Obama Out nof Step

[bhunter]

Nationally, Obama’s challenge is that most Americans see him as a big government guy. Fully seven in 10 Americans believed Obama favors a “larger government with more services” in a Post-ABC poll last September, while just 18 percent said he prefers a “smaller government with fewer services.” That’s upside-down from the overall public, who choose a smaller over bigger government by a 56-to-38 percent margin.

Unlike Romney’s newly negative image on buying and restructuring companies (at least in swing states), the perception that Obama prefers bigger government is firm. In two other Post-ABC polls in 2010, at least seven in 10 saw Obama favoring big government. And the longstanding nature of this view could make it harder for Obama to shake than the depiction of Romney as a ruthless businessman.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...hlfW_blog.html

Interesting that he's doing as well as he is considering how his view is the opposite of the populace. In 2008 he had the advantage of being an unknown, someone different, but now that distinct advantage has been replaced by his errant policies. Whether he succeeds in cobbling together enough supporters given the pliable media and ensuing polarizing campaign rhetoric will not be determined for another 100 plus days.

Here's something on Obama's Fund Raising:

The New York Times, hardly a mouthpiece for Republican causes or campaigns, had a front page story headlined: "Obama Trails Romney Again in Battle for Campaign Cash"

Reporter Nicholas Confessore wrote:

"Mitt Romney and the Republican National Committee easily outraised the formidable Obama money machine for the second month in a row."

Keep in mind, this is not "secret" donors funding SuperPACs. This is the on-the-record money, the limited money, the so-called "hard" money that is reported by the Republican National Committee and the Romney campaign.

The fundraising news for Obama got worse:

"In a worrisome development for the Obama campaign, Mr. Romney, who until now has been heavily dependent on donors giving the maximum federal contribution, also showed success in June drawing small donors, a traditional strength of the Obama campaign."

You might have noticed a lot of press attention to the mega-million fundraising Romney did in the Hamptons over last weekend, but not as much attention was paid to the growth in small donors.

Not only is Romney raising more, but his campaign is spending less. The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza pointed this out from the other side of the coin writing

"President Obama has spent more than $91 million on television ads in eight swing states as of July 6, a massive sum that dwarfs the $23 million former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney has disbursed on campaign commercials in those same places."

That statement is accurate, and would be telling if the Romney campaign hadn't been (a) raising more than Obama, and (b) has something on the order of $160 million cash-on-hand.

All that spending by Obama has kept him in the game. According to the RealClearPolitics average of polling in 12 swing states, Obama has leads outside the margin of error in only Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, and Nevada, Romney leads in two (North Carolina and Missouri) and the rest are essentially tied such as Obama's 0.8 percent lead in Florida.

And that with a $68 MILLION dollar spending edge in those states.

http://www.mullings.com

[beej]

Won't dispute the campaign fundraising numbers. Open to question as to why.

What I'd be more interested in and perhaps I missed it, is what the pro-Romney SuperPacs are spending. Based on what I'm seeing they're pretty much saturating all of the swing states. The SuperPacs is where the real fundraisng edge goes to Romney.

[djv8ga]

I don't understand how you expect to raise money when you attack the people who make it (?).

[bhunter]

Originally Posted by beej

Won't dispute the campaign fundraising numbers. Open to question as to why.

What I'd be more interested in and perhaps I missed it, is what the pro-Romney SuperPacs are spending. Based on what I'm seeing they're pretty much saturating all of the swing states. The SuperPacs is where the real fundraisng edge goes to Romney.

Here you go:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...xsYW_blog.html

My thought is that the Superpacs will be about equal with perhaps a slight Romney advantage. What's surprising is how the spending differential hasn't helped Obama much as of yet in those swing states.

[beej]

Hey, we'll see how it all goes come November. That's the American way. I didn't like the way George W. Bush was elected but once the Supreme Court made the decision he became the constitutionally elected POTUS and therefore my President. Didn't like what he did while in office either but that's our system and, above all else, I believe in our system. If Mitt is elected I will have serious concerns about the direction our country will take but that won't change the office he would hold.

I think the massive Obama-bashing that has been going on since the Republican Primaries coupled with the SuperPac attacks has something to do with how Obama is viewed. Doesn't help that the economy isn't where any of us want it to be either.

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by djv8ga

I don't understand how you expect to raise money when you attack the people who steal it (?).

Fixed it for ya.

[piece-itpete]

It's all about the economy. If the right had a stronger candidate he would be a shoo in in my opinion.

Pete

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

It's all about the economy. If the right had a stronger candidate he would be a shoo in in my opinion.

Pete

Their primary process effectively precluded them from choosing a good candidate.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

It's all about the economy. If the right had a stronger candidate he would be a shoo in in my opinion.

Pete

Just goes to show you. Who could that be?lol

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by bobabode

Just goes to show you. Who could that be?lol

Bugs Bunny?