The final money numbers are out, and the Times has an interactive page where you can graph the numbers and see where the contributions come from. A few observations:
* Obama has raised more ($99 million) than the entire Republican field combined.
* At the same time in the 2008 cycle, Romney had raised $11 million more than he has now.
* Ron Paul is third, having raised a total of $12 million. He spends it, too, unlike his fellow Texan Rick Perry.
* At this point in the 2008 cycle, Guiliani, Romney and McCain, combined, had raised about $100 million. This time around, Cain, Romney and Perry have raised less than half of that number.
From the standpoint of money, there’s definitely an enthusiasm gap, and it’s in the Republican party. Donors just aren’t giving like they were last time around.
jeffreyw
I just don’t think the Republican donors, as a class, have any real hope they can win it.
Raven (formerly stuckinred)
@jeffreyw:
We got no class
and we got no principles!
EconWatcher
@jeffreyw:
Most people on this blog seem to think we have a lock on it, so you’re in good company. I hope you’re right. I just don’t see it, because I think the economy is likely to be even worse by November 2012.
But I guess W in 2004 is a precedent for your thinking. Everything he touched had turned to crap, but he was able to pull it off, with the advantages of incumbency, because the Dems did not come up with an attractive candidate.
Samara Morgan
meh.
once the candidate is fixed, Citizens United will kick in.
Balloon Juice could actually make a difference here.
The only reason any “conservative” would vote for Romney is electabilty, right?
the base detests him. i have been reading Ace, Patterico and Hotair.
they hate him.
So what if Romney is unelectable?
Bruce Bartlett says he cant beat Obama.
I say he cant beat Obama because of anti-mormon sentiment in white voters.
The 65% hypothesis.
If that starts getting some traction Romneys poll numbers will drop like a rock.
Comrade Javamanphil
So I assume Mark Halperin has the Republicans winning this week then?
Ash Can
Butbutbut the Wall Street donors are abandoning Obama! He’s doomed! Oh God, won’t someone think of the narrative!
agrippa
The GOP field of candidates looks weak to me. That, and the money raised, tells me PBO has a very good chance to be re elected.
My concern is the Congress.
batgirl
The GOP doesn’t need donors giving directly to the candidates and party thanks to the Supreme Court and Citizens United.
Raven (formerly stuckinred)
@Samara Morgan: What about anti-moromon sentiment among black voters?
Cat Lady
@Samara Morgan:
Being from Massachusetts which ironically gave him the only elected office he ever had, I would argue that he’s not electable, but I think when people realize that he wears magic underwear – do they really want to be thinking about the president of the United States wearing his magic underwear? It’s not too hard imagining him doing some other secret incantation ceremonial stuff, also too.
boss bitch
@Samara Morgan:
No need for fancy analysis when it comes to Obama v. Romney. Just listen to one of their speeches at a rally or fundraiser. No contest.
beltane
The Republican base really does not like Mitt Romney. They might not have been in love with John McCain but they liked him a lot better than they like Romney. I don’t know how much of it is the Mormon thing or how much of it has to do with Mitt being a Ken-doll former governor of Massachusetts who tries to be all things to all people, but ends up being nothing to all people, but they really do not like him.
However, the appalling state of our media combined with the GOP’s voter suppression efforts could still give Romney a win in November 2012. These things could also give the win to a rotten tuna fish sandwich so this isn’t saying much.
Feudalism Now!
The money isn’t going to candidates anymore. Super pacs and anonymous shell corporations are where the dollars are going. The repugs do not care who runs, at least the moneyed interests, they are running against Obama. Citizens United is perfect for a scorched earth ‘dirty’ campaign. Rove is upping his goals for American Crossroads to $220 million but the real money is in Crossroads GPS with it’s anonymous donors to funnel money wherever. This will be an ugly campaign and I do not see a positive outcome for Democracy, let alone Democrats.
Samara Morgan
@Raven (formerly stuckinred): irrelevant.
the 65% hypothesis is dependent only only on white (NHC) voters.
Blacks arent going to vote for Romney anyways.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@EconWatcher: The data points for the “Economy sucks, the president doesn’t get reelected” are kind of small, and I doubt many of those have the “one party is trying to ruin the economy just to keep the president from being reelected” factor built in. A number of the people I talk to, like my parents, who aren’t otherwise on top of politics, know that the Republicans are obstructing any type of legislation that might help.
I saw a chart the other day stating that presidents who have high unemployment and high military casualties have a hard time getting reelected. It was kind of a weird chart combination.
zmulls
Megadittoes to the above posters regarding Citizens United et. al. It’s a mug’s game for Republicans to give to the party when they can just create unlimited slush funds elsewhere. There’s going to be a lot of money in this next election and I doubt the majority will be spent on the pro-Obama message.
Samara Morgan
@boss bitch: it is mathematically impossible IMHO.
But since the ONLY reason to vote Romney for conservatives is ELECTABILITY the base will drop him like a hot rock if the blogverse starts speculating.
WereBear
They could suck it up for McCain — war hero! Wild West! Backslapper of the Press! And he was a man who could pander with conviction.
But Romney is a screen absence, a drainer of enthusiasm, and has a lot of “liberal” action in his past to hang around his neck. And this is their best shot!
Not that they can’t cheat to a win. But it makes it more difficult.
Samara Morgan
@beltane: agreed.
what if BJ put up a front page post titled “Is Romney Electable?”
i kno, i kno, we’d be selling our liberal souls to even suggest it.
:)
amk
This is telling
PBO raised 52% from small donors (under $ 200) while mittens raised 62% from the moneybags ($2,500, the max)
Samara Morgan
@beltane: the appalling state of our media combined with the GOP’s voter suppression efforts could still give Romney a win in November 2012.
i do not agree. Romney needs 65% of the white vote if blacks and hispanics vote for Obama in the 2008 percentages.
I think he cant get it because of anti-mormon sentiment in WHITE VOTERS.
Feudalism Now!
The base will come out for Mitt. The dog whistles and red meat will thick and furious this cycle. It is not a vote for Mitt, it is a vote against welfare queens, islamofascists, communist agitators, darker skin pigmentation, strapping young bucks, taxes on job creators, and DFH.
Samara Morgan
@WereBear: the GOP base loathes Romney.
The GOP elites are trying to sell Romney to the base on electability.
But what if Romney cant win?
Samara Morgan
@Feudalism Now!:
not if hes not electable.
Thoughtful Black Co-Citizen
How’s Colbert’s SuperDuper PAC doing?
THE
@Samara Morgan:
Oh you’re on this thread now. I was asking you:
I pinched your link yesterday to the story about US leaving Iraq and used it on my private website.
Do you want h/t credit?
Comrade Javamanphil
@batgirl: The more I think about this issue, the more I wonder if the Supreme Court didn’t do the DNC a huge favor with the CU ruling. If the Superpacs really siphon off the big money from the candidates that represents more money going to crappy attack ads which everyone gets sick of seeing by early September and less funds going to GOTV efforts, which actually get the votes. If I had a limited pool of resources, I know which of those two I’d want to invest more funds in.
Samara Morgan
@THE: lol.
you predicted it too.
all anyone had to do was read the financial blogs.
maya
Wouldn’t it be nifty if an anonymous group of hackers were able to, say, hack into TV and cable networks whenever those expected Citizens United attack ads come on the screen and override them with a loud ear-piercing screech? Fingernails across a chalkboard x Fran Drescher @168dbs?
The Koch Bros would just shit in their vicuna Depends®.
THE
@Samara Morgan:
Yes but you spotted the link.
OK I’ll give you h/t under your former nic. MK
boss bitch
President Obama got all that money despite this:
From: How News Media and Blogs Have Eyed the Presidential Contenders During the First Phase of the 2012 Race http://pewresearch.org/pubs/2116/media-primary-news-coverage-blogs-republican-presidential-race-barack-obama-rick–perry-herman-cain
Tone in DC
@maya:
LULZ.
We may already have that effect, though not in the exact time frame of the ad itself… her name is Ann Coulter.
Feudalism Now!
Ok. The base won’t turn out for Mitt, they will turn out to vote out the Kenyan soshulist occupying the White house. It doesn’t matter who is on the GOP ticket, this campaign will be a ‘ vote for Amurika’ and, thus, all negative, all the time. There will be plenty of liberal issues touted that Obama has sold out on to depress turnout. Dirty tricks will abound, but there will fear aplenty to get the base riled. Plus, a veep pick that will make Palin look like a voice of measure and reason.
amk
@boss bitch: yeah, fuck the obama lovin’ librul media.
cleek
once they pick their candidate, the money will start flowing.
MarkJ
@boss bitch: Yes, with the corporate media (and even NPR, if there’s a difference these days) who needs super PACs? When they can rely on regular media folks to tell us how everything is bad for Obama, one wonders why they even need to spend lots of money on attack ads?
Samara Morgan
@Feudalism Now!: but what if Mitt cant win?
i think his only selling point is electabilty.
If Bruce Bartlett or I got a little traction Mitt would fall like a rock in the polling.
Wag
@Cat Lady:
Can we, as adults, just agree to stop using the whome “magic underwear” BS. When people use the whole “blackity blackity black” “oreo” not a real American BS regarding Obama, we are up in arms. Making fun of Morman’s choice of undergarmets is no different than making fun of Muslim women who choose to wear a headscarf.
With so many legitimate reasons to be opposed to Mitt, using the “magic underwear” is a liberal dog whistle that makes us smaller and more Rush-like.
It’s time to grow the f*** up.
Cargo
Wait, we’re thinking some percentage of the white population won’t vote for a mormon, but they will vote for a black guy? Keep whistling past that graveyard.
Romney will be the nominee, I remember just how much “the base” “hated” McCain in 2007. At core they are authoritarians and will back the alpha dog, even if grumbling for awhile at first.
And because low-info voters, “independents” and disappointed Obama-08ers will see Mitt as a moderate and not-crazytown, they’ll vote for him too.
The fundraising gap is irrelevant post-Citizens United. The vast bulk of the 2012 money will be in unregulated slush funds and SuperPACs. This is going to be a hairy ass campaign. And when the Republicans have entire TV networks devoted to their cause, why fund candidates directly?
Samara Morgan
Perry attacks.
@Wag: STFU about this shit.
The Otherside is perfectly willing to rape us, skin us and eat us.
If magic underwear is a detriment for voting MORMON lets use it.
This isnt debate class in high school.
soonergrunt
@Wag:
Quoted for truth.
Samara Morgan
@soonergrunt: meh.
the other side are Reavers.
they are going to rape us to death and patch their clothes with our skin…if they can.
quit yur PC whining.
its not the same.
Mormonism is ONLY POWERFUL IN AMERIKKKA.
Judas Escargot
@Samara Morgan:
Pretty much this. IMO the $$$ is waiting to see who wins the GOP Primary Reality Show, then will go all in regardless of who it is.
(I’ve agreed with you twice in one day. I may need to consult a professional.)
Bill H.
Well, hell, let’s save 50 states a lot of money running a bunch of useless elections and save all of us a bunch of irritating conversation on MSNBC. Since “Citizens United” we have predeclared that whoever has the most money wins, so let’s just declare Obama President for another four years and get on to something useful. Obviously with those cash numbers it is pointless to even talk about any other conclusion.
4tehlulz
It’s nice to see m_c channel her inner George Wallace.
Samara Morgan
@4tehlulz: WTF?
im NOT-A-RACIST unless christian and stupid are races now.
you wanna pretend that WE-ARE-ALL-THE-SAME like mixie.
‘”we” are not.
Cacti
@Feudalism Now!:
I keep hearing this, but I’m still not seeing the evidence for it.
Romney has the advantages of name recognition from a prior run, money, business connections, and the fact that it’s “his turn”.
And yet, he still can’t crack 30% support among Repub voters, and every other week there’s a new not-Mitt “front runner”. Particularly telling though, is that every time the new “front runner” has cratered, their lost support has gone to someone other than Mitt.
The base hasn’t warmed up to the guy and he’s been running for POTUS for 6 years.
Grumpy Code Monkey
Still too many clowns in the car. The money’s waiting until after the first round of the primaries to see who really has legs. This year has a particularly high “shit happens” potential; I would be only moderately surprised if the nominee isn’t Romney.
Samara Morgan
@Cacti:
zactly.
Romney is what the GOP elites and the oligarchs want. He is a free market fucktard like EDK.
Cue suzanne to call me an anti-fat/anti-mormon bigot.
Feudalism Now!
Perry is narcoleptic. Cain is outside the GOP comfortable melanin level. Bachman is Perry with a uterus minus the narcolepsy with a dash of extra loco. Huntsman has Obama and China cooties. Ron Paul has the stink of hippy peacenik on him. Newt is newt. Johnson? Is he still in? Mitt is it for now unless they can get Perry some 5 hour energy and teach him to debate.
The mormon issue is a primary issue not a general election issue. The GE is all about the horrors of the s ocia li5t usurper in the White House.
rikryah
POTUS will need every dollar.
Samara Morgan
@Feudalism Now!: It is a GENERAL ELECTION ISSUE.
Romney needs 65% of the white vote to beat Obama.
11% of the white vote wont vote for him.
Cat Lady
Say what you want about the underwear, when I first heard about such a thing it creeped me right out, and I don’t creep out easily. It’s just weirder than everything else people are used to including head scarfs, and there’s the Jeffs sex abuse stuff that just ties it all together in people’s minds as a strange little package, adding to the cult perception. It’s an extra hill for him to climb with the base who are mostly already highly suspect.
artem1s
don’t know, the real money for the GOP is going to come after the primary. most of the big donors aren’t going to waste their bucks on flavor of the day candidates. and Citizen United, I will say it again, is going to hurt the GOP way more than the DNC. the crazies will just give their bucks to issue PACs now through their business accounts. it’s what they have wanted to do for a long time. people who want to kill government don’t want to give money to candidates. they want to give it to organizations dedicated to eliminating the need for candidates.
cleek
@artem1s:
instead of paying salaries.
a clever campaigner could make something of that…
boss bitch
@Cargo:
Wrong.
jonas
.
And why the hell should they? The field is a clown-car of pure fail. I’m sure the eventual nominee — most likely Romney — will raise some serious moolah to contend with Obama, but right now, who the hell in their right mind can listen to Michelle Bachmann or Newt Gingrich and say “oh yeah, that’s presidential material”? They’re certifiably insane.
HoponPop
@Wag:
You can’t cultivate a bigoted base for years and years and years only to wave it away on a whim. All the blackity black stuff and muslim stuff against Obama was there to unite their base under this party. Now they actually want to put up a candidate who is different from the base they built.
You reap what you sow and harvest time has come.
THE
@Samara Morgan:
OT
You know how when the US killed al-Alwaki, you said the co-ords were handed over?
Well, did you know that the US campaign against AQAP is continuing in Yemen and last Fri. Alwaki’s son was taken down also?
Xenos
@zmulls:
But how will this work out? Will this corporate money go into base-friendly culture war, or trying to package Romney for the independents? I can see a situation where the corporate money is three times what the Romney campaign has to spend, and steps all over his message.
Between the campaigns and the various PACs, will there even be enough TV commercial time for all the money to be spent in? Is the money going to push all the non-political ads off the air, and a fair bit of the programming? Independents are going to HATE this election…
HoponPop
@Xenos:
Expect the PAC ads to be almost entirely negative.
If they go positive they risk getting in the way of how Romney is trying to portray himself but going negative actually benefits Romney since his name isn’t on the slime. Attack ads are also the ads people remember so if they succeed they can really start rolling in the money next time.
Also expect them not to actually be coordinated as the law says but for nearly every PAC on all sides to “know” the type of ads to put up. By this I mean that the campaign will be able to set the standard with their ads and allow the opinions of people in the campaign to be leaked both intentionally and unintentionally to others.
Glen Tomkins
Reportable money was never the whole money game, and since Citizens United, it is even less important. Less R money in the reportable category is exactly what youi would expect even if they were doing better than we are, and not at all reassuring that our side is outraising their side. Insofar as your money comes from malefactors of great wealth, both you and they want it to be unaccountable, that’s a positive benefit, quite aside from the fact that this “independent” expenditure money has no restrictions on size of contribution.
Self-congratulation never accomplishes anything good, but at least self-congratulation over actual victories is mostly harmless. But that our side should be congratulating itself over losing is really a bad thing. It’s made even worse by the fact that in claiming the campaign cash-raising championship, we are crowing about our candidates being the best at raking in effective bribes. Not true at all, but really, really sad that we seemingly have nothing to self-congratulate over except a prowess at something that isn’t even admirable, fund-raising, and that isn’t even really our advantage. We’re an incompetent crook boasting about being a skilled crook.
artem1s
this.exactly.
in the past they had Rove channeling this money to pointed attacks that were tightly controlled to hit a specific weakness. the right is definitely losing control of the fringe and their once solid loyalty to party line voting.
priscianusjr
This is obviously Obama’s Katrina Moment. Good news … for John McCain.
priscianusjr
@Raven (formerly stuckinred):
Feudalism Now!
In the GE, the money will be spent to spread Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt about Obama’s ability to govern and his lack of progress on the economy. This frees The GOP nominee to focus on their message. The nominee does not matter. The ads will be ‘It’s the economy, stupid’ and the dark destructive future of another 4 years of Obama. ACA is death panels and communism. TARP iis kickbacks for campaign funds. The nominee is someone not involved in those decisions or a vocal secessionist. The base will show just to vote out Obama. The veep pick will assuage the Mormonism is a cult purists, Palin is the new model of GOP vp candidates.
Catsy
@Samara Morgan: This is a telling juxtaposition that says a lot about what’s important to m_c. Wag makes an important point about remembering what we’re supposed to stand for:
But it does not seem to enter the mind of Samara–AKA matoko_chan, AKA our resident nym-of-the-month nutbag–that someone might be making a point about what’s right. Her response to this focuses not on the morality of mocking Romney’s religion, but on its effectiveness.
You know what? Thanks for the advice, but the Republicans are doing just fine at toxifying our politics–they don’t need help from us.
And I say this as someone with near-absolute contempt for religion and its malignant effects on society.
But if you don’t have the decency to be swayed by a moral argument, consider this: by attacking Romney in this way, you are helping validate and empower the de facto requirement that exists for American presidents to be some flavor of Christian (Yes, I know: Kennedy–outlier, and even then it was a major campaign issue for him to overcome).
Glen Tomkins
@Xenos: For one thing, don’t expect the fact that the Citizens United money has to be spent on an “independent” basis to make its use at all different from reportable, directly contributed money. Even if the independence were actually enforced (and the FEC is the “controlling legal auhtority here, so, no enforcement), all that would mean is that the campaign staff couldn’t direct the expenditures. But the real, strategic decisions in a campaign aren’t made by staff. They’re just the hired help. The real decisions are made by the candidate, his kitchen cabinet and/or the string-pullers the candidate effectively works for. All those folks are perfectly free to direct “independent” expenditures. These informal advisors and string-pullers are even perfectly free to run a shadow staff to handle the details and grunt work of coordinating the non-accountable side of a campaign. They just call it Citizens for Good Government or something, and don’t admit to existing solely to coordinate the non-accountable side of the campaign, and they’re as legal as church on Sunday.
You may have a stronger point about media saturation. In 2008, at least here in VA, voters were getting sick even of the form of contact they usually find most friendly and least obnoxious, door-knocking. But we reached that arguable over-saturation even inside the reportable money limits. Figuring out ways to spend the money that will do more good than harm may be difficult, but it’s going to be difficult even within the limits. And I wouldn’t count out the ability of smart, motivated, highly paid marketeers to figure out new ways around people’s defenses. Media has for decades been staying one step ahead of people as they inure themselves to yesterday’s techniques.
Maybe there is some upper limit past which more money just doesn’t help a campaign anymore. But we certainly haven’t found that limit yet, and until we do, more and more will be spent every cycle.
Samara Morgan
@Catsy:
i DO NOT GIVE A SHIT about what “what we are supposed to stand for”.
Romney is unelectable based on WHITE VOTER anti-mormon sentiment.
HIS OWN FUCKING BASE.
The ONLY reason any conservitard would vote for Romney is electability.
His own base loathes him.
these people are reavers. they are going to skin us, patch their clothes with the skin of the poor, and eat us and catsy is FUCKIN’ WORRIED about “moral argument?”
Samara Morgan
@Catsy:
and mormons ARE xians. just not your flavor of xian apparently.
:)
PaulW
I have a question: what about donations to the 527s and PACs? Rather than donate directly to a candidate or party, the PACs are getting all the money… and because of the Citizen United decision, that money is harder to track or be held accountable when the mudslinging starts. Could this be what’s happening with the GOP fund-raising?
Samara Morgan
@Catsy:
religion is good for homo sapiens sapiens. it extends kinship membership to a wider memetic tribe.
it is PROSELYTIZING that is evuul.
:)
Glen Tomkins
@PaulW: Exactly.
Which is why I think that self-congratulation over our side’s great victory in the funding wars is terribly misplaced.
Niques
@PaulW: And who’s to say that money is going for a campaign at all? Doesn’t the lack of transparency make the PAC money easier to steal? I’d guess a good share of it will be going into a few choice pockets.
Liars gotta lie. Thieves gotta steal.
boss bitch
Unemployed Are Pinching Pennies to Donate to Obama
http://loop21.com/politics/unemployed-are-pinching-pennies-donate-obama
Kathy in St. Louis
A question that I’d like anyone who knows anything about to answer. For the candidates who don’t make the big show, who drop out of a senatorial, congressional or presidential race, what happens to the money that they still have on hand? I’ve wondered for years what the incentive is for, say, a Rick Santorum to stay in the race when it is so obvious that a worm like him will never win. Is it just ego, or do they get to cook the books and keep some of the cash? I’ve never been able to get a real answer to this question.
Samara Morgan
@Glen Tomkins: yup.
Citizens United will start pouring money on the eventual candidate.
Is mixie at all bright?
He doesn’t seem to get the signal.
Paul in KY
@Samara Morgan: When I grew up a methodist, we had a vacation bible school where we ‘studied’ various other religions/denominations & our teachers were teaching that Mormonism was not ‘true’ Christianity.
I think the ‘studying’ was sort of a push-poll to hilite some of the weirdness of these other sects for us impressionable youth.
Of course, to a hip, young muslima, it probably is close enough to count as ‘Christian’ ;-)
ruemara
@boss bitch:
He’s the only one that made any sacrifice for us. Period.
Judas Escargot
@boss bitch:
[wingnut] Obviously, we need to take away their unemployment benefits. How poor can they be if they can afford to donate to Obama?[/wingnut].
Peter
@Samara Morgan: If you actually watched Firefly/Serenity and walked away with the message that the appropriate response to Reaversis to become one yourself, I’d like to know what the fuck medications you were on at the time.
Samara Morgan
@Peter: lol.
im not a reaver….im river tam.
Samara Morgan
@Paul in KY: christians profess a belief in the Christ.
That is all that is required to be a christian.
Like saying the shahada (and meaning it) is all that is required for muslims, mufassir khalid’s opinon nonwithstanding.
CarolDuhart
A flaw in all of the “Citizens United will pay for the Republican Nominee” is that the money comes too late to build an infrastructure that works. You need to cover the turf, get volunteers and all of the rest. And since it’s not coordinated, there’s no way to make strategic decisions regarding an ad’s effectiveness. So money could be spent convincing the already convinced, on people who will never vote for you regardless of what you say, on over-saturating the airwaves to the point of sheer parody and boredom.
Another thing: no amount of money makes Romney or Perry likeable or trustable enough to win. Whenever the rare event occurs that an incumbent President loses to a challenger, the challenger is likeable and incurs a sense of hope and trust. Anybody in the Republican field like that?
Read David Plouffe’s account in the Audacity to Win when he recounts how he and Axelrod handled the DNC’s advertising during Kerry 2004 and how difficult it was to do without guidance from the candidate.
Judas Escargot
@CarolDuhart:
Big money was spent in 2010 to get control of the legislatures and governorships. Once won, the victors quickly set themselves to implement voter supression and voter ‘caging’ laws ASAP.
If your intent from the outset is to steal an election, you don’t have much need for infrastructure.
Scott Supak
Also too, note that 95% of Obama’s donations were $250 or less, and that Goldman Sachs and Wall Street in General have abandoned him for Romney. Not only will Obama raise a billion, but he’ll be able to point to the number of small donations, while the Rethugs will be stuck with the fact that they are backed by the Plutocrats.
Wag
boy, looks like I lit a fire under Samara this morning.
Glen Tomkins
@CarolDuhart: Infrastructure? I’m a member of the local D committee. I canvass a lot. I’m a big believer in the ground game, and that that ground game has an edge if it’s conducted by seasoned locals. But even I, with my extreme views on the subject, have to admit that all that only gets you a couple of percentage points at most, even if the other side is doing none of it, and concedes the ground entirely to you. And the homegrown part of that is only a fraction of that few percentage points, paid canvassers will get you most of what the ground game can deliver.
A billion here, a billion there, and you could have all the ground game you want, practically overnight, and clearly well within the time between when the nominee is set and election day. The idea that the party has some huge infrastructure in place is sadly untrue. 2008 was a huge year for the ground game in my state, but is was 99% conjured up out of nothing by the campaign between the day the nominee was set and election day. Unaccountable money could have done just as much, just as well.
As for coordination, even if anyone was enforcing the rules against it, I can’t see how you get in trouble if you just keep the real campaign manager off the payroll and organization chart of the official campaign. The real leadership comes from this kitchen cabinet guy or gal, who has all sorts of organization of his or her own, it’s just all in Citizens for Good Government, or whatever label they slap on the astroturf Citizens United-funded organization that will actually run the campaign. The formal campaign is entirely for show. It doesn’t have any of the real money. It does trivial stuff, like handling the media, for example, and otherwise handling the travelling show and the rest of the candidates’ entourage. No need for the real campaign to do much coordination with the dog-and-pony show, even if anyone were enforcing non-coordination, which they won’t be. But they’ll want the real show to be run with unaccountable money anyway, even if the rules aren’t being enforced.
How do you keep the candidate from talking to the real campaign? Political speech is highly protected. Of course the candidate can talk to the head of Citizens for Good Government, and nothing is off limits, including how the forces of good government are going to win the next election. Not that the real campaign has to take direction from the candidate, if that candidate is some figurehead like Reagan, or Dubya, or Perry, whose direction no successful effort at anything could afford to take.
Peter
@Samara Morgan: Well, you’re certainly incoherent enough for the role.
chaucer
mistermix, if you think republicans aren’t in it to win it, stay tuned. the difference this election cycle, thanks to citizens united, is the money will be untraceable and used in ads, push polling, and who knows what dirty tricks we’ll be finding out about next year. they are just funneling money to different places and probably a hell of a lot more of it than was spent on the last election cycle.
Paul in KY
@Samara Morgan: Some christian ministers would disagree with you there. From the perspective of another religion, a belief in Christ’s divinity is the main thing, I guess.
Paul in KY
@Wag: You wouldn’t be the first.
Catsy
@Samara Morgan: So I was sharing this thread with my other half, who has a love/hate relationship with reading the inane ramblings of Samara/matoko/Ghanima and watching people tear those ramblings apart. And as I was pasting the whole exchange that jumped from magic underwear to Reavers to delusions of grandeur, I really stopped to piece it together and was just awestruck at its logical incoherence, at the nonsensical stream of consciousness that borders on glossolalia.
Consider this.
1. Commenter A makes a “magic underwear” crack at Romney’s expense.
2. Commenter B scolds A for this, comparing it with making fun of a Muslim woman’s headscarf.
3. Samara responds to two different commenters describing conservatives metaphorically (I hope) as Reavers–the insane, cannibalistic, self-mutilating pirates from the Firefly/Serenity universe. The Reavers increase their numbers by traumatizing people so horribly that they go insane and become Reavers themselves. Her point is that the enemy is evil and wants to destroy us, so we are justified in emulating them in order to protect ourselves.
4. Commenter C points out how nuts it is for someone to watch Firefly/Serenity and come away with the lesson that the correct response to Reavers is to become them.
5. Samara responds by–please, don’t take a drink of anything before reading this–saying that she’s not a Reaver, she’s River Tam: an unhinged, brain-damaged child prodigy abducted and indoctrinated to be a lethal assassin, who at one point heroically slaughtered a whole bunch of Reavers. And in support of this she quoted a River line from early in the movie about how people don’t like to be meddled with.
Got all that straight? Conservatives are Reavers, which means that in order to fight them we need to set aside considerations of right and wrong and be just like them–everyone except for Samara, who likens herself to an insane child assassin in order to reject the notion that by emulating the evils of our enemies to defeat them we will become them in the process. And by the way, people don’t like to be meddled with.
Remember this the next time you find yourself at risk of taking her seriously on any subject or expecting coherent adult conversation.