While it's always good to be confident in yourself and your abilities, it's never a good idea to get cocky. Because being overconfident, more often than not, only increases that odds that you'll be on the receiving end of a great deal of unnecessary disappointment. The reason I even mention this is because of the fact that there now seems to be this notion that's being floated regarding how former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and the Republican National Committee could 'easily' out raise Barry and the Democratic National Committee in the seven-month sprint to the general election. Now while I'm sure many would cheerfully agree, I'm just not ready to assume anything, yet. I would much prefer to operate under the premise that Barry will raise more than us, lots more. Anyway this latest claim comes to us from some Washington Post columnist, a Chris Cillizza. Sorry, but I'm never one to put much stock in anything I see in the Washington Post.
Anyway, so here's the fundraising math Mr. Cillizza lays out for us in his going about the proving of his little premise: In April, the first month in which Romney was freed up from the contentious GOP primary process, the combined haul of Romney's team and the RNC was just north of $40 million or, "almost the exact amount the president and the DNC gathered in that time frame." According to some other guy, by the name of Jonathan Mantz, who I guess served as the finance director for then Senator Hitlery Clinton's 2008 presidential run, “It’s becoming very clear the president’s opponents are very intent on funding a candidate, regardless of how flawed he is, to win in November.” He went on, “So when you look at the April filing for Romney and then add his super-PAC fundraising to date, Obama’s campaign must maintain if not step up their fundraising pace.” First of all, I hardily disagree with guys presumption that it's our guy who is the flawed candidate here. It's Barry who is the epitome a what is a 'flawed' candidate.
Barry won’t have the massive fundraising gap over Romney that he enjoyed in the 2008 contest against Sen. John McCain of Arizona, or so at least Mr. Cillizza claims in his little piece in the Post. In that race, Barry raised an astonishing $771 million while McCain brought in $239 million, a total that included roughly $85 million in public financing funds for the general election. "That means Obama collected (and spent) three times as much money as McCain, a huge gap that almost certainly put the Democrat over the top in places such as Indiana and North Carolina and cushioned his margins in other swing states such as Florida and Ohio," Cillizza points out. Supposedly one major Romney donor told Cillizza, “There were still a good number of historic Republican donors who had been holding out, but with Mitt now the presumptive nominee, they are coming off the sidelines quickly.” And they are going to be needing to. But I'm not yet convinced that they are going to.
Cillizza also goes on to point out what he calls the "Romney X-factor". That, of course being his massive personal wealth, which, with the exception of a recent $150,000 donation to a joint fundraising committee for the campaign and the RNC, he has yet to dip into in this election. Although his campaign has been tight-lipped about how much more he could or would give, remember that Romney gave almost $45 million to his failed 2008 presidential primary campaign. Together, with a pledge from the leading conservative super PAC to spend better than $200 million, it becomes quite possible that Barack Hussein Obama, "the single greatest fundraiser in the history of American politics," might get outraised (and outspent) between now and Nov. 6. Now while it's always fun to imagine such things, I fear that if we put to much stock in such a notion we will run the risk of taking things for granted. And that we simply cannot afford to do! This election is too crucial. The future of our country depends on the outcome.
No comments:
Post a Comment