Obama lost many donors from '08 presidential race

[onehandle]

Source: AP

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama has lost millions of dollars in support from former donors in Democratic strongholds and in districts that he won narrowly four years ago, according to an Associated Press analysis of the most recent federal campaign finance data.

Tens of thousands of supporters who gave him hundreds of dollars or more in the early stages of the 2008 campaign haven't offered him similar amounts of cash so far in this campaign. And in some cases, former Obama contributors gave to GOP candidates, such as former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

Obama's re-election effort is hardly hurting for cash: His campaign and the Democratic Party raised more than $70 million for Obama's re-election in the July-September period, outstripping all Republicans combined by tens of millions of dollars.

But the AP's analysis indicates that Obama, beleaguered by a struggling economy, has lost early support from some of his larger financial supporters and will have to work harder to win back party stalwarts and swing voters alike. Obama's approval ratings have slumped to 41 percent in a recent Gallup poll, as steadfast supporters have found themselves less able or less willing to open their wallets again.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/obama-lost-many-donors-08-presidential-race-071945292.html

[peacebird]

1. Hubby & I gave max allowed in '08, and not one penny yet this time out.

I will vote for him, hubby hasn't decided if he will or not yet. We won't volunteer or donate though.

[blueknight]

2. he lost one here as well

i wont give another penny or minute of my time.

[tclambert]

4. But fast forward a year and a week. How will you feel if Mitt Romney wins?

Or Michelle Bachmann? That's the point I can't get over.

[SkyDaddy7]

6. It does not matter if the GOP wins!!

This is all about teaching Obama a lesson! The hurt that will be put on the middle class, Unions, women's rights, gay rights, science, etc., if the GOP wins is not important as long as Obama is taught a lesson! Do not forget this!

This is why Republicans always end up winning & getting more of their agenda passed because we Democrats have not figured out that sticking together is the key to getting what we want & winning elections! The sad part is this next election will determine who controls the country for a long time! Oh well.

[progressoid]

8. Oh, I think he learned the money raising lesson a long time ago.

It's easier to get a couple million at a $35000 a plate dinner from a handful of the 1%, than have to deal with those working class peons on the bottom he's disappointed.

[defendandprotect]

38. Obama got $280,000 from DU'ers as he entered the White House ....

and he thanked us for that by taking on Koch Bros. DLC Rahm Emmanuel as his #1 --

and a Wall Street Team -- !!!


YIKES!!


Party is now under control of Third Way -- !! YIKES!

[No Elephants]

10. It's not about Obama. It's about what has happened to the Party itself.

Obama is not the be all and end all of politics. Everything does not revolve around him.

[defendandprotect]

37. Right ... we HATE Obama, we HATE ourselves and we HATE America ... !!!

And everything bit of criticism is directed to those ends -- !!

:sarcasm:


And you truly believe that -- ?

For 40 years we've been voting for the "lesser evil" and it has only moved the

party and Congress further to the right -- further to corporatism -- !!

But this time will be different?


ROFL



The people who are controlling the country are the very same people our candidates

and elected officials have SOLD themselves to -- corporations!!

How is that difficult to figure out?



The people who control the Dem Party are the Third Way -- Jonathan Cowan, Pres. --

who told us on C-span two weeks ago that ... "the base of the party is to be ignored"

and "populism and populist discussion/debate are the equivalent of Karl Rove propaganda

of extremism" -- :eyes:

That's who you want to give your money to? And your vote?




:nuke:

[Heywood J]

7. We won't have to care.

He's busy raising money from other sources...

[No Elephants]

9. Bachman is not even a realistic possibility.

[primavera]

18. And so no matter how little a candidate represents you...

... you always have to smile and support him/her enthusiastically because it could always be worse? That's the point I can't get over.

[caseymoz]

23. To be fair, that WAS the case in 2000 where enough people supported Nader . . .

. . . to put election in within Bush's reach. It did turn out to be the worst-case scenario.

So, you candidates can low-ball it on desirability. However, sending a message by not giving as much might be the best you can do.

It's ironic when people praise our democratic "two-party system." They should check history: the US was never designed as a two-party state. The Founders had in mind what we would now see as a one-party state, what we see as a symptom of totalitarianism now. The US system isn't designed to have true political parties. So, we don't really have them. That's the main reason why we've only really had two, except for very brief periods when one party rose into being while another one was passing out of existence, or when there has been an ephemeral third party.

[U4ikLefty]

27. Gore had more votes...SCOTUS gave it to them.

[defendandprotect]

39. True -- Bush was down to a 34 vote "lead" in Florida when SCOTUS stopped the recount ....

and then appointed Bush to WH -- !!

[caseymoz]

43. Which is why I said it brought the election "within Bush's reach."

No, you didn't misread it.

The GOP wasn't going to make five more percent of the popular vote for Gore disappear. It would have sent at least one more state his way. As it is, Bush got in by the skin of his teeth.

I'm sorry, Nader put Bush in the White House just as sure as the Supreme Court did, and at least the court had to wait until somebody brought them the case. Nader campaigned knowing full well just who he was taking votes from. He, like everyone else, underestimated the consequences, but then, after he handed us the Bush disaster, he had the ego to run again in '04.

I'm not blaming people who voted for Nader. Everybody wanted to believe a third party was possible in this country. But now I hope they've learned an expensive lesson: change the Constitution to accommodate political parties, then have a third party.

[No Elephants]

41. I disagree. Yes, parties were not contemplated originally, but there were always factions,

and divisions more bitter than any of the 20th century. (Forget the 21st. Now, the two parties--in deed, if not in words--are separated mostly by a few wedge issues on which the fans are flamed by media and others).

And we've formally had parties since Jefferson ran. We've spent a hell of a lot more time with parties, sometimes two, sometimes more, than we did as a nation with no parties

And we did before TPTB decided otherwise, very much have two very different parties.

When Lincoln ran against Douglas, no one needed to parse websites to figure out the differences between their platforms.

Ditto Hoover (who is said to have believed that kind, well off individuals would take care of their fellow Americans during the econonmic crisis) versus FDR.

Or Goldwater v. Johnson, although Johnson did let his Republican Secretary of Defense, the CIA and the Pentagon lead him into disaster on the foreign front, even as he displayed genius and vision on the domestic front.


As far as 2000, as you know, Gore did win. So the loss was due to factors like election fraud that BOTH Parties seem to prefer to leave unaddressed. Blaming Nader for the result of election fraud makes no sense to me. Blaming him for doing what his conscience moved him to do and democracy allows him to do, IMO, ignores the reason he felt compelled to run.

Further, Republicans have had several third parties nipping at their heels for years--Libertarians, Constitution Party, etc. I really don't understand the sense that Democrats are somehow entitled to govern as far to the right as they see fit, yet have no competition whatever from the left. It is not healthy, IMO/

However, what you don't know is what Gore would have done after 911. Everyone always assumes he would have done better. That's easy to assume when your imagination is your only guide.

I also know that some say that Democrats, who are tired of hearing that they are weak on, ahem, defense may feel a need to flex America's muscle even more so than Republicans. I don't know how much stock to put in that.

I do know that many of the very significant things in the last 30 years that I dislike a lot and damaged America a lot (repeal of Glass Steagall--and keeping it repealed to this day) cannot be attributed only to Republicans. I do know that Obama surged in Afghanistan, well after Bush decided to wind down there and was negotiating with Iraq to stay there. That Amnesty International is still asking the U.S. to stop extraordinary rendition, that the Obama D of J took the exact same position, and worse, as the Gonzo D of J in court cases, etc.

I am NOT saying that Obama is as bad as Bush. I am saying that I saw more similarities than I expected or wanted.

And I don't think that is because the nation or its people are not designed to tolerate differences between Parties. It's because the Parties won't tolerate the differences and Democrats are rationalizing the increasing similarities.

Somehow, it's utterly reprehensible and unredeemable when a Republican does it but the best possible course in the universe, or at least the best given "reality," when when a Democrat does it. (Sometimes, it's not even a Democrat, but Obama specifically, because they'll diss Clinton in the same breath).

If the left does not find a way to hold its elected officials accountable soon, we may as well profess our love for Big Brother. (My worst fear is that we've slept too long and it's irreversible.)

If that's holding back donations, so be it. It won't matter anyway--he'll get the money-- and may send a message.

Staying home is not a sane or responsible option.

[closeupready]

21. The office of the President is powerless, from what I understand from other people here.

It's Congress that holds all the power. So it doesn't matter, apparently.

[caseymoz]

26. He can hold people without trial, he can order people murdered, he can spy on anyone . . .

. . . but if he can't pass say, a single-payer health plan because Congress has all the power.

Okay, who screwed this system up so bad that change toward the better is impossible no matter what god-like powers the president takes? Can we only expect change to toward the worse, now?

Not that I want him to trounce on Congressional authority, but why does Obama use executive power only in some ways and not others? And why does the limited, separation of power excuse even get anywhere with his supporters?

[closeupready]

28. I think that the really bad abuses started with Reagan's election.

That, I think, was the tipping point. And it's interesting that Obama has clearly stated his admiration for Reagan, not sure why.

[roguevalley]

32. yawn.

[defendandprotect]

40. How about if Alan Grayson or Bernie Sanders won? Romney is Koch Bros ... !!!

We have massive crowds in the streets across the nation signaling that capitalism

and the two party duopoly are finished --

Don't think that the politics of FEAR is going to help us -- it hasn't helped in

40 years of voting for the "lesser evil" -- !!

[Javaman]

14. All my political donations now go to OWS. nt

[onehandle]

31. All my 2012 money is going to Elizabeth Warren.

2016 money too, for her Presidential run.

[OKDem08]

3. I donated in 08 too but not a penny this time. He doesn't deserve it.

[Joe Bacon]

45. Obama froze my pay and cut my pension.

in 2008, I went without test strips for 9 months to donate to his campaign because he promised real health care reform. Instead, he gave us nationalized Romneycare which costs more and provides less.

My diabetes is getting steadily worse. It's more important to have the strips to check my blood sugar than it is to give a penny to Obama. However, I am giving what I can to Elizabeth Warren, Sherrod Brown, Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich and Alan Grayson.

[Auntie Bush]

46. But do we the people deserve a republican?

It's sad how if a rethug president doesn't do everything they want...they still donate and vote for him. But if a dem president doesn't do everything we want...we withhold our donations and don't vote for him. Our loyalty is thin deep and subject to change. Oh those fickle domocrats!

We'll regret it when Mitt (no back bone) Romney is controlled by the right wing and teabaggers and does their bidding. It makes me sick to even think about it.

[quaker bill]

5. I am one

I will donate eventually, but spent most of the year worried about a layoff. I have now survived it. Food comes before politics.

[No Elephants]

11. He raised three quarters of a billion last time. His target is a billion this time.

He'll be fine.

[ProSense]

12. Leave it to AP to come up with

ridiculous spin!

<...>

Obama's re-election effort is hardly hurting for cash: His campaign and the Democratic Party raised more than $70 million for Obama's re-election in the July-September period, outstripping all Republicans combined by tens of millions of dollars.

<...>

The Obama campaign, for its part, said more than a million people have given to the president's 2012 re-election efforts, a mix of hundreds of thousands of new and returning donors that spokesman Ben LaBolt said points to "evidence of a growing organization." All told, Obama received donations from a wide swath of the United States from the Plains, the Midwest and parts of the South since April, the AP's analysis found.

<...>

He's raising more money from more donors, but that's a bad thing?

There could be a host of reasons why people haven't given yet, including financial. There are likely some who are simply waiting to make a contribution.

Still, what's the point of the analysis: to show that Joe gave last time, but not this time? Instead, John is giving? What's the point?

Fundraising is about dollars, and if the number of people who give has increased along with the amount raised, who the hell cares?

[Lucinda]

13. +1

[mopinko]

16. how many people don't even really know that the campaign

has started? us news junkies have been in campaign mode for a while, but i think a lot of the small donors come in when the primaries begin. i suspect if they put some dates on this data, it would look a little different.

[rosesaylavee]

19. Associated Press has done its own analysis

Ha. Another awful indication of the state of our media. Associated Press went over to the dark side years ago and apparently still there.

Not that I don't doubt that he's lost donors given the overall dissatisfaction with HCR and torture and the wars but this report is just too ridiculous.

[Vattel]

20. for once we agree

[ieoeja]

22. We don't suppose that not needing money for a primary may be a factor, do we?

That said, I gave him $2000 last time, but will probably not this time. While he has been a mixed bag, I have decided to follow the precedence set by his extending the tax holiday. In addition to giving less money to support my country, I will give less money to support my politician.

[BumRushDaShow]

24. +1

And it's amazing that so many on DU just fall for any "negative" nonsense in order to bash. :crazy:

[pmorlan1]

15. Obama will plenty of money

Obama will have plenty of money. He will get it from the big donors, rank and file Democrats like some of the people posting in this thread and he will get it from some Republicans. Yes, Republicans. There are some Republicans, who like some of us, notice that he governs like a Republican so they too will donate their cash. Yeah, Obama will have plenty of money.

[icnorth]

47. Yep. When Daddy Warbucks sees he has to hedge his bet

on the G.O.P. pretender he will call on his pals in the Military Industrial Complex and the cash will come flooding ashore.

[Historic NY]

17. The charts show........he is outperforming his rivals.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/index.php

[Exultant Democracy]

25. I raised a lot of money for him in 2008. I'l be doing that for EW rather then him this time.

[Tiggeroshii]

29. I gave as much as I could last time around, and I'll give the same this time around

Which is nothing.

[Robb]

30. Um. Let's see.

So people who supported Obama "in some cases" are now giving to GOP candidates?

Well, the message is clear. Obama, move to the right! :rofl:

...I love the "liberal media." :D

[AnneD]

33. My time and money....

is going local. I have given up on the National election.

[Jazzgirl]

34. I donated several times in 2008.

I have not and don't plan on sending anything this time. I will vote for him but I won't support him financially this time.

[BigDemVoter]

35. Lots of reasons

And I'm NOT an Obama apologist.

The economy is shitty right now, and lots of people don't have even small amounts of free cash to donate. Furthermore, Obama hasn't exactly inspired his base, although I suspect that will change as soon as the repigs choose from amongst the clowns all clamoring for the honor.

I'm not wild about Obama, but I WILL vote for him and will eventually send him some $$.

[defendandprotect]

36. No surprise there -- and imagine Dem Party itself has been greatly harmed ... !!!

Obama may be one of the biggest "mistakes" voters have ever made!!

[Mz Pip]

42. SCOTUS

THere will probably be a couple of openings in the next few years. I have no interest in seeing them filled by Romney or Perry.

[BadGimp]

44. I smel a GOP Psyopps effort here

You can not take the entire donor list from 08 and compare it to the list so far in this cycle, which still has over a year to go and come to the conclusion that any donors have been "lost".