Moe Lane

Buzzfeed, May 20th, 2012: “Big Money Dries Up For Obama Campaign”

Donations to President Barack Obama’s reelection campaign declined sharply in April, as many big-dollar contributors hit the legal maximum, a BuzzFeed analysis of Federal Election Commission data shows.

[snip]

Most of Obama’s drop is attributable to a decline in contributions of more than $500, which fell by more than $9 million. Many of Obama’s top donors have already hit the legal $2500 maximum to the campaign, which — along with an apparent failure to recruit a new cadre of wealthy supporters — may account for the decline.

(more…)

Via Ed Driscoll, via PJ Tatler: Obama in 2011 explaining what he’s going to do to lower gas prices:

(more…)

This WaPo article by Chris Cillizza and Aaron Blake came so close to getting a significant observation out about the President’s Appalachian/Jacksonian problem…

…if the press coverage of Keith Judd’s surprisingly strong showing two weeks ago in West Virginia is any indication, you can expect [insurgent Democrat Tom] Wolfe to draw significant attention in the immediate aftermath of today’s vote [in the Arkansas Democratic primary].

Couple Wolfe’s candidacy in Arkansas with the fact that Kentucky — another place where Obama isn’t popular with many people who call themselves Democrats — also votes today (Obama faces no opponents in Kentucky, but voters there can select “uncommitted” as an option) and you have the potential for a less-than-friendly narrative regarding Obama come Wednesday. And that would follow 72 hours of coverage about Newark Mayor Cory Booker’s comments about private equity and how it should be off-limits in the campaign.

…only to promptly flub it:

But, what would a Wolfe “surge” actually tell us? And what would it mean in the broader dialogue of the presidential race? Not all that much.

But it doesn’t matter, about Arkansas – and, by implication, Kentucky, West Virginia (and I’ll add Oklahoma to the list, given that Obama did miserably in that primary, too). It doesn’t matter, because Obama won’t win those states anyway, so who cares?

Well, I’m guessing that the following people care:

• Rep. Ben Chandler (KY-06)
• Rep. Nick Rahall (WV-03)
• Democratic nominee (OK-02)
• Democratic nominee (AR-01)
• Democratic nominee (AR-04)
• Senator Joe Manchin, (WV)
• Governor Earl Ray Tomblin (WV)

…given that they have to actually run for office as Democrats, in states where Barack Obama is apparently running the putatively good collective name of Democrats into the ground.  Trust a Dizzy City columnist to ignore the down-ticket races, of course…

This messed up:

With 3% of the vote in, the AP called it for Romney first.  We still have to wait to see whether President Obama won or not.

Will this be the 2012 election map?

If the Obama administration keeps up their War on Coal (literally: they consider coal more dangerous than terrorism), quite possibly.  And it may be at least partially because of coal. (more…)

Or at least stabbing it in the kidney a few times.  Jen Rubin has it right: when you are a spokesman for a candidate and your TV appearance is being sent around by the Other Side’s spokesmen, you had a bad TV appearance.

Moe Lane (more…)

Ed Morrissey, on the pathetic partisan (take that any way you like) breakdown (ditto) of the latest WaPo/ABC poll (46/49 Romney/Obama):

Today’s D/R/I is 32/22/38, which means this model would only be predictive for a turnout model where only 22% of voters are Republican.  Just to remind readers, the 2008 turnout split from exit polls showed a 39/32/29 split, and that was considered a nadir for Republican turnout.  In the 2010 midterms, the split was 35/35/30.

Take a close look at the Republican representation in WaPo/ABC polls this year. Starting in January, that has been 25%, 23%, 27%, 23%, and now 22%.  The pollster seems incapable of finding a representative number of Republicans for this poll series.  Perhaps that should give the two news organizations involved a hint about finding a new pollster.

Why should they?  The pollster is fulfilling said news organizations’ needs perfectly. (more…)

Shorter Penn Jillette (very, very profanely), about President Obama’s smirking about his past drug use and current status as the head honcho for the War On Some Drugs: “It’s not a G*d-d*mned joke!”

Oh, it’s a joke, all right.  The technical term for it is “Dark Humor,” and I when write that you should take into account that I used to write amateur gaming material for a roleplaying setting that had that concept be a literal evocation of Evil. (more…)

For free.  Here’s Mitt Romney‘s latest strike-while-the-iron-is-hot attack ad “Big Bain Backfire:”

Nice to see that they’re keeping up with events, huh? (more…)

The Wall Street Journal, pointing out an Unfortunate Truth about Obama’s would-be Bain attacks:

…how to explain the history of Bain Capital? Mr. Romney started the business in 1984. The company has since bought and sold many businesses and executed thousands of financing transactions.

If Bain’s standard operating procedure were to hand the next owner of one of its companies a ticking bankruptcy package, how is Bain still finding buyers nearly three decades later? And who would agree to lend money to a company backed by Bain? Wouldn’t word have gotten around by, say, 1987 that Bain’s portfolio companies weren’t creditworthy?

(more…)

…it’s just that it’s Monday and I am still prying my eyes open.
(more…)

…for the official unveiling on May 31st of the Bush’s Presidential/First Lady portraits.  You see, if Obama is smart he’ll avoid giving the rest of the country any further reminder that George W Bush has more class in his pinkie finger than currently exists in the entire Executive Branch of the federal government.  And if Obama is… well, Obama… then he’ll just be a sneak about the whole thing and have one of his creatures try to snipe at his predecessor from the safety of anonymous sourcing.  Either way, there’s no way that Obama has the guts to say anything to Bush’s face.

Not Obama’s style.

Moe Lane

(Via Hot Air)