NYT: Obama Sees Steep Dropoff in Cash From Major Donors

[Logical]

President Obama’s re-election campaign is straining to raise the huge sums it is counting on to run against Mitt Romney, with sharp dropoffs in donations from nearly every major industry forcing it to rely more than ever on small contributions and a relative handful of major donors.

From Wall Street to Hollywood, from doctors and lawyers, the traditional big sources of campaign cash are not delivering for the Obama campaign as they did four years ago. The falloff has left his fund-raising totals running behind where they were at the same point in 2008 — though well ahead of Mr. Romney’s — and has induced growing concern among aides and supporters as they confront the prospect that Republicans and their “super PAC” allies will hold a substantial advantage this fall.

With big checks no longer flowing as quickly into his campaign, Mr. Obama is leaning harder on his grass-roots supporters, whose small contributions make up well over half of the money he raised through the end of March, according to reports filed Friday with the Federal Election Commission. And Mr. Obama is asking far more of those large donors still giving, exploiting his joint fund-raising arrangement with the Democratic National Committee to collect five-figure checks from individuals who have already given the maximum $5,000 contribution to his re-election campaign.

<snip>

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/21/us/politics/obama-campaign-faces-dropoff-in-big-donations.html

[Fumesucker]

1. Evidently striving for bipartisanship with wingnuts has a down side..

Hoocoodanoed?

[Logical]

2. Yes, he was a little naive about that I agree!

[Fumesucker]

5. Naive?

The most brilliant politician in possibly several generations?

I suppose that's one explanation.

[Logical]

7. Yes, he was. He held on to the belief that the GOP would cooperate....

too long. And was wrong.

Also, calling your supporters the "professional left" does not help either.

[Fumesucker]

11. Let's see how things pan out after the election..

I personally think Obama will be reelected, hopefully Campaign Obama will stick around after the election is over but I'm not particularly sanguine about it.

[Logical]

13. I think he will also. I think Romney will end up looking like a fool. And I think 2008....

Obama returns!!

[Marr]

20. Yep, why would he?

He's already alluded to having more "flexibility" after the election. Considering how his "negotiation" style has amounted to little more than running rightward at full speed and getting as far as possible before his supporters flip out, I have to think that "flexibility" is not going to be a positive thing for the left. I expect it's going to mean that the left ceases to be even a small factor in his political calculations.

[PragmaticLiberal]

33. Actually, I disagree with you on this one.

Personally, I suspect that President Obama's newfound "flexibility" will prove to be beneficial for the left.

[Marr]

36. Well, reasonable people can disagree, of course, but--

I'd bet you $20 that the political buzzword after Obama's reelection will be "grand bargain". I expect we'll end up seeing the Social Security/Medicare cuts that were put on the table during the budget debate signed into law once he's got a little more "flexibility".

[teddy51]

3. But reality is, we need to get behind this President for re-election because the other side of the

fence, sucks big time. There is no Republican that would be better than President Obama... Period.

[Logical]

4. 100% agree. Obama is better than any GOP idiot. But voting is one thing. Donating and working....

requires more excitement. That is not there like it was.

[Canuckistanian]

6. One question

Why does Obama HAVE to spend money? He has the bully pulpit and the backing of sane people.

Does that not count any more?

[Logical]

8. To smart voters it does. But not many of them are on the GOP side. Advertising makes people....

stupid. So an ad saying "Obama ruined the economy" will convince many he did.

[jsmirman]

9. Because getting information like the Corporate Parasite thread

I just kicked into the hands of every potential voter - or into the consciousness of those voters in some consumable form - costs money.

Mitt Romney: Corporate Parasite

[Fumesucker]

10. A woman once told Adlai Stevenson that he had the support of every thinking person..

"Madam, that is not enough, we need a majority" was his reply.

It seems fairly clear that Stevenson was correct in his assessment..

[FarLeftFist]

12. I agree. He could go on ANY talk show ANY time he wants. No one would turn him down. Plus

He will most likely win every debate between him & Romney. Not to mention he can call press conferences anytime.

[Tarheel_Dem]

14. What a ridiculous article. I know Obama's leftist critics like to glom onto shit like this, but...

at this point, 4 years ago, we were still in the thick of a very contentious primary battle, Hillary didn't even suspend her campaign until early June. How is this, in any way, comparable to Obama's 2008 run, and why should it matter this early? In fact, I would have thought his critics, on the left, would be happy that so much of Obama's money is coming from small donors. There have been those who have tried to construct narratives of the "enthusiasm gap", and this is just another in a string of those.

"The falloff has left his fund-raising totals running behind where they were at the same point in 2008 — though well ahead of Mr. Romney’s"

If, as stated above, the president's rich donors think he's been too "bipartisan", then I ask that they look up the video of his 2004 convention speech. Those of us who actually supported him, and actually paid attention, knew he would reach across the aisle, and will probably continue to do so. That's just who he is, the eternal optimist.

[Logical]

15. Obama held on to the bipartisan stuff way to long. Long after the GOP.....

made him look gullible in front of his 2008 supporters.

It is bad when members of the DU are posting "The GOP will never work with him" way before he realized it.

The goal was GREAT, but not realizing the GOP would never cooperate was a failure.

My issues with him are not ending the ware sooner and continuing this "Patriot Act" mentality all four years.

I am donating $50 a month to Obama but I gave much more in 2008. I also knocked on doors and made phone calls in 2008.

People need more than an evil GOP candidate to get excited. We always have an evil GOP candidate.

Face it, you know it is bad when the progressives are saying "Maybe Obama will be better in his 2nd term because he does not have to run again".

[Tarheel_Dem]

16. I don't put too much stock in what "progressives say". Bitter progressive opponents have been....

savaging him since Jan 20th, 2009, and long before. On Feb. 26th, Helen Thomas penned her first hitpiece. It was vicious, and a bit premature.

One of Hillary's big donors, who claims to have supported Obama in the general, started a Draft Hillary campaign for this election cycle. He also claims that Hillary would be better at reaching out to the business community because Obama's administration has been hostile to them. But if you listen to "progressives", they claim the president is in the pocket of business.

My point is, people can draw their own conclusions from the o.p., and you and the president's antagonists have certainly drawn yours. That doesn't make your hypotheses true, but it certainly gives you guys something to gossip about.

I'd say 89% approval from the liberal base of your party is quite strong, wouldn't you? 85% by Democrats overall. We know that there are some very liberal, and some very conservative Dems won't support the president again, and that's fine. But I just didn't want you to hang your hat on slower fundraising than 4 years ago, because the circumstances are entirely different right now.

I think the base sometimes confuses the office of the president with their favorite shock jock, or teevee personality, but he isn't. He's the POTUS, and there's a certain dignity that comes with that office, and I think he and Joe Biden have both been very dignified, despite all the noise.

[Logical]

17. Anyone who is not disappointed in Obama had much lower expectations than I did. But I am .....

still donating over $700 to him this year. Only because I hate the GOP and we need another liberal SCOTUS member.

[Tarheel_Dem]

18. Your "expectations" are beside the point. You posted an article that in no way....

bears any resemblance to the situation in 2008, except the dates. There was a battle between two Democratic superstars, and every Democrat had picked a side. The money was flowing from all quarters, large and small, because of the passion for the "Democratic" candidate we had chosen to support. There's no Democratic primary this time. What's so hard to understand about that?

I'm still waiting for you to prove to me that the article is relevant to 2012 in any credible way? The circumstances are completely different, and many people may be waiting for the "official" start of the campaign. Pres. Obama may be defeated, but trust me, it won't be for lack of funds. Bank on it.

[Logical]

19. Well, of you are right then money should not be an issue. We will see.

[Tarheel_Dem]

21. If your theories bore any resemblance to actual fact, I would challenge you to explain....

why, in a state where the president is running ahead, by double digits, is Elizabeth Warren struggling against a vacuous centerfold model? By all accounts, Elizabeth is a "progressive" dream come true, and apparently stands for everything "true progressives" claim to stand for.

Progressives should just admit that their critiques of Pres. Obama are much more about style than actual substance. I won't be surprised that large dollar donations might drop off for the president, afterall he wants to raise their taxes.

[Logical]

23. We can agree the professional left can just sit this one out. Obama should be OK with that also.....

And you realize I did not write the article?? It was some paper called the New York Times.

[Tarheel_Dem]

25. You obviously thought it had some merit, or else, why post it?

Please point out where I said anyone, including the professional left, should "sit this one out". You're wandering now, and I'm gonna guess you're tired and cranky, so I'll bid you adieu, mmmkay?

[Logical]

28. Not cranky, just tired of the "Obama is Perfect". We will know soon if you or the NYT are correct.

[Tarheel_Dem]

31. Since you used "quotes", I'm gonna assume you can provide a link to "Obama is Perfect"?

If not, you've veered off into some pretty laughable rhetoric which further proves my point. You've become tired & cranky. A nap might just be the cure.

[Tarheel_Dem]

38. What's really "telling" is you've resorted to namecalling. Who's the "jerk" again?

[Logical]

40. "You've become tired & cranky. A nap might just be the cure." deserves name calling!

[Tarheel_Dem]

43. Yeah, but I didn't call you a name. You may infer from it what you will, but the fact remains.....

you went there, I didn't.

[Logical]

46. I got two PMs with some links. LOL, I understand you much better now. n-t

[Tarheel_Dem]

48. All the pm's and links in the world won't change the fact that when you're on the losing end.....

you resort to namecalling. Now go ahead and "pm" that.

[dionysus]

41. and some will cheer this type of crap...

[Tarheel_Dem]

42. That was the whole point, doncha know?

[spanone]

22. the media is gonna frame Obama as the loser, no matter what happens....watch.

[AZ Progressive]

24. Is it a surprise that Corporate America is more enthusiastic about supporting one of their own?

Talking about Mitt Romney, of course. Wall Street / Corporate America is salivating over having someone even more friendly than the Bush Administration to occupy the White House, and the chance of Wall Street controlling the whole federal government fully via unlimited spending. They are peeing their pants of thinking about a gilded age on steroids.

Obama doesn't seem so smart, thinking that in appeasing the elite (at the expense of pissing off the liberal base), they would let him stay in the White House. Corporate America, if given the choice, will support the most right wing candidate out there. Citizens United has only emboldened Corporate America to take as much control of the Government as possible.

[Tarheel_Dem]

30. "at the expense of pissing off the liberal base",

Newsflash: DU is not the "liberal base", far from it.

89% approval from Liberal Dems, and 85% support from Dems overall ain't too shabby (Gallup numbers). So this talking point about "appeasement" is such bullshit. I'm sorry, but bloggers and radio shock jocks, which is where your talking point originated, aren't the "liberal base", it's those of us who support the Democratic president, and the Democratic Party.

[girl gone mad]

37. Clearly that's not the case..

Obama has lost Independents, many of whom are very liberal, whether or not they choose to label themselves as such. The base was right all along. Obama should have made smarter appointments, he should have prosecuted financial fraud, he should have ended the wars, he should have pushed for a bigger stimulus and focused on jobs rather than deficits, he should have loosened the grip of the police state and he shouldn't have let lobbyists write health reform. If he had listened to the left rather than making them enemy number one and rolling over for the Republicans, he would be in a stronger position today.

[Tarheel_Dem]

39. Spare me your sermonizing. All I heard was Blah, Blah & more Blah.

"Obama has lost Independents, many of whom are very liberal, whether or not they choose to label themselves as such."

Do you have anything in the way of scientific proof to back up your assertions, or is this just another hunch like the o.p. I actually replied to? The shit you've made up in your head isn't borne out by the polls I've seen. "many of whom are very liberal, whether or not they choose to label themselves as such".

Really? Prove it!

[Number23]

47. Perfectly said

You are KILLING this thread.

And it's just bizarre that some say the president would be in a "stronger position" if he had just "listened more to the left" completely ignoring or oblivious to the fact that the American public by and large identifies as conservative.

I think the president's astronomical numbers from "the left" (85-89% approval) and the lack of support from conservatives, some of whom are openly advocating for his death, prove what and who he has listened to more soundly and accurately than anyone on this web site could ever hope to.

[Tarheel_Dem]

49. Precisely stated.

"prove what and who he has listened to more soundly and accurately than anyone on this web site could ever hope to."

So many "Naderisms" and a whole bunch of FAIL in one post, makes my head spin. And you'll notice I still haven't received the data I requested, nor did I expect to. Anecdotal evidence, myriad talking points, & slick rhetorical flourish seem to be all that's required for some.

[Arkana]

44. And then he should have flown to the moon on gossamer wings.

You do know there are branches of government OTHER than the executive, right? And that one of them, the legislative, is full of selfish assholes? You know, the kind of people who would rather save their own skin for reelection rather than do what's right?

It was the Democrats in Congress who got all NIMBY on Obama when he tried to wrest the funds to close Gitmo out of them. All the speechifying and the sermonizing in the world wouldn't have gotten them to change their minds.

It was the Democrats in Congress who fucked him on health care when people who told him they'd support the public option (I'm looking at you, Holy Joe Lieberman) decided to filibuster it instead.

And I guarantee you--if he had decided to spend four years going after George Bush and Dick Cheney for things that I'm pretty sure they would not have been able to prove, no matter how many lawyers he had on the case, it would have neutered him right out of the gate. There would have been no meaningful legislation. Nothing would have gotten done. I can GUARAN-FUCKING-TEE you this. NOTHING would have gotten done.

He had two choices--play attack dog or be the President. He chose to be the President, and you guys have been shitting down his throat and telling him it's chocolate ever since. He wasn't elected to be the President of the American left: he was elected to be the President of the United States, and one of the unsavory parts of the job is talking to--and even making deals with--people who hate your stinking guts.

[FarLeftFist]

45. Your post is a good case study into the 'DU is not the liberal base" thesis.

I know literally THOUSANDS of Libs/Progressives on social media & many in my personal life who absolutely cannot wait to vote for Obama again. According to recent polls it shows the base is actually solidifying more so than even a couple of months ago.

[AZ Progressive]

26. Obama's gonna have to raise a LOT of money though

Romney's Super PAC's will carpet bomb the swing states for 7 MONTHS, basically having plenty of time to program people's minds to hate Obama and vote for Romney (remember this quote: "A lie told often enough becomes the truth&quot . Obama and the Democratic Super PAC's are going to have to possibly raise an additional $800 million. However, we know from elections like Meg Whitman vs Jerry Brown in California, that spending cash can't make someone elected.

[sabrina 1]

27. I think, if true, this can be used very much to his advantage.

In the current climate in this country where people have begun to wake up to the fact that the wealthy have been buying elections, I've said this before, Democrats should USE the Corporate funding Romney is getting to appeal to the people and then talk a lot about 'taking the money out of politics'.

They should make all that money flowing to Romney a chain around his neck, and ask at every opportunity, 'who is he going to be representing'? Then point to his many, many far right policies from his primary campaign to prove whose side he is on.

I think Democrats should challenge him to refuse some of that money to prove he will not be beholden to Corporate America. Make as big an issue as possible out of 'Romney's Money' and his huge Corporate donations. One thing the general population appears to agree on is that Wall Street destroyed this country's economy and they want accountability in every poll that has been taken.

If Obama points out that his former donors are worried he might hold them accountable and are looking to Romney for protection, that would be a good way to bring back some who are not overly enthusiastic about any politicians at this point.

[calimary]

50. Good one!

[EFerrari]

29. The people who buy our elections think they can get a better deal this year, imo.

Why spend tens of millions if you can get the same result for less.

[BumRushDaShow]

32. Obama raised 10x more than RMoney

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-04-21/obama-had-10-times-more-money-than-romney-for-campaign

This should tell you that the VOTES from the rethug "base" may not be there regardless of how much one of their PACs made up of a handful of individuals (who only equal a handful of literal votes themselves) may pump into the campaign.

It is in the media's interest to make this a "horse race" so people will stay engaged and not tune out.

I.e., why have your contributors max out now and then have nothing for the General election? This is the same kind of strategy that they do themselves and by fall, they are in dire straits. Ironically this time, they seem to be aware of the max-out danger this time just based on Rmoney pulling ads out of PA after Sicko-Sanitarium dropped out prior to Tuesday primary. In any case, if they think that saturating the broadcast media with a zillion negative ads by PACs is going to "win" for them, then they may be in for a rude awakening because the nation is sick of it.

[annabanana]

35. Not too hard to fix...

Hang a STRONG left.