On the call, Stan Greenberg, who did polling for Bill Clinton in 1992 and now partners with James Carville to run the Dem polling firm Democracy Corps, gave a presentation to the donors that painted a somewhat bleak picture of the struggles Obama is having with aging white women in battleground states.(Emphasis added.) TPM can't bring itself to use the acronym PUMA. After all, the progs still insist that only a handful of people belong to that movement. So now the Obama team must scramble for donors to private groups (in spite of his previous words). Those groups will create ads designed to appeal to women. Obama's clue-free clique still does not realize the depth of the wounds inflicted on the psyches of Hillary voters during the primaries. If McCain is smart, he'll put together counter-ads reminding everyone of the months of non-stop sexist insult.
Obama stupidly refused public campaign financing. Now his funds are drying up -- and he's going to ask his remaining donors to give still more to the 527s. Those donors (whose interest were probably hurt by the market tailspin) must be having second thoughts about tossing good money at an almost-sure loser.
The strapped-for-cash down-ticket candidates are the ones I feel sorry for, because Mr. No-Public-Financing tapped out their funders. Al Franken is still behind in Minnesota. If he loses, and if Lieberman caucuses with the Republicans, the Dems may forfeit the Senate.
THE BRIDGE! Obama's latest laff line wins the audacity award:
"if you think those lobbyists are working day and night for John McCain just to put themselves out of business, well then I've got a bridge to sell you up in Alaska."In a sense, this is true. Obama did have a bridge to sell. That is, he voted for the earmarked funds for that bridge, and he voted against an amendment specifically intended to transfer those monies to Katrina relief. And Obama has taken tons of money from lobbyists, despite his claims to the contrary.
8 comments:
I just don't understand my fellow progressives. The man is NOT A DEMOCRAT.
I took five days off from blogging and political stuff to work the Reno Air Races. I thought it would help clear my head. In a way it did, but to come back and find out that not only is Obama going to go down in flames (good!), but he's going to take the Senate and the House with him is depressing beyond words.
Maybe the next candidate that decides on a scorched earth policy in the primary will think twice. What a fucking tool. (Joseph, I can swear here, can't I?)
Excellent point about the wounds suffered by the sexism. There is growing narrative in the media that an Obama loss would be b/c of racism, but where was the outrage regarding the sexism Hillary suffered?
It seems your dyspeptic view of Obama, however well predicated, has led you to make claims in considerable tension with what I take to be fairly well known facts.
You say:
Obama stupidly refused public campaign financing. Now his funds are drying up -- and he's going to ask his remaining donors to give still more to the 527s
Hmmm. I don't understand this claim, given Obama's new all-time record fund-raising in the last month of reporting (around $60 million in one month, about 80% in one month of what he'd have received in total had he taken public funding). The report on that month also includes newly minted campaign contributors numbering 500,000. I don't see this as his funding drying up, or having fewer remaining contributors.
Then you say:
The strapped-for-cash down-ticket candidates are the ones I feel sorry for, because Mr. No-Public-Financing tapped out their funders
Really? I think the most anyone can donate to the Obama campaign is $5,000. This would not tap out wealthy individuals. For the smaller donors, $100 and lower, it's hard to see how that smallish sum would prevent even less wealthy donors from ponying up a similar amount to a local down-ticket Dem candidate. Is there some evidence for your claim?
XIslander
I let the above pro-Obama comment go through because it's a) at least signed, and b) illustrates how far out of touch the Obama Zombies are at this point. Also, c) I am very suspicious of Obama's fundraising numbers (which still seem way too high to me). One of my early predictions about this nightmare was that the death knell for his campaign would come from a campaign finance scandal.
While the "aging white woman" description might apply to me (I'm not sure of the age group that is referred to), my husband and college student son definitely do not fit into that group. Both of them swear, "Nobama, no how". Perhaps the statistic regarding AWW is only true in battleground states (we live in Illinois), but I'm afraid that if Obama loses, older white women will get bashed again by the Obots and the media while Obama remains silent.
I looked at the stats at Hominid Views and Illinois is now running about 58%-42% for Obama. That's pretty close to the D vs. R breakdown for the Illinois vote in recent presidential elections (it has run about 55%-44%-1% third party). It certainly is a far cry from the 70%-30% of Obama's Senate race (but McCain isn't Alan Keyes).
old dem
nibbles:
I am not an Obama acolyte. I voted Edwards, and preferred Hillary to The One. I take many of the criticisms of BHO to be accurate. (As I said, the dyspeptic view of him is well predicated, meaning justified.)
But, bad though he may be, not every bad thing that could be said about him is true, or bears up under scrutiny.
I asked about how the reported fundraising for BHO squares up with the claims of this post, s'all. That hardly shows how out of touch I am. It shows I have read the recent news about his fundraising, and find it incompatible with the claims I flagged above. (And they are mutually incompatible.)
Asking for any evidence for the claims, politely, yielded your insulting characterization of my alleged idiocy. Oh, and a vague 'suspicion' that these numbers cannot be true. Do you have anything more than a gut feeling, or is that it?
XIslander
"Cash-Poor Obama says no to Reid" -- here:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13485.html
Post a Comment