(Via Instapundit) Molly Ball, after spending several paragraphs detailing Lefty panic over the way that there seem to be a lot of people out there who are willing to throw money at the current problem of a Democrat-controlled government until it goes away, then went and deflated the whole outrageously outraged outrage with one sentence:
To Republicans, who watched Obama raise and spend more than twice as much as John McCain did in 2008, Democrats’ whining that all this money is somehow unfair is rather rich.
Yes. Yes, it is.
To wit: show the American people that Mitt Romney’s just… a human being, like everybody else. Not that Romney should pretend to anything that he’s not. As Mickey put it:
Note that this does not require that Romney show he’s a man of the people, down with NASCAR etc. No pork rinds are required. In fact, trying desperately to appear non-upperclass is likely to reinforce Romney’s more fundamental problem. A simulacrum can eat pork rinds, if you program it properly.
Continue reading Good advice for Mitt Romney by Mickey Kaus.
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.
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.
Continue reading #rsrh To Perdition with false modesty: see, I told you so about Obama’s fundraising.
…in this election season (H/T: Hot Air) And I ask: when did Obama campaign well?
No, seriously. Every successful campaign that Obama has participated in before 2008 was under the aegis of the Illinois Democratic political machine. He merely had to show up, hit his marks, speak a few times, vote as he was told, and let the targeted leaking of damaging information about his opponents do the rest. That doesn’t require political skill: that requires both the ability to conceal boredom, and excellent bladder control. Then, during the 2008 primary, Obama handed off the details of the primaries to the geeks* and vaguely went off to let them work on building his profile for a VP bid. The geeks then managed to hack the Democratic primary and munchkin the living hell out of it; they found every exploit that existed in the political source code, and used them all**. Again, Obama didn’t have to do a darn thing except show up. And as for the 2008 general election… well. McCain didn’t like to fight, the economy melted down, and Obama showed up.
Continue reading #rsrh Alex Castellanos asks why Obama’s campaigning so badly…
The Christian Science Monitor, blinking through the sudden pain:
The poll by Gallup Inc. and USA Today showed Obama with 47 percent support in the 12 states and Romney with 45 percent, well within the survey’s margin of error of 4 percentage points. That is a tighter race than in March, when it found the Democratic president with 51 percent and Romney with 42 percent.
…You don’t say?
PS: Interesting contrast with this, in some ways.
Jim Geraghty makes the call for a light touch:
[A] lot of Obama voters must be persuaded that they made the wrong choice in 2008, and that it isn’t their fault.
I happen to agree with this, by the way. Satisfying as it may be to have people* admit that they were wrong and stupid and should have listened to the rest of us, my goal has always been to win the election. When you win the election, you get to have the fight over how best to run the country. You lose the election, your opinion frankly doesn’t matter. Continue reading QotD, Eyes On The Prize in 2012 Edition.
It’s just a general one, and I’m not going to hang any links or anything on it: it’s not that kind of post. I just want to make it clear that I think two things:
- First: that the Citizens United decision makes all of the rules of thumb about fundraising that we have developed over the last decade or so more or less obsolete. Not to mention the ones about what constitutes a legitimate attack*.
- Second: the major candidates and political institutions have not yet really internalized this yet.
*The days when that decision was up to a candidate are more or less over now. Which is simultaneously a positive and negative development.
Dan Spencer over at RedState reminds us that three years ago today Obama gave himself three years to get this situation under control:
Continue reading Happy No More Years Day!
Sean Trende, in the process of noting that, really, Obama’s numbers are grotesquely bad right now, mentioned independent voters:
Given the enthusiasm gap between the parties, the 2012 electorate will probably be roughly split between Republicans and Democrats. Independent voters will therefore hold the key to the election.
Consider these three 2010 Senate challengers frequently cited as examples of candidates who are too extreme to win. It’s a little-known fact that Ken Buck won independents by 16 points in Colorado. In Nevada, Sharron Angle won them by four points. Even Christine O’Donnell, who is something of the ultimate warning sign against Tea Party excess, lost independents only by three points. They all lost their races in large part because they faced Democrat-heavy electorates. Had the electorates been evenly split between the parties, all three would have run very close races.
Whatever their faults, Romney, Gingrich, and Perry are not Christine O’Donnell-style candidates.
Continue reading #rsrh QotD, Sean Trende brings the DOOM edition.