• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Obama: Romney campaign will outspend me.

What kind of ****ed up world do we live in when both candidates are spending (or having spent for them) close to $1 billion each on their campaigns when we have nearly 10% unemployment?

That's enough money to give about 2 million struggling American families an extra $1,000.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Indeed...

Obama
- Small Individual Contributions $109,557,183 (43%)
- Large Individual Contributions $148,100,312 (58%)


Romney:
- Small Individual Contributions $15,660,063 (13%)
- Large Individual Contributions $105,541,069 (87%)


Of course, this doesn't even touch on the PAC's....
Click to expand...

Didn't you just demonstrate Obama has gotten MORE money from large contributions? Almost half over again? Plutocracy!

I'm also surprised that so many people are willing to throw money at the opportunity to eat dinner with him. I guess the gambler's impulse is strong in all facets of life, especially with the hero worship so many people have with Hollywood and the Obamas. Plutocracy!

I love how a statement about future spending in the campaign can be labeled as "not true" when it hasn't happened yet.
Click to expand...

No, more accurately an assumption of a potential occurrence gets the base uneasy and has people shouting "plutocracy! plutocracy!"
 
Tucker Case said:
What kind of ****ed up world do we live in when both candidates are spending (or having spent for them) close to $1 billion each on their campaigns when we have nearly 10% unemployment?

That's enough money to give about 2 million struggling American families an extra $1,000.
Click to expand...
Now I understand your socialist lean.

It is not your money. Do good with your own money. I am sure you know someone who would be happy with your gift of a grand or so.
 
Misterveritis said:
Now I understand your socialist lean.
Click to expand...

It's actually a joke lean.

It is not your money. Do good with your own money. I am sure you know someone who would be happy with your gift of a grand or so.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that they don't have a right to spend that kind of absurd money, I'm saying there's something fundamentally wrong with a society where the two people seeking to lead the country can spend that kind of money during an economic ****storm like the one we are in today. They have a right to do it, that doesn't mean they are right to do it.
 
So are conservatives now bragging that their side has unlimited corporate money backing their guy? That's...an interesting development.
 
Tucker Case said:
It's actually a joke lean.
Click to expand...
I understood that from your earlier comments. Still it seemed appropriate to this conversation.

I'm not saying that they don't have a right to spend that kind of absurd money, I'm saying there's something fundamentally wrong with a society where the two people seeking to lead the country can spend that kind of money during an economic ****storm like the one we are in today. They have a right to do it, that doesn't mean they are right to do it.
Click to expand...
You are free to judge as you wish of course. How much money do you believe should be spent? One dollar per potential voter? Two? Five?

We are in the Midst of a struggle so profound no amount of money is too much to change this regime. If we fail and the Marxist gets a second term the nation will no longer exist when he is through. He must be stopped. The Marxist has spent five trillion dollars, is ruling outside the Constitution. If we do not succeed the nation will end. So how much is an appropriate amount to spend to prevent that?
 
Misterveritis said:
I understood that from your earlier comments. Still it seemed appropriate to this conversation.


You are free to judge as you wish of course. How much money do you believe should be spent? One dollar per potential voter? Two? Five?

We are in the Midst of a struggle so profound no amount of money is too much to change this regime. If we fail and the Marxist gets a second term the nation will no longer exist when he is through. He must be stopped. The Marxist has spent five trillion dollars, is ruling outside the Constitution. If we do not succeed the nation will end. So how much is an appropriate amount to spend to prevent that?
Click to expand...

Sad thing is, you feel justified in your level of hysteria.
 
Republic Now! said:
Didn't you just demonstrate Obama has gotten MORE money from large contributions? Almost half over again? Plutocracy!

I'm also surprised that so many people are willing to throw money at the opportunity to eat dinner with him. I guess the gambler's impulse is strong in all facets of life, especially with the hero worship so many people have with Hollywood and the Obamas. Plutocracy!



No, more accurately an assumption of a potential occurrence gets the base uneasy and has people shouting "plutocracy! plutocracy!"
Click to expand...
Um, I showed that his DIRECT contributions are much more balanced than Mittens.

Further, I will wager that Mittens will have more than twice in total contributions (incl all PAC monies) than Obama by Nov, and that will be far and away made up of super-non-disclosed donors.
 
Cardinal said:
So are conservatives now bragging that their side has unlimited corporate money backing their guy? That's...an interesting development.
Click to expand...
Not only are they bragging about it, they are making the argument FOR non-disclosure as opposed to previously pushing for disclosure.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Um, I showed that his DIRECT contributions are much more balanced than Mittens.
Click to expand...

I'm aware of what you MEANT to show. I'm also pointing out that Obama has gotten 50,000,000 more in big bad rich-man bucks than Romney.

Certainly with the Hollywood dinners they've been holding lotteries for contributions Obama would have more small contributions.

Further, I will wager that Mittens will have more than twice in total contributions (incl all PAC monies) than Obama by Nov, and that will be far and away made up of super-non-disclosed donors.
Click to expand...

Could be. I don't really care either way. Clearly you do though. Of course, not now, but IF Romney gets more than definitely its plutocracy.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Um, I showed that his DIRECT contributions are much more balanced than Mittens.

Further, I will wager that Mittens will have more than twice in total contributions (incl all PAC monies) than Obama by Nov, and that will be far and away made up of super-non-disclosed donors.
Click to expand...

obama raised 3/4 of a billion late in 08 during the previous election,thats more than what kerry and bush combined raised.

and btw obama is on the big pharmacy payroll,which is bigger money than oil companies.
 
Republic Now! said:
I'm aware of what you MEANT to show. I'm also pointing out that Obama has gotten 50,000,000 more in big bad rich-man bucks than Romney.
Click to expand...
Um, thanks for stating the obvious, what would we do without you. Another obvious fact is that these are disclosed contributions, whereas most of Mittens support will be dark monies.
 
AdamT said:
It will be interesting to see how it turns out. It's even possible that overspending could backfire on one or both candidates. After four months of endless commercials and robocalls, a lot of people might just say, "STFU already! I'm sick of hearing you blow your own horn and talk **** about the other guy."
Click to expand...

That's how I feel about people whining that Obama won't have a financial advantage this time around. :thumbs:
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Indeed...

Obama
- Small Individual Contributions $109,557,183 (43%)
- Large Individual Contributions $148,100,312 (58%)


Romney:
- Small Individual Contributions $15,660,063 (13%)
- Large Individual Contributions $105,541,069 (87%)


Of course, this doesn't even touch on the PAC's....
Click to expand...

Your talking point was that the majority of Obama's money comes from small donations. That is not true. Dont hook up wheels to the goal posts.

You really want to go into the PACs? Because we can go back and examine the gigantic amount of money Obama got from University based PACs and then correlate that with his decision to take over student loans then bail them out. The bubble there may be larger than the housing market. Then we have several large PACs that are dem based and 3 that are essentially joint efforts by the DNC and the White House.

Obama is getting beaten on fund raising, the immediate talking point went out: Romney is buying the election. Where was this bull**** during 2008? Oh wait it was a dem so it was just fine.


Final Fundraising Figure: Obama's $750M - ABC News
In 21-plus months, Barack Obama raised roughly $750 million from donors, surpassing all of his White House opponents this year and also eclipsing the total amount of money raised by all of the presidential candidates combined in 2004.
Click to expand...

McCain's fundraising for the 2008 cycle was not terrible. The Arizona senator raised a respectable $238 million from donors, in addition to the $84 million federal grant he received for participating in the public financing system.

In all, McCain had almost $50 million more to spend than George W. Bush did in 2004. Those were good overall numbers, but obviously not enough to compete with Obama's enormous fundraising prowess.
Click to expand...

Busted stupid hypocritical narratives.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Obama is getting beaten on fund raising, the immediate talking point went out: Romney is buying the election. Where was this bull**** during 2008? Oh wait it was a dem so it was just fine.
Click to expand...

you think the whining is bad now - wait until he loses.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Significance?
Click to expand...

According to data collected by the Center for Responsive Politics, in the current election cycle every one of the top 10 industries making political donations is giving more money to Democrats.
Click to expand...

It's called hypocrisy. It's running thick within the ranks of the Democrats.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Your talking point was that the majority of Obama's money comes from small donations. That is not true. Dont hook up wheels to the goal posts.

You really want to go into the PACs? Because we can go back and examine the gigantic amount of money Obama got from University based PACs and then correlate that with his decision to take over student loans then bail them out. The bubble there may be larger than the housing market. Then we have several large PACs that are dem based and 3 that are essentially joint efforts by the DNC and the White House.

Obama is getting beaten on fund raising, the immediate talking point went out: Romney is buying the election. Where was this bull**** during 2008? Oh wait it was a dem so it was just fine.


Final Fundraising Figure: Obama's $750M - ABC News




Busted stupid hypocritical narratives.
Click to expand...

cpwill said:
you think the whining is bad now - wait until he loses.
Click to expand...

Bronson said:
It's called hypocrisy. It's running thick within the ranks of the Democrats.
Click to expand...

Quiet you plutocrats! Did you see Romney's shadow money?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom