home

Obama Campaign Lays Out 5 Paths to 2012 Electoral Victory

President Obama's re-election campaign released this video today, outlining five ways for Obama to win 270 electoral votes in 2012.

< 9th Circuit Allows Wiretap Suit Against NSA to Proceed | Hillary Clinton's State Dept. Video Promoting LGBT Rights >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Comical (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by BTAL on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 09:02:07 PM EST
    The same Messina who today proclaimed:


    Messina: Billion-dollar campaign rumors are 'bulls*t'
    In a video to supporters and donors, Obama for America campaign manager Jim Messina pushed back against the idea that President Barack Obama will raise huge sums of money from big donors to fund his reelection campaign.

    "People have speculated that this is a billion-dollar campaign. That's bulls*t. We don't take PAC money, unlike our opponents. We fund this campaign in contributions of three dollars or five dollars or whatever you can do to help us expand the map, to put more people on the ground, to build a real grass-roots campaign that is going to be the difference between winning and losing."



    Link

    Then 4 hours later the WH puts out this:


    Obama to Chicago for January fundraisers
    President Barack Obama returns home to Chicago on Jan. 11 for high end fund-raisers to bankroll his re-election drive, as he jumps back on the traveling fund-raising circuit after taking a break for a few weeks over the holidays. This will mark Obama's tenth visit back to Chicago since becoming president.

    Obama will be hosted at the North Side home of media mogul Fred Eychaner, who is also one of the biggest donors to third-party Democratic "SuperPacs," playing a role in the 2012 campaign.

    Obama will also [be] a guest at the South Side home of Yvonne and Bear Stearns executive Stuart Taylor.



    Link

    270 or bust - damn the truth.

    Messiana is telling the "truth" (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Edger on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 09:23:11 PM EST
    At least, he's telling half truths.

    Obama may not have to raise huge sums of money from big donors to fund his reelection campaign.

    Because he already has.

    Financial Sector Helps Barack Obama Score Big Money for Re-election Fight
    OpenSecrets.org, July 22, 2011

    Obama has relied more on well-connected Wall Street figures to fund his re-election than he did four years ago when he campaigned as an outsider and an underdog.

    One-third of the money Obama's elite fund-raising corps has raised on behalf of his re-election has come from the financial sector, according to a new Center for Responsive Politics analysis.

    Individuals who work in the finance, insurance and real estate sector are responsible for raising at least $11.8 million for Obama's
    campaign and the Democratic National Committee, according to the Center's research. All of Obama's bundlers have raised a minimum of
    $34.95 million, as OpenSecrets Blog previously reported. During his entire 2008 presidential bid, bundlers who worked in the finance, insurance and real estate sector were responsible for a minimum of $16.1 million, according to the Center's research. That's about 21 percent of the $76.5 million estimated minimum amount that these top fund-raisers brought in for Obama's  residential campaign.

    An exact dollar amounts for how much cash these individuals raised ahead of the 2008 election or during the past few months is not known because the Obama campaign provided only broad ranges of
    how much money each bundler collected.

    [snip]

    Since he began running for president in 2007, Obama has pledged to not accept money from registered, federal lobbyists. But that hasn't stopped him from taking money from former lobbyists -- or having former lobbyists serve as
    top fund-raisers for him.



    Parent
    How ironic that the first two posts (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by MKS on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 09:34:26 PM EST
    on this thread are anti-Obama posts....

    Politics does make strange bedfellows.

    The quote above adds in real estate money.  You of course realize that means any remote realtor and stockbroker etc.   These are funds from people who work in the selected field--they are not contributions from the brokerage houses....

    And the numbers are far short of a billion dollars.  Well under a hundred million.

    Parent

    Honestly . . . (none / 0) (#6)
    by nycstray on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 09:44:22 PM EST
    He's hit up CA for big bucks 3 times this fall. Tends to ignore the 99% when he stops in for quickies . . . .

    I thought the 'need a billion bucks' came from his campaign sometime early in the year?

    Parent

    True (none / 0) (#7)
    by MKS on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 09:54:42 PM EST
    In the wake of  Citizens United it is either a pacifist surrender or raising big bucks.....

    Parent
    Obama raised a ton of Wall St money (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by shoephone on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 11:36:15 PM EST
    in 2008. Citizens United wasn't in play yet to be blamed for that. Yes, it stinks what that decision has wrought, but Obama raised more money in 2008 than any candidate in history. He's going to go after more Wall St money this time, because those imaginary "$3 and $5 donations" Messina references aren't going to be there.

    Parent
    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by jbindc on Fri Dec 30, 2011 at 04:05:11 PM EST
    That whole meme about how most of his donations came from small donors was such hogwash, yet people still throw it out as if it were fact. (And remember - if you give less than $200, your name doesn't have to be disclosed to the FEC).

    In fact, Obama himself has even thrown out this whopper:

    President Barack Obama answered questions on this topic in an interview with CNBC's John Harwood on April 21, 2010.

    "In the 2008 campaign, you got a lot of money, about $1 million from employees of Goldman Sachs," Harwood said. "Your former White House counsel Greg Craig is apparently going to represent Goldman Sachs. In light of this case, do either of those things embarrass you?"

    "No," Obama said. "First of all, I got a lot of money from a lot of people. And the vast majority of the money I got was from small donors all across the country. And moreover, anybody who gave me money during the course of my campaign knew that I was on record again in 2007, and 2008, pushing very strongly that we needed to reform how Wall Street did business. And so, nobody should be surprised in the position that I'm taking now because it is one that I was very clear about in the course of the campaign."

    What jumped out at us in this exchange was Obama's statement, "the vast majority of the money I got was from small donors all across the country." We've seen that statement repeated elsewhere, but the evidence doesn't back it up.

    While he did get "more [small donations] than any presidential candidate"  in 2008 during the primary, in total he only got about 34% of his general election funds from people who donated less than $200. During 2007, however, he received 60% of his money from those making donations of $1000 or more (28% of the total).

    The key is to look at those donors who gave multiple "small" donations:

    An analysis by the Campaign Finance Institute of the 405,000 individuals who donated at least an aggregate of $200 or more by August 31 (and thus had their names disclosed in filings with the Federal Election Commission) revealed that at least 212,000 were repeat donors who began by making an undisclosed small contribution of less than $200. About 93,000 of these repeat donors gave a total of $400 or less; 106,000 gave more than $400 but less than $1,000; and 13,000 gave $1,000 or more. These repeat donors ended up giving about $100 million to the campaign.

    Thus, another way of assessing Obama's fundraising is on the basis of the aggregate amount given by individual donors instead of on the basis of the separate donations made by individuals. Such an analysis provides a clearer depiction of the role of small donors, defined here as those who gave no more than $200 in aggregate during the course of the campaign. This information is provided in Table 1 (see page 16).

    I'm not saying he didn't have a great fundraising apparatus in place - he did.  It was masterful.  But to continue the story that he was and is a "man of the people" is complete hogwash. Especially because many of those people will be keeping their wallets closed this time around, so watch for more and more corporate donations and $25,000 per plate fundraisers.

    Parent

    Then why lie about it? (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 30, 2011 at 09:35:43 AM EST
    I am not sure how it makes a difference (none / 0) (#3)
    by MKS on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 09:30:39 PM EST
    but the two statements are consistent.

    Romney runs around like a jacka*s saying how Obama will raise a billion dollars and at the same time will be the best candidate in history.

    So, Obama won't raise a billion dollars but is still trying to raise money?  How is that comical?

    Parent

    best "funded" candidate (none / 0) (#8)
    by MKS on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 10:00:53 PM EST
    Consistent? (none / 0) (#9)
    by BTAL on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 10:29:06 PM EST
    Please...

    $3 & $5 donations are funding the campaign?

    How many $30,000 per plate dinners do the $3 donors get for their money.

    BTW, the thread is about Obama, not Romney.

    Parent

    With you Republicans (none / 0) (#11)
    by MKS on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 10:46:24 PM EST
    and all your money, it will take money from all kinds of people.....including the wealthy who recognize how fortunate they are....

    Parent
    Do some research (none / 0) (#25)
    by BTAL on Fri Dec 30, 2011 at 07:16:24 AM EST
    not one of the potential R candidates will have the resources the Obama campaign will.

    Parent
    Nor should they (none / 0) (#30)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 30, 2011 at 09:37:59 AM EST
    I would think such resources would need have an "earned" component to them.  The money will do what it can to influence who wins, but once the people have chosen who best represents them then the money simply follows that candidate.

    Parent
    Rove and his friends will (none / 0) (#38)
    by MKS on Fri Dec 30, 2011 at 10:46:56 AM EST
    far outspend the Obama people.....

    Parent
    I haven't watched (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by andgarden on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 09:38:49 PM EST
    But this sort of thing strikes me as a mistake--unless it's pure misinformation.

    i watched it (none / 0) (#10)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 10:40:06 PM EST
    & that's when i was sure it was a mistake, on several levels (but, like you, also wondered if it was pure disinformation)

    Parent
    Not sure the objection (none / 0) (#12)
    by MKS on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 10:55:05 PM EST
    The five scenarios involved all the states he won last time plus Arizona.

    True, Arizona is a reach but the Latino bashing may come home to roost a little sooner than thought.....California used to have a Republican State legislature until the Latino bashing got into full gear.

    The most likely scenario--the one Messina first featured.....Just win in Nevada and Colorado....I was part of the GOTV in Nevada (and will be again) and they have some super sharp people there.....Harry Reid's pulling it out easily when he was supposedly 5 points behind proves the point.   Nevada is where it will come down to, or at least it will be the fire wall.

    In terms of going public with this, and I assume this is the concern, it is something that should be pretty well known.....This is just to boost morale.....

    Parent

    Are we supposed to fall for that (none / 0) (#13)
    by nycstray on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 11:04:35 PM EST
    folksy grassroots bullsh*t at the end?

    What's UE like in Nevada? And when are they expected to 'recover'? (CA is 2017)

    Parent

    Problems, true (none / 0) (#14)
    by MKS on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 11:12:02 PM EST
    So, it won't be the 12 point blow out like last time....

    But I enjoyed the door-to-door there....I had the lower income side of downtown.....No one was rude and everyone was actually nice and they all like to talk.....unlike working the phones.....It was a lot of fun....

    The Obama people really know how to find the votes....

    Parent

    I saw an economic map (none / 0) (#15)
    by nycstray on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 11:31:09 PM EST
    not too long ago about when states are supposed to recover (if things stay on course). Be interesting to match it up to these maps. I think it will still come down to "It's the economy . . ." I think O edges out even in that scenario since the right seems to be just worthless at this point. My Mom, mod R, doesn't see anyone to vote for on the right. And that includes Romney!

    Parent
    I think he will just edge it out as well (none / 0) (#17)
    by shoephone on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 11:40:05 PM EST
    And it will have to include Nevada, because I highly doubt he's going to win Arizona, Florida, North Carolina or Virginia.

    The Midwest is going to be interesting.

    Parent

    I would guess he would win (none / 0) (#21)
    by MKS on Fri Dec 30, 2011 at 12:29:55 AM EST
    Virginia before he wins Ohio......The Obama people know how to run in Virginia...

    Parent
    Virginia? (none / 0) (#26)
    by jbindc on Fri Dec 30, 2011 at 07:37:22 AM EST
    Doubt it.  He's not popular outside of Northern Virginia, and even that isn't as strong as he was in 2008.  Also, we have a Senate election to replace Jim Webb - a conservative Democrat who eked out a win by his teeth last time, plus a fairly popular Republican governor who will be out campaigning.

    Take Michigan and Ohio out of Obama's column too.

    Not to mention the 24 Senate seats the Dems are defending in an anti incumbent environment.

    Parent

    MIchigan (none / 0) (#28)
    by CST on Fri Dec 30, 2011 at 09:35:23 AM EST
    If I were running Obama's campaign I would re-print Romney's op-ed about letting Detroit fail in every major newspaper in Michigan.

    After what happened in 2004 I make no bets about Ohio.  Because I'm fairly convinced that Kerry won Ohio.  Although I will mention that while his approval rating there isn't great, Obama is still ahead of every major Republican candidate in the polls.  Which I think may be the story of this election.  I certainly wouldn't just write it off.

    Parent

    Do you support Romney? (none / 0) (#36)
    by MKS on Fri Dec 30, 2011 at 10:41:49 AM EST
    Obama will win Michigan by double digits (none / 0) (#37)
    by MKS on Fri Dec 30, 2011 at 10:43:51 AM EST
    Care to bet on that? (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by jbindc on Fri Dec 30, 2011 at 12:26:28 PM EST
    While the Michigan economy is starting to show signs of life, it's still bad.  Romney is from Michigan, and not sure what polls CST is looking at, but the last ones I've seen show Romney beating Obama by 4.  (commissioned by the liberal Detroit Free Press)

    While I was home over the holidays, folks I talked to, who all happened to vote for Obama in 2008, weren't sure who they'd vote for if Romney was the nominee.

    And no, just because I never drank the O kool aid does not mean I'm a Romney supporter.  I'm a realist.

    Parent

    I was referring to Ohio (none / 0) (#40)
    by CST on Fri Dec 30, 2011 at 12:30:43 PM EST
    not Michigan regarding the polls.

    Romney is also "from" Massachusetts.  But he won't win that state.  My point about Michigan is that Romney shot himself in the foot there and if the Obama campaign has half a brain they will use that to their full advantage once the campaign starts.  That's not to say he's currently ahead there, just that I see potential for him to put himself ahead there.

    Parent

    Sure, $10,000 (none / 0) (#41)
    by MKS on Fri Dec 30, 2011 at 01:27:48 PM EST
    in Monopoly money of course.

    Parent
    Chicken (none / 0) (#42)
    by jbindc on Fri Dec 30, 2011 at 03:42:31 PM EST
    Interesting (none / 0) (#44)
    by christinep on Fri Dec 30, 2011 at 08:38:51 PM EST
    So, jbindc, you would place Ohio in Romney's column. Y'know, that same Romney who opposed "hand-out" bailouts for the auto industry...which would have a big impact in a state like Ohio that has the 2nd most subsidiary employment related to that bailout other than Michigan? You'd give that to the bailout opponent Romney even after the state of Ohio benefited so openly from said bailout? Interesting, indeed.

    Whoops. And, then there is Kasich & his very overt anti-unionism in that very unionized state (where Gov Kasich was rebuffed in his anti-union moves this past fal.)  IMO, thanks to Wisconsin's Walker & Ohio's Kasich, the Dems have been shored up in those states where a number of working class people & others similarly situated seem to have rediscovered the Democratic Party.

    Parent

    The problem is (none / 0) (#20)
    by MKS on Fri Dec 30, 2011 at 12:27:37 AM EST
    that New Hampshire could be tough to win this year, and the "Western Scenario" requires not only Nevada and Colorado, but also New Hampshire.

    And, yes, the economy will be tough but I think demographics matters just as much....This was the lesson I learned during the 2008 Primary as pointed out by BTD and Nate Silver.

    So, the economy in California may stink but Romney has no chance here.  Nevada is becoming more and more like a big adjunct of California....

    Parent

    That "Western scenario" (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Towanda on Fri Dec 30, 2011 at 10:36:19 AM EST
    that includes New Hampshire in the Northeast also is one of a couple of those that include Iowa in the Midwest, it seems.  Heck, I wouldn't count on several of those states in the Midwest that are stated as assumptions -- but they're suffering, and not just in Michigan and Ohio.

    Democrats have needed almost all Great Lakes and Upper Mississippi states to make it past 270 in the past, very purple states, and there is no analysis of just how close they are nor of how many are mulling legislative bills to split their Electoral College vote.  They're just portrayed as solid blue, with the real game to the west, the south, the east. . . .  Well, I'd want to see the data that says some of those swing states are not swing states anymore.  I don't believe it, not with how close they have been and how bad their economies are.

    Parent

    Doesn't it all come down to (none / 0) (#45)
    by christinep on Fri Dec 30, 2011 at 08:41:49 PM EST
    keeping the Kerry states...and adding one other. Even today that seems quite, quite doable.

    Parent
    But, what do you think of the maps? (none / 0) (#19)
    by Lil on Fri Dec 30, 2011 at 12:03:13 AM EST
    The maps? The story is pretty clear. (none / 0) (#23)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Dec 30, 2011 at 01:51:22 AM EST
    Most of the country wants nothing to do with Democrats, period.

    Parent
    The big red swath (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by cal1942 on Fri Dec 30, 2011 at 08:50:06 PM EST
    A great deal of that swath is nearly empty land with very few people.

    In case you haven't heard people still do the voting; not prairie dogs and tumble weed.

    Parent

    Makes it difficult, doesn't it (none / 0) (#46)
    by christinep on Fri Dec 30, 2011 at 08:42:46 PM EST
    since most of the country seems to want even less to do with Republicans.

    Parent
    If by "most of the country" ... (none / 0) (#49)
    by Yman on Sat Dec 31, 2011 at 04:56:54 PM EST
    ... you're speaking of farmland, trees, tumbleweeds and sparsely populated areas, ...

    ... you might have a point.

    Parent

    Jim Messina is a terrible spokesman (5.00 / 0) (#18)
    by shoephone on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 11:45:09 PM EST
    Sorry, but I couldn't barely watch or listen to him. They need a Terry McCauliffe type personality to sell this to the contributors.

    Besides, I can't get used to the fact his name is Jim Messina, the same name as my favorite guitarist who inspired me to get a Telecaster when I was 15!

    Wow! Are you talking about... (none / 0) (#22)
    by StephenAG on Fri Dec 30, 2011 at 12:37:20 AM EST
    Jim Messina of Loggins and Messina fame? Or could you possibly be speaking of Joe Messina of Motown's Funk Brothers, who also used a 1960-series Telecaster in 1970's? Jus' askin'!


    Parent
    Jimmy Messina (none / 0) (#24)
    by shoephone on Fri Dec 30, 2011 at 04:06:57 AM EST
    of Buffalo Springfield, Poco, and Loggins and Messina. One of the greatest country rock players ever.

    Now I'm getting way off topic...

    Parent

    Messina (none / 0) (#48)
    by rdandrea on Sat Dec 31, 2011 at 11:02:49 AM EST
    Joe Messina of Motown's Funk Brothers

    Also of the Soupy Sales show.

    Parent

    The main (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Dec 30, 2011 at 07:44:12 AM EST
    message I got out of what Messina is saying is that it's going to be close.

    How close would it be expected to be (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by BobTinKY on Fri Dec 30, 2011 at 10:02:47 AM EST
    had Obama pursued Wall Street crooks, investigated Bushco war crimes & torture, insisted on and fought for a public option, declined Presidential authority to order the assassination of US citizens, focused relentlessly on job creators, filtered the trillions in grants and no interest loans given to Wall Street up through distressed homeowners, etc?

    It's close because people are choosing which Republican they want, traditional protector of the well to do and champion of corporations or  full blown crazy?

    Parent

    LOL I meant job creation (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by BobTinKY on Fri Dec 30, 2011 at 10:06:06 AM EST
    truth is Obama has focused relentlessly on "job creators!"

    Parent
    How close would it be expected to be (none / 0) (#32)
    by BobTinKY on Fri Dec 30, 2011 at 10:04:56 AM EST
    had Obama pursued Wall Street crooks, investigated Bushco war crimes & torture, insisted on and fought for a public option, declined Presidential authority to order the assassination of US citizens, focused relentlessly on job creators, filtered the trillions in grants and no interest loans given to Wall Street up through distressed homeowners, etc?

    It's close because people are choosing which Republican they want, traditional protector of the well to do and champion of corporations or  full blown crazy?

    Parent

    I know (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Dec 30, 2011 at 10:25:09 AM EST
    but he didn't and so here we are.

    Parent