Google+

Tags: DNC

Obama Pledges to Dutch, ‘We Will Not Rest,’ Heads to Fundraisers



Text  



Of course:

Obama’s schedule for the rest of the day:

President Obama’s fundraising swing through the Seattle area Tuesday will include a high-priced dinner event benefiting a Democratic super PAC. The event is at the Hunts Point home of former Costco CEO Jim Sinegal and his wife, Jan, according to a copy of the invitation obtained by The Seattle Times. The price tag for the event is $25,000 per person, with proceeds going to the Senate Majority PAC, a Democratic group that accepts unlimited donations . . . 

The event at Sinegal’s home is in addition to an earlier scheduled fundraiser at the Seattle waterfront home of Bruce and Ann Blume, who were fundraising “bundlers” for Obama’s 2012 campaign. The afternoon event will benefit the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

The man has a busy schedule to keep.

Tags: Barack Obama , DNC , Russia , Dutch

What Issue Is Missing from the DNC, DCCC, and DSCC Home Pages?



Text  



Now that the Obama administration assures us HealthCare.gov is working smoothly, Democrats have no reason to run away from Obamacare, right? After all, House minority leader Nancy Pelosi and DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz both assured us Democrats will be “standing tall” and will be running on the successful, popular issue of Obamacare in 2014.

Strangely, it appears the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee didn’t get the memo. There’s no mention of Obamacare on their homepage this morning.

The Democratic National Committee did put up a “how to talk to your Republican uncle who doesn’t like Obamacare” post on Wednesday. But immigration is the top issue on the DNC web site now.

Surely the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee isn’t afraid to discuss Obamacare, right? All of those endangered red-state Democratic senators aren’t afraid to tout their votes, and to tell people why it’s such a good idea, right?

Hmm. While there are generic “stand with Obama” messages, the top two issues featured are “voting rights” and employment non-discrimination.

Why, it’s almost as if all the Democratic campaign committees are still convinced Obamacare is a deeply unpopular, toxic issue, and they don’t think their candidates should run on it. But that would mean Pelosi and Wasserman Schultz are lying, and we know that can’t be the case!

UPDATE: The new spin from the DCCC is that when they write “GOP Hypocrisy,” they really mean Obamacare. Of course, at the link, neither “Obamacare” nor “the Affordable Care Act” is mentioned. They merely assert Republicans are “so intent upon taking away your health care they shut down the government over it.”

Of course, conflating “your health care” and Obamacare/ACA is precisely the point. One is something you’ve always had; the other is a tangled monstrosity of requirements, fees, taxes, regulations, rules, higher premiums, higher deductibles, and a dysfunctional website recently imposed upon the nation by a party-line vote.

If the DCCC wanted to write something like “We proudly stand by the Affordable Care Act,” you figure they would and could do that.

Tags: Obamacare , DNC , DCCC , DSCC

The DNC’s Weird, Futile Gesture Against Boehner in Ohio



Text  



The DNC announced yesterday it will be spending some money in Speaker Boehner’s district on robocalls and web ads, tying him and the GOP leadership to the government shutdown.

The NRCC sends along word they will be launching an onlineYouTube ad campaign in Nevada’s third district (which includes Las Vegas and Searchlight, Harry Reid’s home town) promoting a new web video, which accuses Reid of playing games over the government shutdown.

The NRCC is also putting online money behind similar videos (again, TouTube advertising) that hit Democratic representatives Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ-01), Elizabeth Esty (CT-05), Bill Enyart (IL-12), Carol Shea-Porter (NH-01), Annie Kuster (NH-02), Tim Walz (MN-01), and Rick Nolan (MN-08). These are all top targets for the NRCC in 2014 who voted against the House bills to fund WIC, the NIH, and veterans’ services.

Keep in mind, the DNC owes its creditors $18.1 million, and is past due on some bills. And yet they’re spending money on robocalls . . . against probably the best-funded House Republican incumbent, in Ohio’s eighth district, which scores an R+14 in the Cook Partisan Voting Index. Boehner won 99 percent of the vote in 2012, as the Democrats did not field a candidate. In 2010, Boehner won with 66 percent of the vote.

Tags: John Boehner , DNC , NRCC

The President’s Perpetual Campaign Continues



Text  


DNC: Darn that Delicious Obamacare-Slamming Pizza!



Text  



Over at Twitchy, they note DNC communications director Brad Woodhouse is apparently irked at the Papa John’s pizzeria chain for CEO John Schnatter’s public criticism of Obamacare.

Quick, nobody tell him that the Obama campaign spent $1,500 on 20 separate orders for pizzas and other food from Papa John’s during the past election cycle — more than they spent at Einstein Brothers Bagels ($861.96), Little Caesars ($520.63), Pizza Hut ($834.03), Chipotle ($619.16), Starbucks ($260.14), or Whole Foods ($1,088.79).

But the good news for Woodhouse is that Papa John’s was only the second-favorite pizza of the Obama campaign; the campaign spent $2,710.10 at Domino’s.

All of these figures come from the itemized expenditures reported by the Obama campaign to the Federal Election Commission, and are updated through October 17 of this year.

Tags: DNC , Obamacare

Drone Coverage Reveals Our Partisan, Not Merely Biased, Media



Text  



The Morning Jolt for today is full of debate reaction, but also a longer look at a topic that got only a brief mention last night – our current policy of using drones and a presidential “kill list” of targeted terrorists:

Kill Lists, Drone Attacks – Debbie Doesn’t Pay Attention to Those Things

Over at Reason, they spotlight Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a member of Congress and chair of the Democratic National Committee, appearing to have absolutely no idea about President Obama’s “kill list.”

WeAreChange.org, an independent journalism outfit, snagged a quick interview with Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, at last week’s presidential debate.

The National Defense Authorization Act, infinite detention, the prosecution of journalists and similar expressions of executive authority (none of which were actually brought up in the debate) are some of We Are Change’s pet issues. When they attempt to get Wasserman Schultz to talk about the NDAA she won’t bite. She’s obviously in the “spin room” to spin the debate in President Barack Obama’s favor and certainly isn’t going to do something crazy like talk actual policy.

But when Luke Rudkowski brings up Obama’s “kill list” of terrorist targets he’s working to take out — due process be damned — the conversation turns amazingly, awesomely awful real fast. Wasserman Schultz purports to have no idea what this list even is. She may be playing dumb, but her facial expressions in the video lead me to believe that she thinks she’s being punked and that Rudkowski is some sort of Borat knockoff.

“If you missed this in Headlines this weekend, or even if you glanced at it in Headlines but didn’t watch the clip, stop what you’re doing and watch now,” urges Allahpundit. “My assumption always with DWS is that she knows the truth but is happy to lie to any extent her party needs, which is why you and I know her as America’s most lifelike talking-points robot. Not this time, though. Her ignorance is palpably genuine; she reacts the way you’d expect her to react if this guy had asked her where the government got the thermite used to blow up the World Trade Center. Two things here. One: Needless to say, this is no boutique counterterrorism issue. She’s not being asked whether she knows how many people work for JSOC, for instance. She’s being asked about the president maintaining a list of people to be targeted for death by U.S. intelligence, one of whom was a U.S. citizen. A member of Congress, not to mention chairman of the DNC, should probably have an opinion on that, no?

Permit me to offer two of the greatest paragraphs Glenn Greenwald has ever written:

Anyone who observes politics closely has a very low bar of expectations. It’s almost inevitable to become cynical – even jaded – about just how inept and inane top Washington officials are. Still, even processing this through those lowly standards, I just find this staggering. Staggering and repellent. This is an elected official in Congress, the body that the Constitution designed to impose checks on the president’s abuses of power, and she does not have the foggiest idea what is happening in the White House, and obviously does not care in the slightest, because the person doing it is part of the party she leads.

One expects corrupt partisan loyalty from people like Wasserman Schultz, eager to excuse anything and everything a Democratic president does. That’s a total abdication of her duty as a member of Congress, but that’s par for the course. But one does not expect this level of ignorance, the ability to stay entirely unaware of one of the most extremist powers a president has claimed in US history, trumpeted on the front-page of the New York Times and virtually everywhere else.

So do we on the Right have any hesitation about our current policy of drone strikes overseas? Don’t get me wrong, my sense is that every time some jihadist who wants to kill Americans encounters the business end of a Hellfire missile, it’s good news and it’s Miller time for the forces of justice and freedom.

But you figure that picking out which guy on the ground is the bad guy, and who’s within the blast range, is a really tough call. Is the jihadist du jour worth the risk to the civilians around him? What if there are kids around? How much blood does an Islamist terrorist have to have on his hands to make it worth killing some civilians in the process? Is there a formula for this?

So when you see a story like this

President Barack Obama told CNN last month that a target must meet “very tight and very strict standards,” and John Brennan, the president’s top counter-terrorism adviser, said in April that in “exceedingly rare” cases, civilians have been “accidentally injured, or worse, killed in these strikes.”

In contrast to more conservative U.S. statements, the Stanford/NYU report — titled “Living Under Drones” — offers starker figures published by The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, an independent organization based at City University in London.

“TBIJ reports that from June 2004 through mid-September 2012, available data indicate that drone strikes killed 2,562 – 3,325 people in Pakistan, of whom 474 – 881 were civilians, including 176 children. TBIJ reports that these strikes also injured an additional 1,228 – 1,362 individuals,” according to the Stanford/NYU study.

Based on interviews with witnesses, victims and experts, the report accuses the CIA of “double-striking” a target, moments after the initial hit, thereby killing first responders.

Some of that is probably predictable lefty anti-war carping, but not all of it. This is a topic that is extraordinarily controversial in the overseas press, but little noticed as a serious issue here in the United States. You might argue that this is evidence that our press is not ideologically biased so much as partisan biased; liberals outside the United States are outraged by this policy (and a few inside, but not many), but the American mainstream media isn’t interested in giving Obama’s decisions much scrutiny – can’t have the voters thinking the Munificent Sun-King Lightworker is killing innocent civilians on his watch.

Tags: Barack Obama , Debbie Wasserman Schultz , DNC , John Bryson

RNC: $82 Million in the Bank for the Final Stretch



Text  



If Republicans have a big year in 2012 — still a big if — a significant factor will be the fact that the Republican National Committee is exponentially more effective this cycle than in the past two cycles.

Today Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus announced the RNC raised $48.4 million in September and had $82.6 million cash on hand at the end of the month.

“The overwhelming support for the Romney-Ryan ticket has produced yet another impressive month for RNC fundraising,” said RNC Chairman Priebus. “We are proud to have raised over $48 million in September, with 97 percent of donations to the RNC coming in amounts of $200 or less.

“While we continue to put money into our ground game and fully fund our absentee ballot, early vote and Election Day GOTV efforts in all our battleground states, our historic cash on hand figure also allows us to continue funding our independent expenditure committee, run highly effective hybrid ads and assist in electing Republicans across the country at all levels.”

When I asked one of my RNC folk whether the aim was to spend just about all of the $82.6 million by Election Day, I was told, “We raise it, to spend it, to win.”

Hey, how are things going across town at Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s committee?

As of Sept. 30, the DNC reported having $4.6 million in the bank and $20.5 million in total debt – almost double the $11.8 million it owed at the end of August. The committee owes about $5.5 million of its total debt to creditors for services such as direct mail consulting, polling expenses and event consulting.

Attention, vendors: Stop falling for this, make Debbie pay you in cash.

Tags: DNC , RNC

Look Closely at the Cash-on-Hand Numbers . . .



Text  



Two quick questions.

Doesn’t this . . .

President Barack Obama has more than $88 million available to spend for the presidential campaign’s final stretch, giving him a sizable cash-on-hand advantage over Mitt Romney. . . . Romney has $50.4 million available to him at this point in the campaign.

. . . seem less important when you know this?

The RNC, which has consistently been crushing the Democratic National Committee in fundraising, reported having $75.6 million at the end of August. The DNC ended the month with $7.1 million.

Romney cash on hand + RNC cash on hand = $126 million.

Obama cash on hand + DNC cash on hand = $95 million.

And while I’m sure the chairman and his gang would be the first to say we should hold the applause until after November, isn’t the performance of Reince Priebus and his team at the RNC pretty stunning, considering the state of the committee when former chairman Michael Steele left it in early 2011?

UPDATE: My math is based upon the media accounts cited above; the RNC has other, higher numbers they’re distributing this morning:

  • Cash On Hand: Romney/RNC $168.5 million vs. Obama/DNC: $125.1 million
  • RNC: $76.5 million vs. DNC: $7.1 million
  • 23 million voter contacts made by 65,000 volunteers
  • More than 1.9 million swing voters identified since the start of the Victory voter contact program
  • Surpassed the McCain ’08 campaign in total volunteer voter contacts

Tags: DNC , Reince Priebus , RNC

DNC Vice Chair: That $700 Billion Isn’t ‘Necessary or Essential’ to Medicare



Text  



Vice-chair of the DNC Hispanic Caucus, Andres Ramirez, discusses the $700 billion at issue in the Medicare debate with King of Nevada Political Coverage Jon Ralston, and declares that, “Both campaigns are consistent that that money, in and of itself, is not necessary or essential in the Medicare budget.”

Score a point for Mr. Ramirez; whether or not you agree with his assessment that Medicare doesn’t really need that $700 billion, he at least avoids the ’my $700 billion in cuts are necessary, rational, and helpful, while your $700 billion in cuts are unnecessary, irrational, and harmful’ line that characterizes most partisan disputes over entitlement reforms.

Of course, since Ramirez has just posited that the $700 billion in Medicare funding isn’t necessary, it does tend to undermine the argument coming from other Democrats that Ryan is the granny-pushing fiscal tightwad out to destroy the Medicare program.

This is much better to hear from Ramirez than the last time he appeared on our radar screens, declaring of Romney, “this Gringo doesn’t speak our lingo.”

Tags: DNC , Medicare , Paul Ryan

The Romney/RNC Ant and the Obama/DNC Grasshopper



Text  



The Morning Jolt kicks off the week with a look at the lost art of persuasion, whether Tea Party activists are too busy working to hold protests anymore, an all-time classic correction from the White House pool reporters, and then this bit of news from the campaign finance front:

Obama Campaigns Like He Governs… Expensively.

The New York Times doesn’t mince words:

 President Obama has spent more campaign cash more quickly than any incumbent in recent history, betting that heavy early investments in personnel, field offices and a high-tech campaign infrastructure will propel him to victory in November.

Since the beginning of last year, Mr. Obama and the Democrats have burned through millions of dollars to find and register voters. They have spent almost $50 million subsidizing Democratic state parties to hire workers, pay for cellphones and update voter lists. They have spent tens of millions of dollars on polling, online advertising and software development to turn Mr. Obama’s fallow volunteers corps into a grass-roots army.

The price tag: about $400 million from the beginning of last year to June 30 this year, according to a New York Times analysis of Federal Election Commission records, including $86 million on advertising.

But now Mr. Obama’s big-dollar bet is being tested. With less than a month to go before the national party conventions begin, the president’s once commanding cash advantage has evaporated, leaving Mitt Romney and the Republican National Committee with about $25 million more cash on hand than the Democrats as of the beginning of July.

And you thought talk was cheap!

Rick Moran says we shouldn’t look at the early spending as good money lost:

That early spending will pay big dividends in the end. The network of state campaign offices and grass roots outreach by the campaign is unprecedented in American political history. The online efforts of the campaign include some very sophisticated data mining efforts, as well as creative use of social media.

Meanwhile, Romney is limited in what he can spend until after the election when he will become the official nominee of the party… Even though Romney will probably match the Obama campaign dollar for dollar in fundraising, and even surpass them with the help of conservative super pacs, Obama’s early spending has given him a decided advantage in the trenches where elections are often won or lost before the first ballot is even counted.

Still, with all of that early spending, Obama is up three in the RealClearPolitics average (which still includes that ridiculous D+19 Pew poll – take that one out and it’s a 2.1 percentage point margin) and they’re even in the Pollster.com average. Obama’s deluge has kept him narrowly ahead – but in the coming months, are Americans likely to be more pleased with what Obama has done as president or less pleased?

I hear it now: “Jim, Jim, it’s an Electoral College battle, not a national popular vote contest.” Yes, but you’re not going to see wild divergence between the national numbers and all of the swing states. As Larry Sabato observed, “Obama can’t be +6 in Florida and Ohio and be -1 nationally.”

Anyway, as of this morning, the Romney campaign and RNC combined have approximately $185.9 million in cash-on-hand.

Tags: Barack Obama , DNC , Mitt Romney , RNC

DNC Spokesman: Some of Bush’s Tax Cuts Helped the Middle Class



Text  



The RNC chuckles at DNC communications director Brad Woodhouse finding himself defending the Bush tax cuts:

Broadly speaking, Republicans and Democrats don’t want to see, especially at a time where the economy needs all the fuel it can get, don’t want to see us raising taxes on the middle class. So for example, some of the Bush tax cuts did some good things for the middle class, and certainly don’t want to see, this time, tax increases on the middle class.

Bipartisan agreement!

Tags: DNC , RNC , Taxes

Stephanie Cutter: Wisconsin Recall? What Wisconsin Recall?



Text  



On MSNBC, Chuck Todd just asked Obama’s deputy campaign manager, Stephanie Cutter, if the DNC – controlled by Obama, remember – would be sending financial assistance to Tom Barrett, Wisconsin Democrats, and other folks hoping to unseat Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker in next month’s recall.

“I have no idea,” she said repeatedly. She emphasized that the campaign would be trying to mobilize volunteers and other non-financial means of helping Democrats in that state.

Two observations:

1) There is no way that the deputy campaign manager of the Obama campaign does not know whether a national organization with $24 million in the bank will allocate $500,000 to unseat a Republican governor in a swing state five months before Election Day.

2) If the answer is not “yes,” it is “no.”

Tags: Barack Obama , DNC , Scott Walker , Tom Barrett , Wisconsin

DNC Turning Down Wisconsin Democrats’ Requests?



Text  



Interesting: The DNC is refusing to kick in $500,000 to help Wisconsin Democrats unseat Scott Walker.

The DNC has $24.4 million cash-on-hand as of late April.

The unnamed Wisconsin Democrat quoted in the above report says, “we’re even in the polls, this is a winnable race.” The polling doesn’t quite bear that out; one poll had Barrett ahead in February.

UPDATE: Wow. No wonder folks who loathe Scott Walker need money:

After refining the dataset created by Verify the Recall, a Wisconsin man began running it against other public records and discovered 571 tax delinquents signed Recall petitions.His findings? The total in back taxes owed by petitioners is more than $17 million. The list of individuals can be found through the website, www.putwisconsinfirst.com

Tags: DNC , Scott Walker , Tom Barrett , Wisconsin

DNC Vice Chair on Romney: ‘This Gringo Doesn’t Speak Our Lingo’



Text  



Vice-chair of the DNC Hispanic Caucus, Andres Ramirez, in video about Romney: “This gringo certainly doesn’t speak our lingo.”

Stay classy, DNC!

Tags: DNC , Mitt Romney

DNC: We Haven’t Been Using the Term ‘War on Women,’ Really!



Text  



This is a pretty amazing comment in an article by Dave Weigel over at Slate:

In her fateful CNN appearance, right before she evaluated Ann Romney’s economics cred, Hilary Rosen begged the media to “just get rid of this word, ‘war on women.’ After all, “the Obama campaign does not use it, President Obama does not use it — this is something that the Republicans are accusing people of using.”

On Thursday, as the Rosen saga unfolded, DNC communications director Brad Woodhouse echoed her plea for peace. “I’m not a fan of the term,” he said in an interview. “I mean, I’m sure I’ve probably used it. We all fall into these easy vernaculars . . . but we in the DNC have not been running a campaign based on the term ‘war on Women.’ That’s a myth cooked up by Republicans.”

Besides all the use of the term “war on women” by members of the House and Senate on the floor of their chambers . . . besides all the times DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz used the term . . . Well, if Woodhouse really objects to the term, maybe he should talk to his friends at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, who are selling “Stop the Republican War on Women” car magnets, coffee mugs, t-shirts, posters . . .

Tags: DCCC , Debbie Wasserman Schultz , DNC

The Fine Print on Obama’s Fundraising Numbers, Both Pro and Con



Text  



The Republican National Committee is chuckling this morning, pointing out that the latest fundraising numbers, for the month of February, show the Obama campaign, DNC, Victory Fund, and State Victory Fund raised a total of $45 million, down from the $56.78 million Obama raised alone in February 2008. They eagerly point out the figure is despite Obama holding more fundraisers in the month of February than any month since announcing for reelection.

Along with the numbers, the RNC’s Kirsten Kukowski issued a statement in response:

After three years of policies that have left our country with record debt, high unemployment, and soaring gas prices and healthcare costs, it’s clear President Obama is having a hard time convincing voters he deserves another term. The president who ran on change and hope has left our country wanting and whether it’s showing in fundraising or in the polls, Americans are enthusiastic about replacing him in November.

Of course, I wouldn’t chuckle too loudly. As an incumbent president, Obama doesn’t need that much money to get his message out.

Tags: Barack Obama , Campaign Fundraising , DNC

After Laying Off Workers, DNC Hits Romney for 1990s Layoffs



Text  



A few nights ago, the DNC argued that Mitt Romney’s private sector career was . . . well, evil, “profiting off of laying off thousands of workers.”

REALITY: ROMNEY’S PRIVATE SECTOR CAREER CONSISTED OF PROFITING OFF OF LAYING OFF THOUSANDS OF WORKERS

Romney’s Fortune “Was Made On The Backs Of Companies That Ultimately Collapsed, Putting Thousands of Ordinary Americans Out On The Street;” [New York Post, 2/19/11]

Romney-Led Bain Capital Closed US Factories, Caused Hundreds Of Layoffs And “Pocketed Huge Fees Shortly Before The Companies Collapsed;” [Los Angeles Times, 12/6/07]

Romney’s Tenure at Bain “Resulted in the Loss of Thousands of Jobs Through Layoffs And Bankruptcies;” [CNN.com, 1/30/08]

Former Bain Partners: Romney Had Chances To Fight To Save Jobs But Didn’t. [Boston Globe, 1/27/08]

So, layoffs are ipso facto bad, right? There’s never a good reason for them, they’re never necessary to save a company with runaway expenses, there’s never a way to reduce staff and make a company leaner, more competitive, or better off in the long haul, right?

The DNC will be issuing press releases denouncing themselves soon, right?

November 2011:

Charlotte, N.C. Mayor Anthony Foxx, a Democrat with close ties to President Barack Obama, is taking political heat as several reports show he plans to replace local workers with out-of-state union workers during the Democratic National Convention next year.

April 2011:

The Democratic National Committee laid off half a dozen more staffers on its regional political desks Friday afternoon.

January 2011:

The Democratic National Committee’s Organizing for America has started laying off staff in multiple states as the first phase of a restructuring before the official kickoff of President Barack Obama’s re-election bid.

Hey, was Mitt Romney ever accused of targeting minorities in staff cuts?

The Democratic National Committee backed off plans to lay off 10 black workers Thursday, a day after outraged black party leaders complained about reduction of minority staffers. Black party leaders placed angry calls to DNC chairman Terry McAuliffe after they were given a list of 10 staffers who would be cut to save money and boost the campaign fund for the party’s presidential nominee.

Hey, did Mitt Romney ever fire someone for expressing an unpopular opinion?

Matt Stoller quickly lost his slot on the official blog of the Democratic National Convention Committee this week because of a critical comment on an unrelated group blog, the National Journal’s Technology Daily reports.

Well, let’s see what the reliable liberals at Talking Points Memo say . . . oh:

Bain’s success is undeniable and owes much to Romney’s leadership and innovative strategy.

Tags: DNC , Mitt Romney

Alternative Headline: Obama 2012 Fundraising Behind 2008 Pace



Text  



You’ll recall that at the end of last month, I had doubts that Obama’s fundraising would be as bad as some predicted.

From the June 30 Morning Jolt:

Campaign officials revealed during the last week that they have set a target of raising $60 million for the quarter from at least 450,000 donors. But even $60 million would not seem to be a very ambitious goal for Obama. He raised the same amount during the second quarter of 2007, just after he announced his 2008 campaign.

To match the $750 million or so he raised in 2008, one would expect Obama to average closer to $100 million per quarter for the next seven quarters, no? And to meet the much-hyped $1 billion number, Obama would have to perform well beyond that.

Part of me always looks warily at these sorts of leading indicators, but we will know fairly soon if there’s a reason that the Obama team is emphasizing that they don’t measure their capability to successfully raise money by that traditional metric of money raised.

Today the number is $86 million, an impressive sum by any measure. But it’s worth remembering, as Nathan Wurtzel notes, that Obama’s total includes fundraising he did for the Democratic National Committee. By comparison, the GOP candidates’ totals are amounts raised solely for their campaign.

To offer a more accurate comparison, you would have to toss in the totals for the RNC, which raised $6 million in April and $6 million in May. The RNC’s June total is not yet known.

 

Is Obama ahead in fundraising? Yes, and probably by quite a bit. But the comparison is not Obama and the DNC’s $86 million against Romney’s $18.3 million. The comparison is Obama and the DNC’s $86 million against Romney [or your preferred candidate] + $12 million for the RNC in April and May + the RNC’s June total.

[Some would argue a better comparison is to compare Obama's total to all of the GOP candidates' totals combined, roughly $35 million.]

Will Obama still be comfortably ahead? Of course. He probably should be, considering how he’s an incumbent president who has hit party fundraisers at a fast and furious pace in the past three months.

But again, to match his $750 million from the 2008 cycle, Obama would need to average $107 million for seven quarters. Obviously, it is possible that Obama can make up ground in the next few quarters. But to hit that hyped $1 billion number, Obama would need to raise a bit more than $142 million per quarter. As impressive as the $86 million figure is, it’s well below those markers.

And that’s not even getting into the millions that will be spent by outside groups…

UPDATE: Obama’s fundraising total for just his campaign: $47 million. So he has raised about two and a half times what Romney raised.

Note that at this point in 2003, George W. Bush had raised $49.5 million, or about $58.5 million in today’s money $35 million, or about $41.3 million. (I made an error in using Bush’s following quarter’s figure; Bush raised the $49.5 million from July to September of 2003.)

But that’s really not a fair comparison, and I hope Democrats will agree that Bush’s fundraising occurred during a time of relative economic prosperity, while Obama has been forced to raise cash in an economy where almost every American is worse off than they were three years ago, and has much less money to donate to their preferred cause.

ANOTHER UPDATE: The Obama campaign declares 98 percent of their donations were for $250 or less, and that the average was $69.

Note that under FEC rules, the Obama campaign is not required to collect information on donors of less than $200; The commission asks campaigns to report any donor whose cumulative contributions have exceeded $200.

Tags: Barack Obama , DNC , Fundraising , Mitt Romney , RNC

DNC’s Debbie Wasserman Schultz Stars in New RNC Web Ad



Text  



New DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz almost makes the RNC’s job too easy:

 

A slogan we’re likely to see a lot of between now and 2012: “They’ll say anything to save their own jobs… but what have they done to save yours?”

Tags: Debbie Wasserman Schultz , DNC , RNC

The New DNC Chair: Selected, Not Elected



Text  



The Democrats pat themselves on the back for a low bar:

If [Florida congresswoman and nominated DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz] wins the election, she will become the first woman elected by the full membership to serve as chair. There have been two other women who have served as Chair of the DNC but one was on an interim basis and one was appointed but never stood for election.

Er, she’s been named as the new chair by President Obama, and no one is running against her. How is this a genuine “election”?

Oh, that’s right, that’s how the president won his first office.

Tags: Debbie Wasserman Schultz , DNC

Pages

Sign up for free NRO e-mails today:

Subscribe to National Review