would you vote for him?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 01, 2012, 11:55:03 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 01, 2012, 11:46:49 AM
Quote from: derspiess on June 01, 2012, 11:41:46 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 01, 2012, 11:40:47 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 01, 2012, 11:30:23 AM
What i find fascinating about the Wisconsin recall is how Walker is barely in the lead (considering a 25 to 1 spending ratio) but on the Presidential level, Obama's about 15 points ahead. Go fig.
Ed Schultz dined and dashed too much up there. I bet that fat fucker ate so many pancakes, he had to waddle out.
You know, some people call him Sgt. Schultz. I call him Special Ed.
Hey now, at least he isn't Martin 'Flag Code' Bashir. Now there is a seriously stupid shithead.
HEY NOW
I want to punch your avatar.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 01, 2012, 11:59:09 AM
If Romney had the same record and was running as a Democrat for President, would you vote for him?
I guess that would depend on whom is GOP opponent would be.
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 01, 2012, 12:00:40 PM
I want to punch your avatar.
Bulldog Bashir trafficks in the truth, man.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 01, 2012, 12:07:14 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 01, 2012, 12:00:40 PM
I want to punch your avatar.
Bulldog Bashir trafficks in the truth, man.
He should be deported along with that CNN Brit moron.
Quote from: derspiess on June 01, 2012, 12:03:49 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 01, 2012, 11:59:09 AM
If Romney had the same record and was running as a Democrat for President, would you vote for him?
I guess that would depend on whom is GOP opponent would be.
Actually this is an interesting question. I think I'll make a separate thread of it. Be right back
Quote from: Razgovory on June 01, 2012, 12:22:59 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 01, 2012, 12:03:49 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 01, 2012, 11:59:09 AM
If Romney had the same record and was running as a Democrat for President, would you vote for him?
I guess that would depend on whom is GOP opponent would be.
Actually this is an interesting question. I think I'll make a separate thread of it. Be right back
Okay, we'll be here.