[Presidential Election Thread] All Hail the Liberty Rooster.

enlightenedbum · April 2012

Paid media hits a saturation point where it doesn't matter. We're WELL beyond that in this election. More importantly, Obama actually has a field operation, which is tested, successful, and ready to go. Romney still doesn't and needs to build one in the next eight months.

The money's more important in Congressional and state elections. Obama has a ridiculous amount of cash on hand, like 100 million.

Harry Dresden · April 2012

enlightenedbum wrote: »

Paid media hits a saturation point where it doesn't matter. We're WELL beyond that in this election. More importantly, Obama actually has a field operation, which is tested, successful, and ready to go. Romney still doesn't and needs to build one in the next eight months.

Is Obama using the 50 state strategy?

enlightenedbum · April 2012

Harry Dresden wrote: »

enlightenedbum wrote: »

Paid media hits a saturation point where it doesn't matter. We're WELL beyond that in this election. More importantly, Obama actually has a field operation, which is tested, successful, and ready to go. Romney still doesn't and needs to build one in the next eight months.

Is Obama using the 50 state strategy?

It's probably closer to 35.

50 - (Alaska, Utah, Idaho Wyoming, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia, Louisiana, Arkansas, and then South Carolina and the Dakotas are marginal; as is non-Omaha parts of Nebraska)

Taramoor · April 2012

MuddBudd wrote: »

Gigazombie Cybermage wrote: »

We haven't seen all the crap the Super PACs are gonna unleash yet. I have a feeling it's going to get messy. I read that Obama's has a huge deficit of large donors, and is relying on more small donors for his campaign.

I am very worried at what that much money is going to do to campaigns.

It's going to turn them into job creators.

Shadowen · April 2012

Taramoor wrote: »

MuddBudd wrote: »

Gigazombie Cybermage wrote: »

We haven't seen all the crap the Super PACs are gonna unleash yet. I have a feeling it's going to get messy. I read that Obama's has a huge deficit of large donors, and is relying on more small donors for his campaign.

I am very worried at what that much money is going to do to campaigns.

It's going to turn them into job creators.

Thank you for forcing me to coin the phrase "election-industrial complex". "Permanent campaign" wasn't nearly fucking cynical enough. I just adore having my expectations of humanity lowered this early in the morning.

AManFromEarth · April 2012

Man, Romney's prebuttal (I swear to God) to Obama's DNC acceptance speech was pretty, what's the nice word for full of shit?

"Obama is dividing Americans on purpose"
"Obama hasn't given one plan to do anything!"

He did have a pretty good joke. That I've forgotten now, but it was pretty good.

AManFromEarth · April 2012

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/23/obama-v-romney-the-foreign-policy-battle/?hpt=hp_t2

In what might be Mr. Romney's weakest area and one of Mr. Obama's surprisingly strongest, the presumptive GOP nominee has started attempting to claw back. It's funny, because traditionally "Mommy and Daddy" syndrome strikes at foreign policy; Republicans being assumed to be strong on defense and Democrats assumed to be weak. Romney; however, has no idea what he's talking about when it comes to defense or foreign relations (because, surprise of all surprises, foreign policy means more than reckless military spending increases).

What sums up my opinions on Romney's foreign policy credentials is this quote:

"It's easy to say Mr. President, I can do better on Iran, on China, on North Korea," says Lindsay with the Council on Foreign Relations. "What we have yet to see is whether or not Romney can generate in the answer to the obvious counterquestion from Barack Obama: 'OK, what would you do, and why should we believe it would work?' "

Romney, like most Republicans, is still fighting the Cold War, calling Russia our biggest geo-political foe (I thought that was China now, guess I'm street behind).

With increasing tension in the Middle East, China's paper tiger rise, and probable deepening of economic woes in Europe the question becomes "Can we afford Mitt Romney learning as he goes along on the international stage?"

dbrock270 · April 2012

Gigazombie Cybermage wrote: »

We haven't seen all the crap the Super PACs are gonna unleash yet. I have a feeling it's going to get messy. I read that Obama's has a huge deficit of large donors, and is relying on more small donors for his campaign.

Obama still has tens of millions more than Romney.

dbrock270 · April 2012

And plus Romneybot's strategy is to buy up every television spot possible with negative attack ads.

Also I just read somewhere that Karl Rove's SuperPac has millions amassed but only four donors.

Honk · April 2012

dbrock270 wrote: »

And plus Romneybot's strategy is to buy up every television spot possible with negative attack ads.

Also I just read somewhere that Karl Rove's SuperPac has millions amassed but only four donors.

Isn't there some per-person maximum for political donations?

nightmarenny · April 2012

Have you not been watching the Colbert report? The citizens united ruling basically allows to give unlimited and anonymous donations through the combination of Superpacs and Pacs.

AManFromEarth · April 2012

Honk wrote: »

dbrock270 wrote: »

And plus Romneybot's strategy is to buy up every television spot possible with negative attack ads.

Also I just read somewhere that Karl Rove's SuperPac has millions amassed but only four donors.

Isn't there some per-person maximum for political donations?

Not for Super PACs! Money equals speech, bitches

Scooter · April 2012

Honk wrote: »

dbrock270 wrote: »

And plus Romneybot's strategy is to buy up every television spot possible with negative attack ads.

Also I just read somewhere that Karl Rove's SuperPac has millions amassed but only four donors.

Isn't there some per-person maximum for political donations?

Not for PACs.

Honk · April 2012

So basically if you don't give directly to the candidate there's no limit.

AManFromEarth · April 2012

Welcome to the world of Citizens United.

Honk · April 2012

Neato!

AManFromEarth · April 2012

And now for something completely different:

Washington Post, who apparently hate embedding wrote:

The Obama campaign has 533 people who have each raised at least $50,000 for his campaign and the Democratic National Committee, including 90 who joined the campaign in the last quarter. The total nearly matches the 558 people who were listed as volunteer fundraisers for the 2008 campaign.

Of this year’s bundlers, 117 are in the top echelon, raising at least $500,000 each, nearly double the number the campaign reported at the end of the 2011 and more than double the 47 who reached that level in 2008.

Welcome to the world of schizo journalism.

Lilnoobs · April 2012

So this article seems on point. It expands on the individual donors (who donate more money than corporations) and the effect that may have on the elections. The author also compares the current climate with the Gilded Age.

http://nymag.com/news/frank-rich/conservative-donors-2012-4/

Some excerpts

If you want to appreciate what Barack Obama is up against in 2012, forget about the front man who is his nominal opponent and look instead at the Republican billionaires buying the ammunition for the battles ahead. A representative example is Harold Simmons, an 80-year-old Texan who dumped some $15 million into the campaign before primary season had ended. Reminiscing about 2008, when he bankrolled an ad blitz to tar the Democrats with the former radical Bill Ayers, Simmons told The Wall Street Journal, “If we had run more ads, we could have killed Obama.” It is not a mistake he intends to make a second time. The $15 million Simmons had spent by late February dwarfs the $2.8 million he allotted to the Ayers takedown and the $3 million he contributed to the Swift Boat Veterans demolition of John Kerry four years before that. Imagine the cash that will flow now that the GOP sideshows are over and the president is firmly in Simmons’s crosshairs.

Though the sugar daddies do differ on some issues—in some surprising cases departing from conservative orthodoxy on immigration, same-sex marriage, and abortion—those anomalies are trivial next to the convictions they share with one another and with Romney. Indeed, the sugar daddies fill in the vacuum of core beliefs that so many have found elusive in the Etch-a-Sketch candidate. Many of them have in common the practice of “vulture capitalism”—to use the term Rick Perry wielded when attacking Mitt’s record at Bain Capital. The fundamental principles of vulture capitalism, whatever the respective business arenas or prey, are inviolate: Anything and anyone is expendable in pursuit of a profit, starting with the powerless, and any brushes with the law along the way, not to mention civil or criminal financial penalties, are simply the price of doing nasty business. Like corporate donors, sugar daddies tend to seek favors to serve their particular special interests (notably the golden oldies of oil and finance) and dedicate themselves to fighting and avoiding taxes. But their ethos departs from the corporate model. Precisely because they are lone wolves responsible to no one but themselves—not independent shareholders, let alone the communities they plunder—they can be “more ruthless than Wall Street,” as the Newt Gingrich super-PAC put it in its ad attacking Romney’s Bain career. Vulture capitalists are throwbacks not so much to the relatively modern bankers and industrialists whom FDR set out to police in the Great Depression as to the more primitive titans and robber barons of the Gilded Age that Teddy Roosevelt took on a generation earlier.

t defies rationality that the current crop of sugar daddies is in such a rage at the country that has done so well by them. Their tax rates are at modern lows, the Dow has recently hit a four-year high, and their businesses are booming. “Big U.S. companies have emerged from the deepest recession since World War II more productive, more profitable, flush with cash and less burdened by debt” was how The Wall Street Journal summarized the lay of the land this month. It’s workers whose jobs were shed by those companies and remain unemployed who have a right to be enraged, not the sugar daddies. Economic inequality remains at nearly pre-recession levels as 99 percenters struggle to hold their ground, let alone move up the economic ladder.

If the sugar daddies get their way in November, we know what it means for the country. But it’s equally worth contemplating what will happen if they don’t. Obama is talking the talk of the two Roosevelts, whose reformist zeal and political courage helped bring America back from the brink after the privileged plundered it in the Gilded Age and the Jazz Age. But if he is willing to take on those interests as forcefully as they did, he has yet to show it in his actions and governance. Unless and until he does, it’s hard to see how the sugar daddies could lose over the long run, even if Obama wins on Election Day. They have, after all, only just begun to spend.

Magus` · April 2012

So depressing all the money spent on fucking the poor that could not only help said poor, but in doing so help most of the rich people spending the money to fuck the poor. The only way this makes any sense at all is these people just really love fucking over the less fortunate at the expense of everything else.

Tox · April 2012

The fundamental principles of vulture capitalism ... are inviolate: Anything and anyone is expendable in pursuit of a profit, starting with the powerless, and any brushes with the law along the way, not to mention civil or criminal financial penalties, are simply the price of doing nasty business.

Magus` · April 2012

The only issue is vultures don't tend to kill the things they eat, they let other things do that for them. Romney is some sort of parasitic zombie vulture.

tbloxham · April 2012

Gigazombie Cybermage wrote: »

We haven't seen all the crap the Super PACs are gonna unleash yet. I have a feeling it's going to get messy. I read that Obama's has a huge deficit of large donors, and is relying on more small donors for his campaign.

You understand that the SuperPAC adds will actually energize the 'whiny liberals' you describe to get out and vote for Obama. They might not like his policies on Guantanamo but when the other side spends a billion dollars saying that Obama's liberal extremism has gone too far and that only by returning the the glorious white christian values of yesteryear can we save the constitution from abortions and women they won't be thinking about how much they like him but instead about how much they HATE republicans. They will be producing attack adds against themselves, because what their supporters think is bad Obama's supporters think is good and vice versa!

"Obama expanded access to abortion for federal employees...."
"Obama has enacted military cuts which leave spending levels dangerously low....."
"Obama isn't a white dude...."
"Obama has attacked the constitution, and relies on activist judges...."
"Obama is an elitist liberal academic...."
"Under Obama, your taxes have been raised a thousand times...."
"Under Obama, the vice grip of federal regulation will come between you and your doctor...."
"Is Obama really a Christian...."
"Obama plans to force states to adopt gay marriage...."
"Obama plans to force your school to accept gay teachers...."
"Obama was born in Kenya..."
"Obama ate DOG in a FOREIGN COUNTRY...."
"Mitt Romney is a true conservative, he will cut your taxes"
"Mitt Romney understands that god is the foundation of this nation"
"Mitt Romney wants you to know that noone will come between you and your family doctor"
"Mitt Romney knows that only American Business can create good jobs for you and your family"

The only thing that the SuperPACs could do that wouldn't just energise the democratic base too would be...

a) Vast disinformation campaign to make voters think the election is the wrong day
b) Massive DDOS attacks on all high tech industry across election day to keep young obama supporters at work
c) Huge and effective campaign to paint Obama as a moderate, near conservative candidate (which would lead to independents filing in behind him)

TheCanMan · April 2012

Gigazombie Cybermage wrote: »

We haven't seen all the crap the Super PACs are gonna unleash yet. I have a feeling it's going to get messy. I read that Obama's has a huge deficit of large donors, and is relying on more small donors for his campaign.

Democrats have a "huge deficit of large donors" in every national campaign. It's pretty much the sole reason for the Republican's trying so hard to fuck unions. I can't find the citation right now, but in 2008 of the Top 10 largest campaign contributors only 3 of them went for Obama and they were all unions.

AngelHedgie · April 2012

The crazy surged in MN:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/04/23/ron_paul_wins_minnesota_delegates_by_a_landslide.html

Pi-r8 · April 2012

Very interesting article:
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2012/04/mitt-romney-barack-obama-fundraising-2012

Right now Obama and the DNC are dominating the traditional fundraising methods, but Romney and the Republicans are making it up with SuperPAC money.

Magus` · April 2012

Augh there are no new posts in this thread! Also yeah, that's not surprising. Anyone who thought CU would do anything else but give a massive (and hidden) funding increase to the GOP is an idiot.

(Fuck you, Kennedy)

KalTorak · April 2012

speaking of no new posts, why does this thread keep showing as blue (indicating new posts) when there are no new posts?

MuddBudd · April 2012

Yeah I'm getting that too.

-edit-

Went away after I went to the first page. I think maybe the edit to the First Post a few days ago set it off.

Pi-r8 · April 2012

Magus` wrote: »

Augh there are no new posts in this thread! Also yeah, that's not surprising. Anyone who thought CU would do anything else but give a massive (and hidden) funding increase to the GOP is an idiot.

(Fuck you, Kennedy)

I wonder if it really increased their funding, or if it just allowed them to transfer money that would have gone to traditional fundraising channels, into superPACS instead where it's less accountable.

Magus` · April 2012

Just more Vanilla quirks I assume. I'm sure they'll fix it.

Unlike Romney who will fix nothing. /ontopic

TheCanMan · April 2012

Pi-r8 wrote: »

Magus` wrote: »

Augh there are no new posts in this thread! Also yeah, that's not surprising. Anyone who thought CU would do anything else but give a massive (and hidden) funding increase to the GOP is an idiot.

(Fuck you, Kennedy)

I wonder if it really increased their funding, or if it just allowed them to transfer money that would have gone to traditional fundraising channels, into superPACS instead where it's less accountable.

The problem is that "traditional fundraising channels" have limits. SuperPACs don't.

CommunistCow · April 2012

Pi-r8 wrote: »

Very interesting article:
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2012/04/mitt-romney-barack-obama-fundraising-2012

Right now Obama and the DNC are dominating the traditional fundraising methods, but Romney and the Republicans are making it up with SuperPAC money.

Anyone know how much money from campaign coffers goes towards the ground operation? I did a little bit of googling but didn't find anything. If it is a lot of money, I wonder if the SuperPACs will set up their own ground operations. (If that's legal.)

This American Life did an interesting bit on how SuperPAC money effected one person's run for the House. So I think we really need to worry more about SuperPAC's affecting congressional races.

Edith_Bagot-Dix · April 2012

Pardon this humble foreigner's digression, but this whole SuperPAC thing...could you set one up that was ostensibly for your opponent, but just put out a bunch of really bizarre, tone deaf, or unpopular messaging? Obviously this strategy isn't necessary during this campaign cycle, though.

UnknownSaint · April 2012

Edith_Bagot-Dix wrote: »

Pardon this humble foreigner's digression, but this whole SuperPAC thing...could you set one up that was ostensibly for your opponent, but just put out a bunch of really bizarre, tone deaf, or unpopular messaging? Obviously this strategy isn't necessary during this campaign cycle, though.

I don't see why not, but if it were bad enough that it reflected poorly on the candidate it was pretending to support, it would also embolden that particular candidate when they cry slander.

Magus` · April 2012

You can make a SuperPAC to do whatever the hell you want. The only restriction is they can't 'collude' with the person they're trying to help elect.

KalTorak · April 2012

TheCanMan wrote: »

Pi-r8 wrote: »

Magus` wrote: »

Augh there are no new posts in this thread! Also yeah, that's not surprising. Anyone who thought CU would do anything else but give a massive (and hidden) funding increase to the GOP is an idiot.

(Fuck you, Kennedy)

I wonder if it really increased their funding, or if it just allowed them to transfer money that would have gone to traditional fundraising channels, into superPACS instead where it's less accountable.

The problem is that "traditional fundraising channels" have limits. SuperPACs don't.

I think Pi-r8 means, if not for CU, would the same amount of money still be going to the candidates, just channeled through shady means to get under the limits. Like "I'm giving you the maximum (i want to say $2300?) allowable by law, and so is every member of my family, my dog, and all my employees."

Obviously CU would make it easier in that they don't have to jump through as many hoops, which lowers transactional costs, which means they have more money to donate, I suppose.

Magus` · April 2012

The fact that SuperPACs are legal but they still try really hard to hide who is providing funding kind of implies they know they're skirting some line somewhere.

AManFromEarth · April 2012

Magus` wrote: »

The fact that SuperPACs are legal but they still try really hard to hide who is providing funding kind of implies they know they're skirting some line somewhere.

Eh, it really just implies that they don't want you to know who is paying for ads.

Speaking of, I think a good ad for the Obama campaign to run is a bunch of quotes from George Romney that go directly against what his son is doing.

Boring7 · April 2012

Edith_Bagot-Dix wrote: »

Pardon this humble foreigner's digression, but this whole SuperPAC thing...could you set one up that was ostensibly for your opponent, but just put out a bunch of really bizarre, tone deaf, or unpopular messaging? Obviously this strategy isn't necessary during this campaign cycle, though.

It has already been suggested numerous times, by me if no one else. The problem is that the same organizations that do the whole superPAC thing are kind of lacking in creativity, as are the donors to said superPACs. Also, if you set up the "Stop Socialism Now" organization you will only get one round of donations before the donors notice you are making advertisements that are against Republicans.

Also, I was thinking of creating a superPAC and then plays the part of a professional strawman, making advertisements so BAD and over-the-top and just plain wrong that it creates a backlash, but I realized that thanks to Poe's Law no such advertising campaign exists.

I mean, Mitt Romney said this:

And he's still a candidate!

Magus` · April 2012

Yes, because they know it'll offend people. That's what I was saying. Gosh

Penny Arcade

[Presidential Election Thread] All Hail the Liberty Rooster.

Posts