Home › Blogs › Patrick Ruffini's blog ›

Obama: $150M in September

Submitted by Patrick Ruffini on Sun, 10/19/2008 - 06:46
in

Not good:

WASHINGTON — Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama reports raising more than $150 million in September in an unprecedented eruption of political giving.

The influx of money has helped the Illinois senator expand the field of competitive states and has widened his financial advantage over Republican rival John McCain.

The monthly figure pushed Obama's total fundraising to $605 million, unseen before in presidential politics. The campaign offered no details, but must submit a monthly report to the Federal Election Commission on Monday.

When I got the email from the Obama campaign, I was about to hit post on something projecting Obama at $104M for the month, based on the relative uptick of Obama Google search queries from August. (My high end projection was $126M.) Since much of Obama's giving is online, this seemed like a decent enough proxy, and this measure has been predictive in the past.

If the current ratio of voter interest to giving extends into October, then Obama has raised $114 million so far in October, on his way to at least $190 million for the month.

Obviously, my optimism on Obama's public financing gambit will probably not stand out as one of my finer blog moments. I probably should have listened to my instincts from earlier in the campaign on this one.

A couple of parting thoughts.

First, public finance in the general election is dead, dead, dead. Any nominee from now on can safely opt out because the Internet makes it for the public to massively participate. If we had not had a nominee with such misguided instincts on campaign finance reform, Republicans probably would have figured this out this time. McCain raised $47 million in August, or 71% of Obama's total, and he raised $10 million in 2 days because of Sarah Palin. Had this trend continued into September, McCain would have raised over $100 million for the month. By the time the McCain campaign figured out it was possible to excite the base, it was too late. 

Second, what does Obama do with the extra money? A three-to-one ad ratio in a given state is worth about a point in the polls. But that's in states with at least a decent baseline of Republican advertising. What's it worth in states where McCain can't advertise at all, like North Dakota or Georgia? 3 or 4 points? Does Obama move into states at the fringes of the target map to 1) heighten the sense of panic in the GOP? and 2) go for 400 EVs? Can he legally bail out the committees to go for 270 in the House and 60 in the Senate?

Either way, this is going to be the political equivalent of Sherman's March.

5
Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

Comments

This news will come on th

Submitted by cookworth on Sun, 10/19/2008 - 07:55.

This news will come on th heals of Colin Powells endorsement of Obama.  Not good,  guess we need to give him a real shot a solving some of these problems, lets just keep Obama honest.

Shock and Awe

Submitted by carltonyates on Sun, 10/19/2008 - 08:59.

Now it's time to throw a drowning party an anvil in the form of massive redistricting in key states.  Democratic majorities in state houses will put the nail in the coffin.

Interesting analogy

Submitted by Ironman on Sun, 10/19/2008 - 09:01.

I presume you therefore think the Obama administration will be as well run as the Iraq War

Obama Administration

Submitted by carltonyates on Sun, 10/19/2008 - 09:47.

I expect that Obama will run his administration like he has run his campaign. This is essentially what he told Marc Andreessen. And no, I think that the Iraq war will be effectively wound down like the bankrupt business that it has been. Obama will be thinking of his second term the moment he is sworn-in, so a messy exit is unlikely.  I predict a gradual drawn down with a focus on keeping our guys alive (force protection.) I think Obama is much more conservative than the right gives him credit for.

Hard to see any fiscal conservatism here

Submitted by Ironman on Sun, 10/19/2008 - 09:51.

I suppose not screwing up what the surge accomplished in Iraq would be a small concession to prudence from Obama, though 

Pay as You Go

Submitted by carltonyates on Sun, 10/19/2008 - 10:05.

I expect that Obama will want to claim credit for balanced budgets and a reduction in the national debt during his next campaign. I also expect that his EV margins will be much wider in 2012 after he has delivered on what he said he would do. Republicanism as a governing philosophy (excuse the oxymoron) will be a historical artifact by 2016 when President Michelle Obama is elected (I couldn't resist the early Halloween scare.)

are you not paying attention?

Submitted by Ironman on Sun, 10/19/2008 - 10:11.

Obama derided the Clinton approach as being "obssesed with deficit reduction".

There simply aren't enough millionaires in the country to tax to increase spending and reduce the deficit.

2010, meet 1994

Plan for Restoring Fiscal Discipline

Submitted by carltonyates on Sun, 10/19/2008 - 10:41.

Plan for Restoring Fiscal Discipline

The internet is really a cool tool, leveraging it to increase your knowledge can be very effective. Getting your talking points from robocalls and off the bathroom stalls of the Republican National Convention, not so much.

I agree, the internet really is a cool tool

Submitted by newlondoncalling on Sun, 10/19/2008 - 11:44.

http://firedoglake.com/2008/10/15/did-obama-just-renounce-pay-go/ http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=9128

Or you could just read the blog you're currently commenting at: 

http://www.thenextright.com/jon-henke/paygo-football

http://www.thenextright.com/soren-dayton/obama-walks-away-from-another-c...

Also: a not-funny joke about bathroom stalls?  And you don't mention Larry Craig?  You're new at this, I assume.

Matt Stoller is not Barack Obama

Submitted by carltonyates on Sun, 10/19/2008 - 17:30.

Since when does Matt Stoller speak for Obama

Obama: "But what is absolutely true is that, once we get through this economic crisis and some of the specific proposals to get us out of this slump, that we're not going to be able to go back to our profligate ways." 

I read this as a recognition that emergency measures are emergency measures and that there is a need to return to responsible fiscal spending. I think he had been fairly wise with the money that I have sent him over the campaign period...I expect the same with my tax dollars. Again don't buy your own propaganda, Obama is not a socialist...he is a centrist, especially when it comes to fiscal policy.

If Obama is a centrist then that makes Pelosi...

Submitted by BOVI on Sun, 10/19/2008 - 18:26.

Well its Sunday so I'll be nice.  But really you can't call Obama a centrist.  Please lets be intellectually honest here.  If your going to sugar coat it at least call him a "left leaning democrat".  Because if your trying to say he's a "blue dog" you will need to brush up on your POL SCI 101.  If thats the case let us know we can direct you to some good reading.

Real Politik

Submitted by carltonyates on Sun, 10/19/2008 - 20:34.

Ambition requires Obama to govern from the center, it's pretty simple. Gay marriage, denuclearization, carbon-tax, petroleum infrastructure nationalization, and a hundred other issues the far left would love to see Obama champion are not on the agenda. He supported Joe Lieberman over Ned Lamont which didn't endear him to many on the left. He is not an ideologue, he is a pragmatist. He is a man tailored for our times and that is why he will be 44.

Another liar for obama

Submitted by Freedoms Truth on Sun, 10/19/2008 - 09:57.

" I think Obama is much more conservative than the right gives him credit for."
Either a willing victim of the lies of Obama or a willing participant in spreading them. Obama is the most left-wing candidate in American history.

In Obama's tax plan, his misdescribed a welfare-state-Govt-giveaway a 'tax cut', and marginal tax rates for middle-class Americans are going UP.

http://travismonitor.blogspot.com/2008/10/exposing-obamas-tax-cut-lie.html

 

AEI??

Submitted by Jim Dandy to th... on Sun, 10/19/2008 - 10:51.

I would never trust facts and figures from AEI, they PAY huge staffs of people to misconstrue, mislead, and shave the truth as thin as possible to serve a Conservative agenda.

Put simply, they were created and are run as liars for hire.

Plug your ears and eyes to the truth

Submitted by Freedoms Truth on Sun, 10/19/2008 - 15:34.

Yeah, nice liberal argument. Any competent person can do the math and get the same result. it checks out. You cannot have Obama's welfare-state giveaways without raising the marginal tax rates. Obama will raise the marginal tax rates on the middle class. It WILL disincentivize work and take us back to stagflation of the 1970s.

Your ad hominem argument is probably the best proof we have that it is true. If you cant refute the message, you attack the messenger. AEI is not very partisan nore conservative, they are close to middle-of-the-road.

Where do you get this crap???

Submitted by gunthestops on Sun, 10/19/2008 - 10:52.

LOL--your grph shows a person making 40K is going to pay more % of tax then a person making a 100K under the Obama plan is pure crap---what is wrong with you people, you really cant be that dumb??????

GTS fails to understand marginal tax rates

Submitted by Freedoms Truth on Sun, 10/19/2008 - 15:42.

Obviously you dont know nor have a good understanding of marginal tax rates when you state that:

your grph shows a person making 40K is going to pay more % of tax then a person making a 100K

No it does NOT show that. It shows the MARGINAL Tax rates. What the marginal tax rate means is that for any ADDITIONAL amount of money made, how much ends up as additional takehome pay and how much ends up as in the govts pocket. Obama's welfare checks are taken away at certain income levels and the net effect is very high marginal tax rates, even if the net amount going to govt is smaller than at $100k income level.

Obama's high marginal taxrates are a several disincentive to work and production for people in the middle class.

People making lower amounts can have higher marginal tax rates with lower total payments, consider payroll taxes as an example. Higher incomes always pay more but above $95k or so the marginal tax rate is 0%, social security tax reaches its limit. below that level the marginal combined contribution marginal tax rate is 15%.

Really, gunthestops, Very BAD form to show your complete ignorance of the point being made while accusing others of being dumb. LOL, I prescribe some Thomas Sowell economics texts to cure your ignorance!

 

Really Ironhead

Submitted by gunthestops on Sun, 10/19/2008 - 09:40.

The Bush administration was not run much better then the Iraq war---that is why 85% of Americans think this country is headed in the wrong direction---or maybe 15% of Americans are smarter then the rest of us!!!!

Wrong track #:America heading to wrong-direction ObamaNation

Submitted by Freedoms Truth on Sun, 10/19/2008 - 10:03.

It's not surprising that many Americans who know that Obama's socialist-style economics will be bad are goosing up the 'wrong track' numbers.

I think America is going off-track: Too much govt meddling, too many bailouts, too much pork spending, a (Pelosi) Democrat Congress that is incompetent, too much vaccilation in foreign policy, too many judges who legislate from the bench, taxes too high, not enough to secure borders.

On every single one of these issues, bad-choice Barack takes us further in the wrong direction. So, given the expectation of Obama winning and taking us further into the muck of bad polcies, many will say we are on the 'wrong track'.

And check the other post: The most informed voters are Rush Limbaugh fans. So yeah, listen the THEM.

 

Low Information Voter

Submitted by carltonyates on Sun, 10/19/2008 - 10:24.

above in his own words. May be time to listen to David Frum, Christopher Buckley and Peggy Noonan if you want to have any hopes of the GOP winning any national races in the future. But then again Rush really has his finger on the pulse of low information voters, so keep listening to Rush and keep losing. Hopefully, with any luck, you will never connect the dots.

Bad Information liberal voter

Submitted by Freedoms Truth on Sun, 10/19/2008 - 15:24.

Tsk, tsk, very bad form to go with a 'in his own words' lie like that. Why the angry outburst? Why the smear? It must really get under your skin that Rush Limbaugh listeners are more informed then the people who get their news from your favorite liberal news outlets:

http://www.thenextright.com/warner-todd-huston/pew-limbaugh-and-hannity-...

But, where it concerns US politics, more respondents from the Rush Limbaugh and Hannity & Colmes shows knew that Condi Rice was the current Sec. of State and that the Democrats currently controlled the House of Reps, beating the audiences of Colbert, Stewart, the NewsHour, C-SPAN, Letterman and Leno, CNN and the Nat'l Enquirer.

I've never heard of a 'low information voter', must be some useless liberal meme that has been flatulated out of the bowels of some leftwing agitprop group. But I do know that the biased liberal media throws so much bilge out there, that they woefully mislead by so much, that there are 'bad information' liberal voters who go around believing nonsense that is about as close to reality as pixies and unicorns.

 

Socialist agenda?

Submitted by pbrowe on Sun, 10/19/2008 - 12:22.

Let's see; W ruins the economy and needs a trillion taxpayer dollars to buy bank stocks, but the Republican agenda is NOT socialist and Obama's IS?  Returning the top %5 of American earners to the tax structure under Clinton ( where we enjoyed near universal prosperity) is somehow a socialist agenda?  No way.  Nothing you say in your post makes sense.  Keep listening to Limbowel.  He will be your safety net for the future of a country you will have no say in.

socialism by another name

Submitted by Freedoms Truth on Sun, 10/19/2008 - 15:13.

First, socialism engaged by either Republicans or Democrats is still socialism and I never said otherwise. The bailouts by the Pelosi Democrat Congress and passed by Bush now are  passing the $1 trillion mark. You may be right to wrap Bush's knuckles over the $700b bailout bill. But then it was Paulson's plan and he never was a free-market conservative, just a wall st operator in the Democrats favorite wall st firm. The crying shame of this is that it is a bipartisan raping of the American taxpayer, and it being done in the name of fixing a problem that previous Government meddling created (via Govt encouragement of subprime lending). Bailouts beget more bailouts and the road to socialism is paved always with the intention of trying to avoid the pain of necessary economic adjustment.

second, the supposed ruination of the economy under W is a curious charge that fails to account for Congressional complicity - he inherited a  bursting internet bubble and was hit with 9/11, but from 2003 to 2007 engineered a growing economy, 20% growth and 8 million new jobs, with his across-the-board tax cuts that reduced middle class taxation.   But since liberal Democrat Nancy Pelosi became speaker after 2006 elections, the price of oil rose, the stock market fell,  unemployment rose, the economy sputtered; surely, the Democrat habit of a tax hike for every problem, their partisan demagogic attacks on businesses (like "big oil") and their giveaways to tort lawyers and special interest groups via pork and earmarks, their wasteful spending (like the $200 billion farm bill), all take a toll on the business climate and thus the economy. That toll on the economy has softened weak housing markets and made housing price pullbacks worse, turning a manageable problem into a catastrophe. If the Congress had merely decided to extend the Bush tax cuts instead of threatening to end them, the economy would be much better off today.

Just as the Democrat Congress in the 1990-1992 era served us poorly, so too does today's Democrat Congress. Now as then, there is an element of partisanship before patriotism, a willingness to let things go to the dogs to help elect the Democrats.

We enjoyed good prosperity in the Clinton era (despite the latter part of it being a bubble) mainly because we elected a fiscally conservative Gingrich Congress that keep spending and taxes in line. Since Congress sets the tax and spend agenda, it is no suprise that we had a better economy under a Gingrich Congress than under the leftwing incompetence of the current Pelosi Congress.

Given all this, and given obama's personal acts on behalf of ACORN to loer bank lending standards (by suing them to do so), it seems that putting Obama in charge of the whole shebang is a bit like putting an arsonist in charge of the fire dept.

BTW, it is a lie to say that Obama is returning the tax structure under Clinton. Under Obama's govt-giveaway mislabelled a tax cut, MARGINAL TAX RATES FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS WILL BE HIGHER THAN SINCE BEFORE 1980! It's a fact. That fact is due to Obama shovelling huge new welfare-system payments out the door and hiding them in the tax system. In reality, it is another $100 billion/yr in Govt spending and $100 billion/yr in higher taxes. Under Obama, Government will be taking and redistributing more money than ever. That, my friend is socialism. See:

http://travismonitor.blogspot.com/2008/10/exposing-obamas-tax-cut-lie.html

And PS, you are reduced to childish name distortions against Rush Limbaugh. Shame on you. You probably lack the guts to even listen to him.

Dear Freedoms...

Submitted by pbrowe on Sun, 10/19/2008 - 15:48.

I've listened to Rush, am not a fan of Pelosi and can't find ANY connection to ACORN and "loer (sic)  bank lending standards" ( as if registering voters is connected to banking???).  You can say that Bush signed a Pelosi bill, but it doesn't make it true and you know it.  We all know where it originated and if you have a problem with your president's appointments, talk to him!

Bush called it "The ownership society" while he was signing every Republican bill stuffed with pork and taking credit for the boom in American wealth driven by the housing market for six years.  Now is socializing banking.  I disagree that the market would correct itself before a depression set in, so I believe the bailout was necessary.  Why, Mac rushed in to assure it!  Maybe he's your socialist scapegoat?  Congresses approval rating is directly tied to the inability to have enough votes to end the war in Iraq, which will be alleviated shortly with massive majorities for the Dems.

I know it is tough to see your relevance in a country that you love about to go away forever.  I've had to live with it for six years and I can tell you, it will be very painful for you.  I would even feel sorry for you if it was not for your defense of Rush, a blowhard bowel movement who will say anything for your cause.

So you know, I am a successful serial entrepreneur, having built five business while creating thousands of jobs.  I know what I've done for my country... and it isn't just sitting around listening to talk radio!

Good luck to you in eternal irrelevance!

 

The Iraq War

Submitted by Jim Dandy to th... on Sun, 10/19/2008 - 10:57.

Was invented, sold, and processed as a Conservative-GOP project.

There are STILL laws on the books in the unholy mess that is Iraq that read like wishlists from AEI, left there by L. Paul "Jerry" Bremer as he left a day early so they couldn't target his 'copter out.

The Iraq War is the anvil that crushed the Conservative movement in this country, and GW Bush is the hammer that keeps pounding it into smithereens.

I wasn't defend Bush

Submitted by Ironman on Sun, 10/19/2008 - 09:48.

just noticing you guys seems to be using his approach as a template.  Evidently now Obama is going surround himself with a bunch of old time wise men to run his administration-the only names missing were Cheney and Rumsfeld, who already did this gig .

Buying elections?

Submitted by T D Williams on Sun, 10/19/2008 - 11:12.

I guess we'll see.  Remember how during the summer the public was complaining about too much coverage of Sen. Obama and that they were tired of him? 

I'm tired of political advertising, and my World Series has not yet been delayed because of it.  That will really stoke the irritation.

I wonder if the law of unintended consequences will kick in?

 

I haven't been here much in recent weeks

Submitted by David Hinz on Sun, 10/19/2008 - 13:12.

it is sad to see that this has become one more site over-run by liberal Obama trolls.

You put up a well thought out piece, and the trolls take over the comments sections.

 

Not surprising, really.  The left cannot take the chance on truth getting out anywhere.

Please tell us the truth then!!!

Submitted by gunthestops on Sun, 10/19/2008 - 14:16.

The truth that Republicans stopped PAYGO early in his first term. 

The truth that not a single spending bill was vetoed in the first 6 yrs of a Bush/Republican congress.

The truth that in the first 6 yrs the Republicans became the biggest spenders in the history of the world at 3 trillion dollars.

The truth that Bush has doubled the national debt during his two terms.

The truth that for the first time we gave large tax cuts to the wealthy while at the same time we could not pay for the war in Iraq and put it on the national debt.

The truth that he fired the Secretary of the Treasury because the Iraq war going to cost $200 billion or more not the $50 billion that the Bush team was telling the American people.  Now we are looking at more then 1.5 trillion of direct and indirect costs if we leave in the next couple of years.

The truth that he fired the General that said securing the county of Iraq would take a lot more troops early in the war.

The truth that because of Iraq we have not been able to support the toops in Afganastan and properly secure the country.  

Do I need to go on?????  

Intellectual honsety time, gunthestops

Submitted by Freedoms Truth on Sun, 10/19/2008 - 15:29.

Are you a Obama/Dem troll or disgruntled fiscal conservative?

If you really are the latter, its time for intellectual honesty.

Who controls the Congress for the past 20 months?
What is the Congress' level of control over the budget?

What has the Pelosi Congress spending and taxes policy been? Do you approve of higher taxes? Higher spending? more regulation? more bailouts? more welfare giveaways? more Pork? More earmarks?

iraq is about 5% of total govt spending. Why not talk about the other 95%?

What grade do you give Pelosi, Reid, and the Democrats who have run the congress for the past 2 years?

Upon consideration, would you not agree with me that the The change we need is to defeat the Democrats in Congress. Defeat Nancy Pelosi and her earmark, pork-barrel, corrupt trial-lawyer leftwing-special interest ACORN-supporting buddies in Congress.

agreed?

 

More means worse. Next question?

Submitted by jhmccloskey on Mon, 10/20/2008 - 01:12.

Any nominee from now on can safely opt out [of public financing] because the Internet makes it [frabjous] for the public to massively participate.

---

Some word that is not "frabjous" was left out.  Who shall say for sure which word it was?

 If the correct reading is "easy", then the sentence is hard to quarrel with.  But if, as this keyboard assumed the first time through, "possible" was intended, let us quarrel a little.

Was it not quite as possible to give money to pols massively in 1958 or 1908 or 1858 as it was yesterday afternoon?   That mass giving did not actually happen, of course,  but there was no physical impossibility involved that I can think of.    Where there's a will, there's a way, and always has been, and probably always will be, Senators Feingold and McCain notwithstanding.

Once in a long while somebody at the Faculty Club notices what percentage of their disposable income Holy-Homelanders spend on pols and politics and draws the pretty obvious conclusion that they must not care about these things very much, not compared to lottery tickets, or dishwashing liquids, or ... or make your own joke about it.

One could put the computers in the spotlight rather than the Party hacks, and notice that there is a pattern here.   What word processing did for literature has now been done for election finance:  Product X having become much easier to produce, its quality drops like a rock.

"Nowadays, my dear, the most dreadful people can give money to candidates.  It's shockin’!"

Well, yes and no, your Lordship.  Remember that those same proles have been  permitted to vote for years and years now.

Happy days.

 

 

 

 

 

We enjoyed good prosperity in

Submitted by jibran_pcc on Mon, 08/31/2009 - 00:47.

We enjoyed good prosperity in the Clinton era (despite the latter part of it being a bubble) mainly because we elected a fiscally conservative Gingrich Congress that keep spending and taxes in line. Since Congress sets the tax and spend agenda, it is no suprise that we had a better economy under a Gingrich Congress than under the leftwing incompetence of the current Pelosi Congress.

Given all this, and given obama's personal acts on behalf of ACORN to loer bank lending standards (by suing them to do so), it seems that putting Obama in charge of the whole shebang is a bit like putting an arsonist in charge of the fire dept.

domain registration hosting