Reports: Obama Massively Outspending Clinton in the 3/4 States

Early reports a week ago had the Obama campaign outspending the Clinton campaign in advertising in Ohio and Texas by close to a 2-to-1 margin in both states. New reports from Chuck Todd and the folks at First Read estimate the ratio to be even larger.

*** Obama's financial advantage: Watching local TV here in Ohio, it feels like Obama has a 4-to-1 advantage -- with SEIU, UFCW and Obama just blitzing the airwaves compared with Clinton. It's happening in all four states. In fact, per TV ad expert Evan Tracey, Obama has outspent Clinton $23 million to $14 million in the last 30 days. How is she expected to hold a big lead if she gets outspent this badly? The third party groups are like salt in the Clinton wound.

The Clinton campaign seems to confirm this:

On the Clinton side, Mandy Grunwald that between Obama's own spending and two unions spending on his behalf, Clinton is being outspent four-to-one in Ohio and between two-to-one and three-to-one in Texas.

With numbers like these, it's little wonder that Barack Obama has taken a lead in Texas and has been curtailing Hillary Clinton's once very large Ohio lead. Then again, with Obama having cut Clinton's Pennsylvania lead from 16 points two weeks ago to 6 points today (per Quinnipiac) without the help of advertisements, perhaps the movement in these March 4 states is less about the massive amounts of money the Obama campaign is investing than it is about a genuine shift within the electorate away from Clinton towards Obama...



Display:


Re: Reports: Obama Massively Outspending Clinton i (2.00 / 2)

Obama's fundraising is so monstrous, that regardless of any previous stated intention to accept public funding, Barack should opt out so he can completely annihilate McCain in the general (assuming Obama is the nominee).

I'm sure this will happen anyways, as Obama seems to be building the case that he won't accept public funding unless McCain not only reciprocates, but also agrees to reject (AND denounce) any 527 spending on his behalf. I highly doubt McCain will pledge to not allow anybody to swiftboat Obama on his behalf, but if he did, then I'd be in favor or a publicly financed campaign.


Two riders were approaching......the wind begins to howl!
by John in Chicago on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:09:29 PM EST

Obama has 1,000,000 people who have given $$$ (2.00 / 2)

so he can campaign against Clinton & Edwards.

Those same million will give even MORE to campaign against John McCain.


No vetting is complete until we've seen the tax returns.
by Bill White on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:12:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama has 1,000,000 people who have given $$$ (2.00 / 3)

You can count me into that group of 1,000,000 who still has more to give.
Two riders were approaching......the wind begins to howl!
by John in Chicago on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:14:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama has 1,000,000 people who have given $$$ (2.00 / 1)

Me too. I can't wait to donate to smack down "Mr. Ethics."


by Oregonian on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:46:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama has 1,000,000 people who have given $$$ (2.00 / 1)

me too....although i can't give much....


by bluedavid on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:55:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That's the beauty though... (none / 0)

... with 1,000,000 of us no one has to give a lot.


"Mom, baseball, apple pie, and a unified Democratic juggernaut."
by Purplepeople on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:41:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

He even has (2.00 / 7)

a good argument ready to go:

"John, my campaign already IS being funded by the public."


by Cycloptichorn on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:29:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He even has (2.00 / 2)

That is a good argument, and it sounds like something Sen. Obama would say.
Two riders were approaching......the wind begins to howl!
by John in Chicago on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:55:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reports: Obama Massively Outspending Clinton i (2.00 / 1)

There are no circumstances under which Obama will accept public financing. It just doesn't make sense for him to do so regardless of any concessions by McCain.

With Obama's fundraising mechanisms he can raise obscene amounts of money and at least make an attempt to compete in nearly EVERY state. McCain can't hope to keep up.


ENOUGH!
by JDF on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:33:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

not necessarily... (none / 0)

people forget that clinton put dole away in the spring of 1996.  it wouldn't have mattered how much dole spent in the fall, he was done.

obama uniquely can do the same to mccain.  if he can put together as good a message campaign as the white house/dnc did in 1996 and define mccain in the public conscience as a bush 3/status quo candidate, it won't matter if he agrees to public financing.  plus, he can pay forward a lot of spending that reaches fruition in the fall.  there's all kinds of ways to skin this cat, and it doesn't really matter if public financing is accepted, as long as the progressive money machine keeps rollin'...


"This is the time for resolve and steady leadership" -- Barack Obama
by bored now on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:14:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

McCain's public financing woes have handed (2.00 / 1)

Obama the perfect excuse for not entering into any agreement with him regarding public financing.

Seriously, McCain ahs already gone back on his word once on the issue.


Bill Foster would agree, Barack Obama has coat tails.
by Walt Starr on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:19:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Previously, I equivocated on this (none / 0)

now I agree 100%


No vetting is complete until we've seen the tax returns.
by Bill White on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:24:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: McCain's public financing woes have handed (none / 0)

This is very true. McCain's trying to opt out of something he had already accepted - in fact he took out a loan against the public funds.

Much like he tried to retract his "I lose" gaffe.


Two riders were approaching......the wind begins to howl!
by John in Chicago on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:46:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm still stunned (none / 0)

I never imagined Team Clinton could be outspent.  Just goes to show that -- just maybe -- PSD could have spent a little less on that 2006 NY Senate reelection campaign.


by Adam B on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:31:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reports: Obama Massively Outspending Clinton i (none / 0)

i was very concerned about that 527 group that was supposedly going to spend $250 million against the democratic nominee - i would hate to see Obama not able to respond due to funding limitations.


by 2liberal on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:39:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reports: Obama Massively Outspending Clinton i (none / 0)

No one has any control over 527's. Obama would be insane to accept public funding.


by hankg on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:02:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Two weeks after the nomination is secure (2.00 / 4)

Obama needs to begin his campaign against McCain in places like Texas, and Idaho, and South Caarolina

Fund raise like heck and do the retail politics stuff in EVERY red state and bankrupt McCain's campaign before it even gets going.


No vetting is complete until we've seen the tax returns.
by Bill White on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:11:25 PM EST

Re: Two weeks after the nomination is secure (2.00 / 1)

Now that's what I call an up-to-date signature line!
Two riders were approaching......the wind begins to howl!
by John in Chicago on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:12:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Two weeks after the nomination is secure (none / 0)

I'd replace SC with MS...

I think MS has a doable Senate seat (longshot, but not impossible).

Nothing like giving LaRocca, Noriega, and Musgrove a big boost right off the bat.

Start stitching them coattails!


by zonk on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:19:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Both! All 50 states . . . (none / 0)

He has an e-mail list with 1,000,000 DONORS.

Now, motivate those donors to run ground game tactics (house parties, canvassing) from now until the election.

1,000,000 / 50 = 20,000 volunteers per state, on average.


No vetting is complete until we've seen the tax returns.
by Bill White on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:22:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Both! All 50 states . . . (none / 0)

He already has 124,000 volunteers working on Texas. Today. No state-formerly-known-as-red is safe for the Republicans any more. We'll chase them to the ends of the earth.


by EMTP democrat on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:16:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's the snowball (2.00 / 3)

You get out your message which people like which lets you raise money which lets you buy ads in order to get out your message more.  If you can get into a positive feedback loop, it's hard to beat.


Beat McCain!
by thezzyzx on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:16:59 PM EST

Re: It's the snowball (none / 0)

Start a new snowball against McCain as soon as possible. Especially in places like Texas, Iowa, Colorado and South Carolina.

Engage in retail ground game politics for six months and strongly support every local House and Senate candidate at the same time.

Start that next snowball early and keep it rolling through November.


No vetting is complete until we've seen the tax returns.
by Bill White on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:19:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re:finance pledge (2.00 / 2)

All Obama has to do is extract pledges from Democratic 527s that they won't spend money promoting his campaign or attacking McCain, if Republican 527s do likewise.  Some of the Republican 527s like the Club for Growth and the Ari Fleisher group will flatly refuse, and then Obama can simply say that he needs the money in order to deal with their coming attack ads.
If they do agree unequivocally, then it's a dream come true, because there's no way McCain wins if the campaign remains largely positive and about issues and policy rather than smears and fears.
by megaplayboy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:17:36 PM EST

Re:finance pledge (none / 0)

That's how I see it as well. It seems Obama's been starting to make that case already, that he'd accept public funds, but only if McCain agrees to reject* and 527 swiftboating on his behalf.

* and denounce

Two riders were approaching......the wind begins to howl!
by John in Chicago on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:21:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re:finance pledge (2.00 / 1)

I know that most Democrats are in favor of public financing...but accepting it this cycle under any circumstances shows an unwillingness to put our collective foot on the neck of the Republican party.

We are raising money the right way and there is no reason we should give that up. There is no need for public financing if we can show that small dollar donors actually trump large dollar donors (which it appears they do.)


ENOUGH!
by JDF on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:36:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re:finance pledge (none / 0)

I agree, its what I prefer. All I'm saying is that the only circumstance under which I would say Obama should accept public funds is if it could be guaranteed that 527's won't circumvent the process.

We both know that isn't gonna happen, so in other words, I believe Obama should not accept public funds.


Two riders were approaching......the wind begins to howl!
by John in Chicago on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:53:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re:finance pledge (none / 0)

and I am saying he shouldn't even if he gets this pledge (which we both know he wouldn't get.) Why concede the field of battle?


ENOUGH!
by JDF on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:58:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re:finance pledge (none / 0)

I wouldn't be upset if Obama opted out of public funding even if he got such a pledge from McCain. One important point is that even with such a pledge from McCain, that wouldn't hold any real kind of constraint on the 527's in question.

Just look at the radio host idiot McCain had introduce him yesterday. McCain claims he didn't know the guy was such a xenophobe. What's to say McCain wouldn't act the same way if a 527 tried to swiftboat Obama?

I guess my scenario where I say Obama should accept public funding was more menat as an "in a perfect world" scenatio.


Two riders were approaching......the wind begins to howl!
by John in Chicago on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:10:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re:finance pledge (none / 0)

Large donors are still the vast majority of even Obama's campaign donors. Barack certainly shouldn't accept public financing this time around, but he's president we all need to support Feingold's bill to reform presidential public financing so that donations of $200 or less are matched to become $1,000 and the spending caps are lifted, etc.

I'd prefer to see the upper limit for donations drastically reduced to what the average working or middle class person could possibly afford if they were very, very engaged in the process (perhaps $1,000, perhaps less) to reduce the impact the wealthy can have.


by Quinton on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:31:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re:finance pledge (none / 0)

I am of two minds on this one (in regards to the reforms you would like to see.) On one hand I agree that the impact the wealthy can have should be limited. On the other I fear that we make it harder than it already is for candidates on the congressional level to run who are not already independently wealthy.


ENOUGH!
by JDF on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:50:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re:finance pledge (none / 0)

The 527's won't keep any pledges and new ones will form overnight. Obama's fundraising advantage is powered by the people. After so many years of being at the mercy of big money special interests why should the people give up the first advantage they have had in our lifetime.


by hankg on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:07:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reports: Obama Massively Outspending Clinton i (2.00 / 1)

what do you mean perhaps?  

"perhaps the movement in these March 4 states is less about the massive amounts of money the Obama campaign is investing than it is about a genuine shift within the electorate away from Clinton towards Obama.."

clearly the movement in polls has much less to do with advertising dollars than it does with the clinton campaign's foibles and democrats nationally coalescing around an obama candidacy.  the fact that polls are moving as much as they are in pennsylvania, a state that has had no special attention thus far and whose primary is a long ways off, as well as nationally more than proves this point.  


by bluedavid on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:17:39 PM EST

Re: Reports: Obama Massively Outspending Clinton i (2.00 / 1)

I would say that EVERYTHING is a direct result of Clinton's team ignoring the caucus states (financially and organizationally).  If she woulda held her own during the last month (even if she were losing-just at least holding her own)- I believe he wouldn't have been able to close the gaps in these big states. "It's the momentum stupid."


by easyE on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:24:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reports: Obama Massively Outspending Clinton i (2.00 / 1)

Clinton + Cronies tried to get rid of Dean and his 50-State strategy. That is coming back to bite them on the ass.


by Oregonian on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:48:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reports: Obama Massively Outspending Clinton i (2.00 / 1)

Exactly. Grassroots fundraising is at least as much an indicator of a successful campaign as it is the cause of one. That's the big difference between grassroots and 'establishment' funding: with the former your votes and your dollars are coming from the same people.
by PhilFR on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:26:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reports: Obama Massively Outspending Clinton i (none / 0)

"That's the big difference between grassroots and 'establishment' funding: with the former your votes and your dollars are coming from the same people."

And with the latter you forsake the wishes of the voters for the wishes of the "Establishment".


Two riders were approaching......the wind begins to howl!
by John in Chicago on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:57:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reports: Obama Massively Outspending (2.00 / 1)

The rumor is that he will report 50,000,000 for February.  Can you imagine?  If he reports THAT kind of momentum prior to next Tuesday (say Monday morning)... any late deciders will likely break in his favor.

Everyone likes the winner, right?


by a gunslinger on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:26:47 PM EST

Re: Reports: Obama Massively Outspending (none / 0)

I would like to see him report the money this week and trot out another huge endorsement on Monday but that might just be wishful thinking on my part.


ENOUGH!
by JDF on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:38:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reports: Obama Massively Outspending Clinton i (none / 0)

So, if each current donor donated the maximum $2,300 for the general election, Obama could raise $2.3Billion DOLLARS!!!!


by poserM on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:38:09 PM EST

Re: Reports: Obama Massively Outspending Clinton i (none / 0)

Is 2.3B enough to start you own National TV channel?


by poserM on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:39:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reports: Obama Massively Outspending Clinton i (2.00 / 2)

The fact that he has raised nowhere near that just shows how much of his fundraising is small-dollar donations.  Just regular people chipping in $20 or $50 here and there.


by Skaje on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:51:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

LOL (none / 0)


by bigdcdem on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:04:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reports: Obama Massively Outspending Clinton i (2.00 / 3)

It appears from a distance...that so many giving to Obama could not pony up the max.
What we are experiencing is a sequence started by Dr. Howard Dean.

"If you want to end war and stuff, you gotta sing loud"...Arlo Guthrie
by nogo war on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:49:08 PM EST

Yup. Howard Dean broke the ice (2.00 / 1)

and Obama is perfecting the approach.


No vetting is complete until we've seen the tax returns.
by Bill White on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:51:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reports: Obama Massively Outspending Clinton i (none / 0)

Fill the bat!!
Two riders were approaching......the wind begins to howl!
by John in Chicago on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:47:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

From an e-mail sent to Mr. Orange Satan (2.00 / 2)

Its at the top of the Daily Kos front page right now:

and let me just add to what karl sent you last night about the obama campaign doing more to rebuild the party in two weeks than the party's done in years.... he's 1000% right.

we have - in tarrant county alone - 3400 volunteers and over 600 precinct captains.  that means that we could fill almost every single precinct captain spot in tarrant county.  one of our goals has been to ask these volunteers to continue to serve their local parties, and we are urging our precinct captains to become precinct chairs where ever there is an empty spot. if our people will fill the empty spots, we could have a precinct chair in every precinct in tarrant county for the first time in over 15 years.

This ground game SHOULD continue from now until November. In places like Texas, Iowa, COlorado, Mississippi, South Carolina. Supposedly safe red states.

Add this approach to Obama's money and it will be a tsunami by November.


No vetting is complete until we've seen the tax returns.
by Bill White on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:50:48 PM EST

Re: From an e-mail sent to Mr. Orange Satan (none / 0)

Obama's ever-growing ground game is one of the silver linings of the dragged out nomination process.
Two riders were approaching......the wind begins to howl!
by John in Chicago on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:49:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Agreed (none / 0)


by bigdcdem on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:05:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reports: Obama Massively Outspending Clinton i (2.00 / 1)

I live in the Dallas/Fort Worth area and watch a lot of CNN and MSNBC. On those two stations, I've only seen ads for Barack Obama. As a Hillary Clinton supporter, it's a little disappointing. I don't watch network channels, so I don't know if she's hitting those or not.


by zenful6219 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:33:39 PM EST

Re: Reports: Obama Massively Outspending Clinton i (none / 0)

The important thing about the money is that its not just that it goes to ad's, but it also goes to professional staff to supplement and coordinate volunteer stuff on the ground. And thats more valuable than a 30 second ad spot. Let's look at the results from 2004, and where the contest was incredibly close:

  1. Wisconsin, Kerry, 0.38%
   2. Iowa, Bush, 0.67%
   3. New Mexico, Bush, 0.79%
   4. New Hampshire, Kerry, 1.37%
   5. Ohio, Bush, 2.11%
   6. Pennsylvania, Kerry, 2.50%
   7. Nevada, Bush, 2.59%
   8. Michigan, Kerry, 3.42%
   9. Minnesota, Kerry, 3.48%
  10. Oregon, Kerry, 4.16%
  11. Colorado, Bush, 4.67%

Does anyone honestly see, with a money and ground-game advantage, any of the states Kerry lost, going into the McCain column? Especially Iowa and New Mexico? I don't understand how anyone, looking at the numbers, sees some sort of mysterious McCain blow out.


by Sean Siberio on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:15:59 PM EST

McCain is already beating Obama (none / 0)

McCain has had his share of bad press, especially the last week. Obama has been a media darling. Whether he's your 1st, 2nd or 3rd choice, you have to admit that he's had great press. There's been a few minor bad stories but mostly great press.

Look at the current polls LA Times/Bloomberg poll:

Only 46% believe Obama is experienced enough to be president.

McCain beats Obama by a 13-points on Iraq and a 37- point on terrorism.

And in the head-to-head McCain beats Obama by 2 pts.

I know Obama has charisma but the country is in two wars and I don't think it's realistic to think a senator with 2 years national experience will win in November. Based on history it is a bad bet.


by mmorang on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:56:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The news is even better! (none / 0)

A million small donors is an incredible accomplishment. And that doesn't even include the many small donors to things like MoveOn and other progressive orgs that will be doing media, GOTV and more.

Nobody really knows how many small donors are putting their money where their values are this time around... and the main event hasn't even started yet.

Do the Republicans want to make it a 527 battle? Two can play at that game. And as with the Obama campaign, grassroots commitment and money is a very powerful thing.

by PhilFR on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:25:31 PM EST

Re: The news is even better! (none / 0)

527 nothing.  He'll have a BILLION dollar warchest to work with.  $1,000,000,000.  I have only given a token amount to push the donor count closer to 500,000 (at the time) because I didn't think he needed money.  I'm waiting to give what I can for the GE.


NJ Hussein Independent
by NJIndependent on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:45:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Have the Dem's picked another losing candidate? (none / 0)

Obama has been blessed with great news coverage so far and yet he still loses to McCain by 2 points per the LA Times/Bloomberg poll. Only 46% think he has enough experience to be president.

I would not have been comfortable if Obama had a 15 point lead given his massive advantage in the press so far. I know its early but this is a very bad sign.

All the talk about Obama appealing to Republicans and Independents is bull. If it were true he would be destroying McCain. And Obama has been treated like the medias darling in the mainstream press, on liberal blogs, on liberal radio and even by some Republicans. In addition, he's spent more than any candidate on advertising and he's still losing to McCain.

Have the Dem's picked another losing candidate for the general election? It sure looks that way to me. I've been telling people to wait a few months and Obama will be taken down by the right. But the man is ALREADY losing. He was a state senator 3 years ago; 1.5 of those years has been campaigning.

The Republicans run a war hero with decades of experience and we run Richie Cunningham, the community organizer.


by mmorang on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:38:48 PM EST

Re: Have the Dem's picked another losing candidate (none / 0)

"Richie Cunningham, the community organizer."

As an Obama supporter I should find that remark offensive, but it is kind of funny....

But I think your dead wrong about Obama being a losing candidate. Look, the main thing about the Obama campaign is the more people listen to him the more they like him. Hence, the big surges in almost every primary/caucus state once he hits the airwaves and gets the ground game going there.

The national G.E. polls are worthless at this point, if only because the general public - believe it or not - still are not paying that close of attention to the race. The ones that are, are the ones who have been voting in the primaries and caucusing; and those numbers have overwhelmingly made the case that Obama attracts many indies and even some xover Republicans.

The other thing is, even though he was their last choice, McCain, at least right out of the gate, gives them their best chance because of his "image" as a straight shootin' maverick. But the facade is slowly being lifted as evidenced by some of the unfavorable recent media coverage for McCain. And once the Dem nomination is finalized, the McCain mask will be destroyed by the Obama Machine.


Two riders were approaching......the wind begins to howl!
by John in Chicago on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:57:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Have the Dem's picked another losing candidate (none / 0)

The general election polls are worthless if you take them at face value. You have to assume Obama's numbers will only go down.

When was the last time the Dem's got someone with Obama's kind of record in terms of voting and his length of time on the national scene elected? With the exception of Obama's money advantage, I see no reason to believe that he will win the presidency. Not while we're in two wars. As stupid as I think it is to put McCain in there, that's probably what the American people will do.

Watch, all the stuff about Hillary being polorizing and all that crap, Obama will "become" polorizing after the Repub's open up there attack on him. His wife just became "really proud of America". Obama refuses to wear an American pin. While he scores points with me, he loses much of the rest of the country with that stance.

I think Obama will get routed in Nov. and we will have a Dem controlled congress and a Repub president. Do Dem voters have an aversion to political reality? I think they do. Otherwise, why would you keep running the type of candidate that loses general elections?


by mmorang on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:13:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Tired Clinton memes (none / 0)

These tired Clinton campaign memes are getting old. And we've seen this inevitability argument told months ago, when its was about Clinton supposedly walking away with the golden goose. And we see how well THAT worked out for her campaign. Same with the decades of experience. Why would that fail in the primary, and all of a sudden get new life in the general. No one knows, and certainly the supposed "liberals" pushing it aren't substantiating it.

There's certainly a glass half empty/half full to these polls and numbers. People will read into them what they want. But as indicated not by polls, but by actual VOTES and MONEY donated, Obama is on his way to make a strong and powerful campaign showing in the general election. Anyone who thinks a man who can garner over 1 million separate donors against a guy who can't fill a banquet room at a Holiday Inn is weak, has a few bolts loose.


by Sean Siberio on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:47:12 PM EST

Please explain to me how Obama can be losing (none / 0)

to McCain in head-to-head polls when he has been a media darling. He doesn't even reach 50% and McCain has his hands tied behind his back.

Do you not believe that media coverage has a lot to do with who people vote for? When was the last time the media gave a fair shake to a Dem once the general election starts.

The Dem's are asking for defeat by putting forth a first term senator who looks younger than his age when the country is engaged in two wars. Flavors of the month get stale.

I will be voting for Obama, but I will be in the minority in November.


by mmorang on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:18:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Please explain to me how Obama can be losing (none / 0)

to McCain in head-to-head polls when he has been a media darling. He doesn't even reach 50% and McCain has his hands tied behind his back.

Because he hasn't been the media darling, or because  polls this far out don't matter, or even with massive turnout, most people simply haven't put much thought into the election? Take your pick. You built up a starman and then use to justify why Obama is doing "poorly" in the polls, which don't indicate other than, on the score, Obama is doing better in most, and running neck and neck in others.

Do you not believe that media coverage has a lot to do with who people vote for? When was the last time the media gave a fair shake to a Dem once the general election starts.

It does, and in that case your "media darling" thing is good. Unless its not true, and then its not. But you seem to be confused as to which it is. Either way, primary funding is whats going to keep pumping the well for media until August. By any benchmark, certainly Obama is winning the money game, and will be able to go toe to toe with ad buys, keeping the plane fueled up, and the volunteers with donuts. McCain, however, is going to be hamstrung by issues with the FEC, by the fact that simply put, he is not attracting the big donors he should be, and that what little money there is for Republicans this cycle, is fractured in an attempt to try and keep some semblance of a presence in the House.


by Sean Siberio on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:45:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Please explain to me how Obama can be losing (none / 0)

I'm not confused at all. What I'm saying is that Obama HAS been the media darling up to this point. He will not remain the media darling. That will change as soon as Hillary is out of the race.

I'm not guessing here. It is a certainty that he will be hit day and night in print, on the tv, radio with negative comments and attacks. The Republicans will turn him into this polarizing person, much the same thing they did with the Clintons, and Dukakis before him, Mondale and Carter before that.

I would not be comfortable if Obama was up by 15 points right now given what I've seen repeatedly happen. But he's already losing to McCain.

People simply will not entrust the presidency to a man who was a state senator just 3 years ago. It will not happen. I will be in the minority when I vote for Obama in November. This was an easy one to call.


by mmorang on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:59:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Please explain to me how Obama can be losing (none / 0)

As far as the money advantage that Obama has, it will limit the landslide he will lose in but not prevent it.

McCain and the 527's will have more than enough dough to get the job done. They already have a huge get-out-the-vote operation. It does not exist in the Repub primary but it will be there for him in the general election.

Because we are at war Obama is doomed to lose. It is the sad truth. But the Republicans got us into this mess, didn't they? Yes, which is why its sad that they will win the presidency AGAIN!


by mmorang on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:05:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Please explain to me how Obama can be losing (none / 0)

Actually...oh hell, why even bother? Your not even citing anything factual. I guess the FEC numbers are just hokum. I guess the stories of malfeasance and incompetence on the fund raising of the various Republican committees simply aren't true. Whatever.


by Sean Siberio on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:28:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You're pinning your hopes on McCains (none / 0)

money problem. He was broke a couple of months ago and now he's the nominee of his party. Mit romney had all the money in the world and it got him nothing. McCain will have all the money he needs.

The Republicans do have a money disadvantage but lets not overstate it.  I expect the Dems to do well in the House and Senate races. I expect them to lose the presidency. They normally do because Dem's nominate the guy who can't win a general election.

I will vote for Obama, but I will be in the minority. War heros beat newcomers when the nation is at war. Politcal Science 101


by mmorang on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:11:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're pinning your hopes on McCains (none / 0)

money problem. He was broke a couple of months ago and now he's the nominee of his party. Mit romney had all the money in the world and it got him nothing. McCain will have all the money he needs.

I'm not "pinning all my hopes" on McCain having money problems. I'm stating a fact, which inconveniences your undying support for McCain as some sort of GE wunderkind. Simply saying your opinion over and over doesn't mean its factual nor does your snark about "Political 101" give you some sort of witty retort.

The reality is, that McCain, and Republicans in general, are running against some high odds this year in individual Senate and House races, as well as in the presidency. These are not insurmountable, and its not like Obama or any other Dem candidate can sail into a victory. But the odds are with them. You keep whining about how the Dem's chose the "Weakest" candidate, but what does it say when yours can't even win the damn primary? That they are somehow weak for the Democratic party, but not for the general? That somehow the highest turnout in years for the Democratic party is somehow, well, mistaken? Sure.  When the most people vote for someone, that portends in the general, they will have that same group of people behind them. But hey, thats evidently a crazy idea, since the candidate losing the elections seems to be the best one for an election.


by Sean Siberio on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:08:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're pinning your hopes on McCains (none / 0)

Winning in the Democratic primary is an accomplishment but it is not the same as the general election. Issues that no one cared about on the Dem side suddenly become important. I'm talking about stupid things like Obama not wearing an American pin. I'm guessing that you and I don't care a bit about that. But Independents and Republicans, as well as some Dem's do.

Everything does look good for Dem's but I wouldn't be over confident. The money will help Obama if he's the nominee as will the general mood of the country.

But Democrats do lose most of the presidential elections, right? That's a fact. Polls already are close and I'm of the opinion that Obama has has a "relatively" free ride. Yes he has faced attacks and criticisms but I believe they are quite mild compared to what I've seen just as a casual observer of presidential elections in the last 32 years.

I like the man, I'll vote for him, I just think he's a bad bet. I do not believe that the strogest general election candidate comes out of the primaries on the Democratic side. They do seem to on the Republican side, that's why they've won 7 out of the last 10.

Take away center-left southerner Bill Clinton and southerner Jimmy Carter (who only won because of Watergate) and you have some really bad numbers. Democrats have never won the presidency without winning any southern states.

Hillary is guaranteed to win one: Arkansas. She's also probably pick up Tenessee. I don't see Obama winning or even coming close to winning one southern state or any red states. Again, the Democratic primary is not the general election.

People don't turn to rookies in really tough times and as smart as Obama is he is still a rookie to most (46% of Americans think he has enough experience to be president per the latest LA Times/Bloomberg poll).

We'll all find out soon enough.


by mmorang on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 09:33:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

this is a 1 day story (none / 0)

he needs to opt out.


by highgrade on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:52:43 PM EST

Re: this is a 1 day story (none / 0)

Agreed.


by mefck on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:33:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.