The real poll to watch

j-mac

j-mac

Verified User
In this day we have Obama sycophants in the MSM touting one poll or another showing the race being tied, or Obama with a slight edge. Never of course mentioning the polling bias included in nearly every poll, weighted with 2 - 1 demo/progressive v. conservatives.

A wise person says if you want to get the truth of the matter, follow the money.

In the battle for political cash, President Obama is finding himself in an unaccustomed place during the final months of the 2012 campaign: he is losing.

Mitt Romney and the Republican National Committee easily outraised the formidable Obama money machine for the second month in a row. A nonstop schedule of high-dollar events around the country brought in $106 million during June to Mr. Obama’s $71 million, giving him and his party four times the cash on hand that it had just three months ago.

Mr. Obama’s fund-raising deficit in part reflects how steeply the terrain has shifted since 2008, when many Republican donors embraced the candidate and his campaign raised millions of dollars from Wall Street and other traditionally right-leaning industries. Now those donors are swinging hard back to the Republican Party — and to Mr. Romney, whose promise to curtail regulation and cut taxes has helped draw a torrent of five-figure checks.

In a worrisome development for the Obama campaign, Mr. Romney, who until now has been heavily dependent on donors giving the maximum federal contribution, also showed success in June drawing small donors, a traditional strength of the Obama campaign. Reflecting the intensifying general election matchup with Mr. Obama and conservative anger over the recent Supreme Court decision upholding the president’s signature health care law, Mr. Romney raised about a third of his total in checks of under $250, officials said on Monday. Mr. Romney and the R.N.C. now have about $160 million in cash.

“This month’s fund-raising is a statement from voters that they want a change of direction in Washington,” Spencer Zwick, Mr. Romney’s finance chief, said in a statement.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/10/us/romney-again-outdoes-obama-in-fund-raising.html?_r=1&hp
Click to expand...

Good grief, you can almost see the "Gray Lady" cryin' can't you?
 
Today, 07:53 AM
j-mac
  • profile.png
    View Profile
  • forum.png
    View Forum Posts
  • message.png
    Private Message
  • blog.png
    View Blog Entries
  • add.png
    Add as Contact
Verified User

[h=2]This message is hidden because j-mac is on your ignore list. [/h]View Post
 
"Mr. Obama’s fund-raising deficit in part reflects how steeply the terrain has shifted since 2008, when many Republican donors embraced the candidate and his campaign raised millions of dollars from Wall Street and other traditionally right-leaning industries. Now those donors are swinging hard back to the Republican Party — and to Mr. Romney, whose promise to curtail regulation and cut taxes has helped draw a torrent of five-figure checks."

“This month’s fund-raising is a statement from voters that they want a change of direction in Washington,” Spencer Zwick, Mr. Romney’s finance chief, said in a statement."

Wall street donors are not representative of "voters". Nor did they support Obama and have had a sudden change of heart. They knew that after the debacle of the bush jr years there was no chance a Republican nominee, any Republican nominee, was going to win. So they did what smart rich people do - they put their money into the best investment. They knew the Democrat was going to win and they hoped for influence with him/her. (I would argue that they got it).

But they were never going to be new Democrats. It was an investment decision, a wise one. This year, they believe that Obama is beatable. So they are putting their money where they really want it. Home. Into the arms of the radically corporatist Republican party. This is not to state the Democratic party is not corporatist, or cannot be influenced by big money; it is and it can. But the Democrats have that problem -their base. And sometimes they have to do something marginally pro-labor, or say something slightly critical of the Nancy boy crybabies on Wall St, who all fall into a dead faint upon hearing that they are not the most popular little boys in the whole world. Not so with the Republican base who are eager, slavishly so, to kiss the ass of any rich prick who comes along hoping for a pat on the head and an "attaboy". So Republican politicians have to make no such slight concessions. This pleases the thin-skinned mama's boys on Wall street.

All of this is completely understandable (well, not so much the cry baby part), and a no-brainer. What it is not is representative of the "voters". Sorry.
 
Darla said:
"Mr. Obama’s fund-raising deficit in part reflects how steeply the terrain has shifted since 2008, when many Republican donors embraced the candidate and his campaign raised millions of dollars from Wall Street and other traditionally right-leaning industries. Now those donors are swinging hard back to the Republican Party — and to Mr. Romney, whose promise to curtail regulation and cut taxes has helped draw a torrent of five-figure checks."

“This month’s fund-raising is a statement from voters that they want a change of direction in Washington,” Spencer Zwick, Mr. Romney’s finance chief, said in a statement."

Wall street donors are not representative of "voters". Nor did they support Obama and have had a sudden change of heart. They knew that after the debacle of the bush jr years there was no chance a Republican nominee, any Republican nominee, was going to win. So they did what smart rich people do - they put their money into the best investment. They knew the Democrat was going to win and they hoped for influence with him/her. (I would argue that they got it).

But they were never going to be new Democrats. It was an investment decision, a wise one. This year, they believe that Obama is beatable. So they are putting their money where they really want it. Home. Into the arms of the radically corporatist Republican party. This is not to state the Democratic party is not corporatist, or cannot be influenced by big money; it is and it can. But the Democrats have that problem -their base. And sometimes they have to do something marginally pro-labor, or say something slightly critical of the Nancy boy crybabies on Wall St, who all fall into a dead faint upon hearing that they are not the most popular little boys in the whole world. Not so with the Republican base who are eager, slavishly so, to kiss the ass of any rich prick who comes along hoping for a pat on the head and an "attaboy". So Republican politicians have to make no such slight concessions. This pleases the thin-skinned mama's boys on Wall street.

All of this is completely understandable (well, not so much the cry baby part), and a no-brainer. What it is not is representative of the "voters". Sorry.
Click to expand...


Well Darla, I will agree on one small point, and that is that in '08 the Republican candidates were horrible! And, that Wall St. wealth tends to flow to both sides of the isle depending on what the tea leaves predict as the eventual winner of the contest.

That being said, these donors are not stupid with their money, and are usually prescient with their donations flowing to whom they believe will win...That has to scare the hell out of Obamaphiles like you. :whoa:
 
j-mac said:
Well Darla, I will agree on one small point, and that is that in '08 the Republican candidates were horrible! And, that Wall St. wealth tends to flow to both sides of the isle depending on what the tea leaves predict as the eventual winner of the contest.

That being said, these donors are not stupid with their money, and are usually prescient with their donations flowing to whom they believe will win...That has to scare the hell out of Obamaphiles like you. :whoa:
Click to expand...

Nope. It makes me feel better. When Obama wins this time maybe, just maybe, he won't be so indebted to these people who have destroyed this country. That would be cool with me. Also if wall street players had "prescient" powers, one would think they might have foreseen the world financial collapse they caused!

THey are attempting to influence, with huge amounts of money, an election that they believe is tight enough that they can have an impact. Unlike in 08 when no amount of money could have changed the outcome. Face it, Miss Cleo they ain't.
 
Dixie said:
LMFAOooo.... Yeah that Obama, a REAL man who can't be bought by special interests!

That's a good one, Darla!
Click to expand...

No he can be, he was, but since they are all donating to Mitt this time around, maybe he won't owe them anything. That would be good for the country.
 
Darla said:
No he can be, he was, but since they are all donating to Mitt this time around, maybe he won't owe them anything. That would be good for the country.
Click to expand...

Well Romney is a multi-gazillionaire who has all the money he needs... therefore, he won't be as inclined to steal MINE!
 
Dixie said:
Well Romney is a multi-gazillionaire who has all the money he needs... therefore, he won't be as inclined to steal MINE!
Click to expand...

Oh, so now someone can have all the money they need? Why are you contradicting your statements from the minimum wage thread? You know, where you said I could give you my extra money and you would build a room to keep it in?

Damn, I was just about to exclaim how nice it is to open a thread and not see duplicity and ignorance (since I put j-mac on ignore) and end up reading your crap instead.
 
Dixie said:
LMFAO @ that one!

REALLY? Is that what you've been doing incessantly for the past week in various threads with me? Ignoring?

LOL
Click to expand...

Does the phrase "for the most part" have any meaning to you?

By the way, since you are so entirely unaware, Darla wasn't flirting with you, moron. She was making fun of you.
 
j-mac said:
In this day we have Obama sycophants in the MSM touting one poll or another showing the race being tied, or Obama with a slight edge. Never of course mentioning the polling bias included in nearly every poll, weighted with 2 - 1 demo/progressive v. conservatives.

A wise person says if you want to get the truth of the matter, follow the money.



Good grief, you can almost see the "Gray Lady" cryin' can't you?
Click to expand...
You're not the sharpest pencil in the box, are you? Ever hear of this thing called "The electoral college"?

Look, we get it. we know you wingnuts want your Messiah Bush back so we can declare more illegal and immoral wars and go kill more brown people but the fact is the majority of the American people decided they wanted a Chief Executive who is competent. So deal with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top