Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Mitt Romney raises more campaign cash in Michigan than goofball Barack Obama
20 views
Skip to first unread message
Kawami
Apr 16, 2012, 5:24:27 AM4/16/12
to
http://www.freep.com/article/20120416/NEWS15/204160336/Mitt-
Romney-raises-more-campaign-cash-in-Michigan-than-President-
Barack-Obama?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE%7Cp
WASHINGTON -- Despite the credit President Barack Obama gets for
helping turn around Michigan's signature auto industry, he
trails the man he's likely to face in November -- Michigan-born
Mitt Romney -- in campaign fund-raising in the state.
At least for a few more days.
A Free Press analysis of Federal Election Commission records
shows that as of the end of February -- the most recent period
for which data are available -- Obama had raised about $1.6
million in Michigan.
• Database: Michigan presidential campaign contributions
http://www.freep.com/article/20120416/NEWS06/120415038/Database-
Michigan-presidential-campaign-
contributions?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE
That's far more than Obama had raised in the state at this point
four years ago, but still less than Romney's $2-million total,
despite the Obama administration investing billions in
taxpayers' money to save General Motors and Chrysler.
That's far more than Obama had raised in the state at this point
four years ago, but still less than Romney's $2-million total,
despite the Obama administration investing billions in
taxpayers' money to save General Motors and Chrysler.
That could change Wednesday with the president headed to
Dearborn and Denise Ilitch's Bingham Farms home for two high-
priced events that could raise as much as $1 million.
But the fact that Romney held the fund-raising lead on March 1
underscores the importance of his long-standing ties to the
state and a fund-raising base that includes metro Detroit
business leaders such as Dan Gilbert of Quicken Loans, Peter
Karmanos of Compuware and Roger Penske of Penske Corp.
A deep organization like the one Romney has built in Michigan in
two election cycles, including a hard-fought primary this year,
is going to be key if he hopes to win a state that hasn't
supported a Republican presidential contender since George Bush
in 1988.
"It doesn't matter how much money Mitt Romney raises here or
elsewhere, he can't Etch-A-Sketch his call to let Detroit go
bankrupt," said Matt McGrath, spokesman for the Obama campaign
in Michigan, referring to Romney's opposition to using taxpayer
funds to rescue GM and Chrysler in 2008.
"We are confident that voters in Michigan and across the country
are responding to Mitt Romney's pro-jobs message and will make
Barack Obama a one-term president," said Amanda Henneberg, a
Romney spokeswoman.
A battleground state?
It's hard to say whether Michigan will be a battleground in the
fall, but a poll released last week by Lansing-based EPIC-MRA
showed Obama's lead over Romney in Michigan shrinking to 47%-
43%, down from 48%-40% in January. The poll had a margin of
error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.
"Money raised in a state certainly doesn't always translate into
votes," acknowledged Republican consultant John Truscott. But
Romney's money advantage in Michigan -- compared with the
campaign cash lead Obama enjoys nationally -- is of note, if
only because it could help Romney gauge whether the state is in
play in November.
Romney leads Obama in fund-raising in a few other swing states,
including Florida and Ohio. He trails the president in others.
Fund-raising may have no direct correlation to votes, but, in
Michigan, it may suggest an advantage in the Detroit suburbs,
where Romney would need support to win the state.
Michigan doesn't make the top 10 list of states for presidential
fund-raising, but the state totals are one way for the campaigns
to measure their presence in the state.
The money totals suggest that Romney's campaign already has
looked to the suburbs for help. Raising $2 million in the state
by the end of February (just less than the $2.1 million he had
raised by the same point four years ago), he had a big edge over
Obama in many cities, including Bloomfield Hills, Birmingham,
the Grosse Pointes, Farmington Hills and more.
Obama's campaign did better in Ann Arbor, Detroit, East Lansing
and Northville, among others, and his campaign has raised money
in a lot more places in Michigan than Romney has. His reports
list contributions from 421 cities, compared with 229 for
Romney. The president has more donors, too -- 3,242 to Romney's
1,445 (though some names may be double-counted because of slight
differences in the records).
Obama and Romney each have one Michigan city that towers above
all others for fund-raising power.
For Obama, it's Ann Arbor, where his campaign has collected
$243,603 -- well over $100,000 more than Detroit, which ranks
second. University of Michigan employees account for more than
one-fourth of the total.
At $450,691, Romney's sweet spot is Bloomfield Hills, where he
grew up. Another Oakland County community, Birmingham, ranks
second at $188,400.
By occupation, Romney gets more money from homemakers --
$235,000 -- than any other group, while Obama gets the most from
retirees at $450,000 and lawyers at $179,000.
But Romney has gotten the bigger checks. Obama's donors, on
average, have contributed $489; Romney's, $1,383.
Romney has raised more than $1.1 million from 10 cities in the
state. Obama, a little less than $700,000.
"It doesn't surprise me" that Romney leads Obama in Michigan
fund-raising, said former Gov. Jim Blanchard, a Democratic
supporter of Obama. "Romney worked Michigan really, really hard
in 2008 and tried to say, 'I'm the Michigan candidate.' "
Through the intervening years, Blanchard said, Romney kept his
Michigan organization in place, and he maintains close ties to
the state. His brother Scott, a lawyer, has been active with the
campaign. John Rakolta, head of the Detroit construction firm
Walbridge, is national finance chairman.
As for Obama, Blanchard said, "when he's been in Michigan, he's
been talking issues and autos. ... Financially, he never needed
Michigan."
That could be changing. Obama's campaign had raised $157 million
to Romney's $74 million by the end of February (though that
doesn't count party committee totals or super PACs, which are
expected to play a big role in the campaign), but some news
media reports have suggested that the president has had a harder
time attracting large donors.
'Not as trendy'
Earlier this month, Obama noted, "It's not as trendy to be
involved in the Obama campaign as it was back" in 2008 -- a sop
to the fact that his fund-raising efforts haven't been as large
as they were during the primary season four years ago. Still,
he's ahead of his totals from 2008 in some places -- including
in Michigan, where he has made three trips (not counting this
week's) since Labor Day.
At this week's events, he'll add to his totals with events
Wednesday at the Henry Ford in Dearborn -- tickets cost up to
$5,000 a person -- and Ilitch's home, where tickets cost up to
$40,000 a head. Any money raised above the $5,000 individual
limit will go first to the Democratic National Committee, then
be split among several key states' party committees. Michigan's
is not among them.
Virgie Rollins of Detroit, who chairs the Democratic National
Committee's Black Caucus, said she's not worried about Obama
raising money in Michigan.
"You're going to find people are so grateful to the president
for saving their jobs," she said.
But there remain questions about how much people will want to
give, and to what. Ballot initiatives -- such as those labor
groups are backing to ensure collective bargaining rights
through an amendment to the state constitution -- could drain
money from the presidential campaigns.
The individual limit for giving to a candidate's campaign is
$2,500 each for the primary and the general elections, though
donors can give more ($30,800 a year) to national political
parties. There is no limit on what individuals can give to so-
called super PACs supporting or opposing (but not directly
connected with) a candidate.
Romney-raises-more-campaign-cash-in-Michigan-than-President-
Barack-Obama?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE%7Cp
WASHINGTON -- Despite the credit President Barack Obama gets for
helping turn around Michigan's signature auto industry, he
trails the man he's likely to face in November -- Michigan-born
Mitt Romney -- in campaign fund-raising in the state.
At least for a few more days.
A Free Press analysis of Federal Election Commission records
shows that as of the end of February -- the most recent period
for which data are available -- Obama had raised about $1.6
million in Michigan.
• Database: Michigan presidential campaign contributions
http://www.freep.com/article/20120416/NEWS06/120415038/Database-
Michigan-presidential-campaign-
contributions?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE
That's far more than Obama had raised in the state at this point
four years ago, but still less than Romney's $2-million total,
despite the Obama administration investing billions in
taxpayers' money to save General Motors and Chrysler.
That's far more than Obama had raised in the state at this point
four years ago, but still less than Romney's $2-million total,
despite the Obama administration investing billions in
taxpayers' money to save General Motors and Chrysler.
That could change Wednesday with the president headed to
Dearborn and Denise Ilitch's Bingham Farms home for two high-
priced events that could raise as much as $1 million.
But the fact that Romney held the fund-raising lead on March 1
underscores the importance of his long-standing ties to the
state and a fund-raising base that includes metro Detroit
business leaders such as Dan Gilbert of Quicken Loans, Peter
Karmanos of Compuware and Roger Penske of Penske Corp.
A deep organization like the one Romney has built in Michigan in
two election cycles, including a hard-fought primary this year,
is going to be key if he hopes to win a state that hasn't
supported a Republican presidential contender since George Bush
in 1988.
"It doesn't matter how much money Mitt Romney raises here or
elsewhere, he can't Etch-A-Sketch his call to let Detroit go
bankrupt," said Matt McGrath, spokesman for the Obama campaign
in Michigan, referring to Romney's opposition to using taxpayer
funds to rescue GM and Chrysler in 2008.
"We are confident that voters in Michigan and across the country
are responding to Mitt Romney's pro-jobs message and will make
Barack Obama a one-term president," said Amanda Henneberg, a
Romney spokeswoman.
A battleground state?
It's hard to say whether Michigan will be a battleground in the
fall, but a poll released last week by Lansing-based EPIC-MRA
showed Obama's lead over Romney in Michigan shrinking to 47%-
43%, down from 48%-40% in January. The poll had a margin of
error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.
"Money raised in a state certainly doesn't always translate into
votes," acknowledged Republican consultant John Truscott. But
Romney's money advantage in Michigan -- compared with the
campaign cash lead Obama enjoys nationally -- is of note, if
only because it could help Romney gauge whether the state is in
play in November.
Romney leads Obama in fund-raising in a few other swing states,
including Florida and Ohio. He trails the president in others.
Fund-raising may have no direct correlation to votes, but, in
Michigan, it may suggest an advantage in the Detroit suburbs,
where Romney would need support to win the state.
Michigan doesn't make the top 10 list of states for presidential
fund-raising, but the state totals are one way for the campaigns
to measure their presence in the state.
The money totals suggest that Romney's campaign already has
looked to the suburbs for help. Raising $2 million in the state
by the end of February (just less than the $2.1 million he had
raised by the same point four years ago), he had a big edge over
Obama in many cities, including Bloomfield Hills, Birmingham,
the Grosse Pointes, Farmington Hills and more.
Obama's campaign did better in Ann Arbor, Detroit, East Lansing
and Northville, among others, and his campaign has raised money
in a lot more places in Michigan than Romney has. His reports
list contributions from 421 cities, compared with 229 for
Romney. The president has more donors, too -- 3,242 to Romney's
1,445 (though some names may be double-counted because of slight
differences in the records).
Obama and Romney each have one Michigan city that towers above
all others for fund-raising power.
For Obama, it's Ann Arbor, where his campaign has collected
$243,603 -- well over $100,000 more than Detroit, which ranks
second. University of Michigan employees account for more than
one-fourth of the total.
At $450,691, Romney's sweet spot is Bloomfield Hills, where he
grew up. Another Oakland County community, Birmingham, ranks
second at $188,400.
By occupation, Romney gets more money from homemakers --
$235,000 -- than any other group, while Obama gets the most from
retirees at $450,000 and lawyers at $179,000.
But Romney has gotten the bigger checks. Obama's donors, on
average, have contributed $489; Romney's, $1,383.
Romney has raised more than $1.1 million from 10 cities in the
state. Obama, a little less than $700,000.
"It doesn't surprise me" that Romney leads Obama in Michigan
fund-raising, said former Gov. Jim Blanchard, a Democratic
supporter of Obama. "Romney worked Michigan really, really hard
in 2008 and tried to say, 'I'm the Michigan candidate.' "
Through the intervening years, Blanchard said, Romney kept his
Michigan organization in place, and he maintains close ties to
the state. His brother Scott, a lawyer, has been active with the
campaign. John Rakolta, head of the Detroit construction firm
Walbridge, is national finance chairman.
As for Obama, Blanchard said, "when he's been in Michigan, he's
been talking issues and autos. ... Financially, he never needed
Michigan."
That could be changing. Obama's campaign had raised $157 million
to Romney's $74 million by the end of February (though that
doesn't count party committee totals or super PACs, which are
expected to play a big role in the campaign), but some news
media reports have suggested that the president has had a harder
time attracting large donors.
'Not as trendy'
Earlier this month, Obama noted, "It's not as trendy to be
involved in the Obama campaign as it was back" in 2008 -- a sop
to the fact that his fund-raising efforts haven't been as large
as they were during the primary season four years ago. Still,
he's ahead of his totals from 2008 in some places -- including
in Michigan, where he has made three trips (not counting this
week's) since Labor Day.
At this week's events, he'll add to his totals with events
Wednesday at the Henry Ford in Dearborn -- tickets cost up to
$5,000 a person -- and Ilitch's home, where tickets cost up to
$40,000 a head. Any money raised above the $5,000 individual
limit will go first to the Democratic National Committee, then
be split among several key states' party committees. Michigan's
is not among them.
Virgie Rollins of Detroit, who chairs the Democratic National
Committee's Black Caucus, said she's not worried about Obama
raising money in Michigan.
"You're going to find people are so grateful to the president
for saving their jobs," she said.
But there remain questions about how much people will want to
give, and to what. Ballot initiatives -- such as those labor
groups are backing to ensure collective bargaining rights
through an amendment to the state constitution -- could drain
money from the presidential campaigns.
The individual limit for giving to a candidate's campaign is
$2,500 each for the primary and the general elections, though
donors can give more ($30,800 a year) to national political
parties. There is no limit on what individuals can give to so-
called super PACs supporting or opposing (but not directly
connected with) a candidate.
ColdWarDinosaur
Apr 16, 2012, 8:34:09 AM4/16/12
to
elected. He stands no chance at all.
--
~~
HW
__________________
The GOP Claim TO Be Christian but:
Are Capitalist Extremists.
Support Law of the Jungle, Survival of the Richest.
Are Racists.
Are Pro-War.
Are Pro-Torture.
Are Pro-Execution.
Are Pro-Money-lender.
Despise Human Rights.
Despise The Poor.
Despise Women.
They appear to be against everything Jesus stood for.
Who are these people really??
de...@dudu.org
Apr 16, 2012, 9:06:53 AM4/16/12
to
On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 09:24:27 +0000 (UTC), Kawami
<inv...@not-for-mail.invalid> wrote:
>http://www.freep.com/article/20120416/NEWS15/204160336/Mitt-
>Romney-raises-more-campaign-cash-in-Michigan-than-President-
>Barack-Obama?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE%7Cp
>
>WASHINGTON -- Despite the credit President Barack Obama gets for
>helping turn around Michigan's signature auto industry, he
>trails the man he's likely to face in November -- Michigan-born
>Mitt Romney -- in campaign fund-raising in the state.
No shocker. Romney has millions and millions coming in from secret
<inv...@not-for-mail.invalid> wrote:
>http://www.freep.com/article/20120416/NEWS15/204160336/Mitt-
>Romney-raises-more-campaign-cash-in-Michigan-than-President-
>Barack-Obama?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE%7Cp
>
>WASHINGTON -- Despite the credit President Barack Obama gets for
>helping turn around Michigan's signature auto industry, he
>trails the man he's likely to face in November -- Michigan-born
>Mitt Romney -- in campaign fund-raising in the state.
Mormon SuperPAC money.
RichA
Apr 16, 2012, 9:31:10 AM4/16/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
billion. Think all that came from bruthas sending him $5's and $10's?
Mulligan
Apr 16, 2012, 9:36:46 AM4/16/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Apr 16, 9:31 am, RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Think all that came from bruthas sending him $5's and $10's?
I don't do that anymore.
> Think all that came from bruthas sending him $5's and $10's?
If you wanted to get me, you should have got me then.
Now I got to go home.
trotsky
Apr 16, 2012, 10:09:34 AM4/16/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
gew...@hotmail.com
Apr 16, 2012, 10:48:53 AM4/16/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
He can never get the money OBAMA FUCK has already raised to BUY the
election.
election.
John Manning
Apr 16, 2012, 11:12:54 AM4/16/12
to
Obama leads Romney in Electoral College
USA Today - President Obama leads Mitt Romney in the arena
that counts -- the Electoral College -- but does not yet have
the 270 electoral votes needed to renew his lease on the White
House, according to an Associated Press analysis.
Obama would have 242 electoral votes in states where
he has big leads, or that are leaning his way, the AP says.
Romney, the likely Republican nominee, is favored or has narrow
leads in states with 188 electoral votes.
Nine states with 104 electoral are up for grabs, AP said, and
will likely decide the election.
"The political spotlight will shine brightly again
on Florida, and the Upper Midwest, especially Ohio," reports
the AP. "But changes in the nation's demographics will mean
heavy attention paid to the Mid-Atlantic and Southwest.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/04/obama-leads-romney-in-electoral-college-but-no-majority/1#.T4wzONnF-So
SEE ALSO - Swing States: Obama Still Has Electoral Advantages Despite a
Much-Changed Map
-- According to a detailed Fix analysis of the electoral playing field,
President Obama retains major advantages over former Massachusetts
governor Mitt Romney, the likely GOP nominee, when it comes to winning
the 270 votes he needs for a second term.
Not only does Obama have more paths to 270 than Romney, but he has
considerable leeway — judging from his 2008 performance — in many of the
purest swing states.
~~ Details here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/swing-states-obama-still-has-electoral-advantages-despite-a-much-changed-map/2012/04/15/gIQArLWCKT_story.html
Who Will Win the 2012 Election?
INTRADE - The World's Leading Prediction Market
Today's Market:
Barack Obama to be re-elected President in 2012 -- 61.3%
Mitt Romney to be elected President in 2012 -- 37.1%
http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/?eventId=84326
John Manning
Apr 16, 2012, 11:29:35 AM4/16/12
to
On 4/16/2012 6:24 AM, Kawami wrote:
> Mitt Romney raises more campaign cash in Michigan than goofball
> Barack Obama
Romney Gets 90% of His Funding from Wall Street, Big Money Corporations
and the Wealthy.
Obama Gets Most of his Funding From "We, The American People".
One good measure of fundraising strength with the masses
is contributors who have given less than $200, who are not
listed individually in finance reports. Let’s take a look at
how the candidates stack up in the chart below, which shows
how many of their millions have come from these low-money donors
versus the higher rollers in the 2012 cycle.
SEE CHART: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/images/200-donations-final.png
As you can see, Romney is the clear anomaly by a
long shot, raising nearly *90 PERCENT* of his total haul
from larger contributions.
By contrast, only around 40% of Obama’s donations are
from individuals who have given more than $200 total and
his smaller contributors alone raised more money in total than
Romney’s entire fundraising operation.
Links and more here:
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/02/romneys-fundraising-woes-in-two-charts.php
> Mitt Romney raises more campaign cash in Michigan than goofball
> Barack Obama
Romney Gets 90% of His Funding from Wall Street, Big Money Corporations
and the Wealthy.
Obama Gets Most of his Funding From "We, The American People".
One good measure of fundraising strength with the masses
is contributors who have given less than $200, who are not
listed individually in finance reports. Let’s take a look at
how the candidates stack up in the chart below, which shows
how many of their millions have come from these low-money donors
versus the higher rollers in the 2012 cycle.
SEE CHART: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/images/200-donations-final.png
As you can see, Romney is the clear anomaly by a
long shot, raising nearly *90 PERCENT* of his total haul
from larger contributions.
By contrast, only around 40% of Obama’s donations are
from individuals who have given more than $200 total and
his smaller contributors alone raised more money in total than
Romney’s entire fundraising operation.
Links and more here:
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/02/romneys-fundraising-woes-in-two-charts.php
John Manning
Apr 16, 2012, 11:38:03 AM4/16/12
to
USA Today - President Obama and the Democrats raised $53 million
for his re-election campaign in March, the biggest monthly haul of 2012.
The president has now collected nearly $350 million since he kicked
off his campaign in the spring of last year.
The Obama campaign announced the fundraising in a video
featuring testimony from grassroots donors. It claimed more
than 190,000 first-time donors, and an average contribution of $50.78.
"This is really how this works," said campaign manager Jim Messina
on the video. "People building this organization 5 and 10 bucks at
a time to take on Mitt Romney."
More here:
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/04/obama-raises-53m-in-march/1?csp=34news#.T4w8AtnF-So
emoneyjoe
Apr 16, 2012, 1:56:39 PM4/16/12
to
John Manning
Apr 16, 2012, 2:19:24 PM4/16/12
to
Romney Gets 90% of His Funding from Wall Street, Big Money Corporations
and the Wealthy.
Obama Gets Most of his Funding From "We, The American People".
One good measure of fundraising strength with the masses
is contributors who have given less than $200, who are not
listed individually in finance reports. Let’s take a look at
how the candidates stack up in the chart below, which shows
how many of their millions have come from these low-money donors
versus the higher rollers in the 2012 cycle.
SEE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION DATA CHART:
and the Wealthy.
Obama Gets Most of his Funding From "We, The American People".
One good measure of fundraising strength with the masses
is contributors who have given less than $200, who are not
listed individually in finance reports. Let’s take a look at
how the candidates stack up in the chart below, which shows
how many of their millions have come from these low-money donors
versus the higher rollers in the 2012 cycle.
John Baker
Apr 16, 2012, 3:38:16 PM4/16/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 14:48:53 GMT, gew...@hotmail.com wrote:
>He can never get the money OBAMA FUCK has already raised to BUY the
>election.
That's what campaign funding is all about, Sunshine. Buying an
>He can never get the money OBAMA FUCK has already raised to BUY the
>election.
election. Or at least buying enough airtime to increase your chances
of winning. Both parties do it, so quit yer whining.
tomcervo
Apr 16, 2012, 3:48:41 PM4/16/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
codes. Santorem won across the state.
emoneyjoe
Apr 16, 2012, 5:30:36 PM4/16/12
to
On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 15:19:24 -0300, John Manning <jrob...@terra.com.br>
wrote:
Thanks for the link,
where I found this;
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/04/gallup-tracking-of-presidential-race-debuts-with-a-romney-lead.php?ref=skyboxes
So Obama got $42 million from over $200 contributions,
and Romney got $56 million by Feb. 1st?
The author of the talkingpoints article uses spin while
the president is the only party candidate so far, who is dumb
enough to expect a hope to be party candidate to get as
much in contributions.
I hope Obama wins, I want to see how flexible he is
with the Russians after the election.
wrote:
where I found this;
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/04/gallup-tracking-of-presidential-race-debuts-with-a-romney-lead.php?ref=skyboxes
So Obama got $42 million from over $200 contributions,
and Romney got $56 million by Feb. 1st?
The author of the talkingpoints article uses spin while
the president is the only party candidate so far, who is dumb
enough to expect a hope to be party candidate to get as
much in contributions.
I hope Obama wins, I want to see how flexible he is
with the Russians after the election.
John Manning
Apr 16, 2012, 5:49:20 PM4/16/12
to
majority of the American people.
.
John Manning
Apr 16, 2012, 6:03:56 PM4/16/12
to
-- Contrasting the results of the first Gallup
daily presidential poll, CNN and ORC International
have found President Obama in possession of a 9-point
lead over presumed Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney.
The 52%-43% split in favor of the president runs counter
to Gallup’s results, which placed the former Massachusetts governor
in the lead with 47% to Obama’s 45%.
Results of a poll delving deeper into the candidates themselves also
leaned in Obama's favor.
Just 29% say Romney is more likely to take a stand for
what he believes in, compared with 50% for Obama.
And half those polled said Romney would be the most likely to shift
his political stances for the sake of political opportunism,
with 39% saying the same of Obama.
Obama’s 16-point lead over Romney among female voters
was 2 points lower than it was in a CNN poll conducted a
month ago, but fell within the margin of error.
The influence of the feud between Hilary Rosen and the
Romney campaign doesn't appear to have significantly shifted
opinion within the female demographic, at least according to
these results.
The gaps between Romney and Obama's supporters cut across
both income and age, with those 65 and older being the only
age group with a majority supporting Romney, and individuals
earning less than $50,000 annually supporting
Obama by a margin of 20%.
A strong performance on qualities such as honesty,
confidence, likability and beyond could account for why
75% of Obama supporters say they are voting for him, as opposed
to against Romney, but his incumbency brings along its own baggage.
More than 60% of Romney supporters are voting directly
against Obama, rather than in favor of the former governor.
Only 29% of those polled think their minds could be subject to
change before the election.
The CNN/ORC International poll was conducted between
Friday and Sunday, in the wake of both Rick Santorum's exit
from the race and Rosen's contentious remarks over Ann
Romney's employment history. The 1,015 adult respondents contained
910 registered voters, and the poll's sampling error is plus or
minus 3 points.
Gallup's poll was conducted April 11-15 among 2,265
registered voters, with an identical sampling error. Those
time differences, along with the size of the pool polled and
the higher ratio of registered voters in the Gallup sample
could account for the discrepancy between the two results.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-cnn-gallup-polls-find-opposite-frontrunners-in-presidential-race-20120416,0,7941028.story
Steve Newport
Apr 16, 2012, 6:12:03 PM4/16/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
USA Today Nine states with 104 electoral are up for grabs, AP said, and
SN: Let's hope the women and the less than rich in these states vote in
their own best interests-- against the Republican Party!
*********************************
will likely decide the election.
----------------------------------------
SN: Let's hope the women and the less than rich in these states vote in
their own best interests-- against the Republican Party!
*********************************
emoneyjoe
Apr 16, 2012, 7:11:36 PM4/16/12
to
On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 18:49:20 -0300, John Manning <jrob...@terra.com.br>
The vast majority of Americans are wealthy,
homeowners, business people, and professionals
have far more than other countries, don't fall for
the socialist propaganda.
homeowners, business people, and professionals
have far more than other countries, don't fall for
the socialist propaganda.
John Manning
Apr 16, 2012, 7:22:05 PM4/16/12
to
93% of Income Growth Went to the Wealthiest 1% in 2010
-- In 2010, according to a study published this
month by University of California economist Emmanuel Saez,
93 percent of income growth went to the wealthiest 1 percent
of American households, while everyone else divvied up the
7 percent that was left over.
Put another way: The most fundamental characteristic of the
U.S. economy today is the divide between the 1 percent and the
99 percent.
It was not ever thus. In the recovery that followed the downturn
of the early 1990s, the wealthiest 1 percent captured 45 percent
of the nation's income growth.
In the recovery that followed the dot-com bust 10 years ago,
Saez noted, 65 percent of the income growth went to the top 1 percent.
This time around, it's reached 93 percent - a level so high it
shakes the foundations of the entire American project.
More here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/concentrated-wealth-is-a-long-term-threat-to-america/2012/03/27/gIQAMJt1eS_story.html
John Manning
Apr 16, 2012, 7:45:52 PM4/16/12
to
There's a really informative piece up at TPM about how Mitt Romney's tax
plans simply don’t add up:
Romney’s tax cuts are projected to cost the federal government $5
trillion over 10 years, on top of the $4 trillion 10-year cost of
making the Bush tax cuts permanent. Existing deductions and
exemptions in the tax code, all together, reduce receipts by about
$1 trillion per year, according to estimates.
Chuck Marr, director of federal tax policy at the Center on Budget
and Policy Priorities, said all the deductions Romney proposed to
scrap “would pay for less than 20 percent” of the $5 trillion cost
of his tax plan. “The deductions he unveiled would raise less than
$1 trillion,” he said.
Romney’s mortgage interest proposal would yield “probably less than
1 percent of the total cost” of his tax cuts, Marr said, while
axing the state and local deduction for everyone, which would be
very difficult to enact politically, would yield about $800 billion
to $900 billion over 10 years. "So that'd be a major step but still
pay for a small share of his tax cuts," Marr said.
It’s been said before, but it's pretty remarkable how
far the Romneys of the world will go, how much fiscal damage
they're willing to unleash, just to make sure that rich people's
taxes don't go up appreciably.
Linked here:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2012_04/the_brutal_numbers_behind_romn036716.php
linuxgal
Apr 16, 2012, 8:26:54 PM4/16/12
to
de...@dudu.org wrote:
> No shocker. Romney has millions and millions coming in from secret
> Mormon SuperPAC money.
Romney doesn't have SuperPAC money coming in, because SuperPACs are not
> No shocker. Romney has millions and millions coming in from secret
> Mormon SuperPAC money.
controlled by the candidates.
Message has been deleted
emoneyjoe
Apr 17, 2012, 12:09:11 AM4/17/12
to
On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 20:22:05 -0300, John Manning <jrob...@terra.com.br>
I am one of the few who see reality, there has
been 15 presidents during my life, the cities where
most of the people that depend on jobs have grown
from 30 percent of the population to 70 percent,
and farmers and their employees have dropped
from 40 percent to 5 percent.
>93% of Income Growth Went to the Wealthiest 1% in 2010
That's a bad year to compare, the cost of living
index didn't change or was a minus.
>-- In 2010, according to a study published this
>month by University of California economist Emmanuel Saez,
>93 percent of income growth went to the wealthiest 1 percent
>of American households, while everyone else divvied up the
>7 percent that was left over.
So now success has to be balanced in some
way other than success?
>Put another way: The most fundamental characteristic of the
>U.S. economy today is the divide between the 1 percent and the
>99 percent.
That is what the 1% that claim they are the
99% say.
>It was not ever thus.
Of course not, the socialists only got the
idea recently to use economics instead of
promises of prosperity to gain control.
>In the recovery that followed the downturn
>of the early 1990s, the wealthiest 1 percent captured 45 percent
>of the nation's income growth.
>
>In the recovery that followed the dot-com bust 10 years ago,
>Saez noted, 65 percent of the income growth went to the top 1 percent.
Yeah, there was an up tick in the minimum wage.
>This time around, it's reached 93 percent - a level so high it
>shakes the foundations of the entire American project.
>
>More here:
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/concentrated-wealth-is-a-long-term-threat-to-america/2012/03/27/gIQAMJt1eS_story.html
So the way to gain success is to try harder, just
what is the plan of the 1% that claim they are the
99%, laws that say the high producers and the
high earners have to share their gains?
You can bet every politician in every party
would like to find an answer to the problems
of today, but there isn't any answer, money
circulating is not what it should be because
there are not as many people in the 25-55
age group and it will get worse for another
5 years or so.
New products and new materials are
just not available, these are not things
that can be fixed with laws, the only thing
the federal government could do to help
is to create emoney with treasury keyboards
and put it in circulation some way.
The reason the stimulus in 2009 didn't
work as expected is because borrowing
took as much money out of the economy
as it put in.
Tighten your belt, eat more rice and
beans, things can get worse, only mo
money will help, and the bankers don't
want people to have more money because
they won't want to borrow as much.
been 15 presidents during my life, the cities where
most of the people that depend on jobs have grown
from 30 percent of the population to 70 percent,
and farmers and their employees have dropped
from 40 percent to 5 percent.
>93% of Income Growth Went to the Wealthiest 1% in 2010
index didn't change or was a minus.
>-- In 2010, according to a study published this
>month by University of California economist Emmanuel Saez,
>93 percent of income growth went to the wealthiest 1 percent
>of American households, while everyone else divvied up the
>7 percent that was left over.
way other than success?
>Put another way: The most fundamental characteristic of the
>U.S. economy today is the divide between the 1 percent and the
>99 percent.
99% say.
>It was not ever thus.
idea recently to use economics instead of
promises of prosperity to gain control.
>In the recovery that followed the downturn
>of the early 1990s, the wealthiest 1 percent captured 45 percent
>of the nation's income growth.
>
>In the recovery that followed the dot-com bust 10 years ago,
>Saez noted, 65 percent of the income growth went to the top 1 percent.
>This time around, it's reached 93 percent - a level so high it
>shakes the foundations of the entire American project.
>
>More here:
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/concentrated-wealth-is-a-long-term-threat-to-america/2012/03/27/gIQAMJt1eS_story.html
what is the plan of the 1% that claim they are the
99%, laws that say the high producers and the
high earners have to share their gains?
You can bet every politician in every party
would like to find an answer to the problems
of today, but there isn't any answer, money
circulating is not what it should be because
there are not as many people in the 25-55
age group and it will get worse for another
5 years or so.
New products and new materials are
just not available, these are not things
that can be fixed with laws, the only thing
the federal government could do to help
is to create emoney with treasury keyboards
and put it in circulation some way.
The reason the stimulus in 2009 didn't
work as expected is because borrowing
took as much money out of the economy
as it put in.
Tighten your belt, eat more rice and
beans, things can get worse, only mo
money will help, and the bankers don't
want people to have more money because
they won't want to borrow as much.
emoneyjoe
Apr 17, 2012, 12:39:23 AM4/17/12
to
On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 20:45:52 -0300, John Manning <jrob...@terra.com.br>
I suppose he subscribes to 1980s reasoning
when the tax cut proposals would not have made
the borrowing more than the interest being paid
on the debt, I haven't seen any indication that
anybody understands how that works.
But the borrowing now is so much more than
the interest paid out, anything that would increase
borrowing even a dime is plain loco.
All ideas for recovery ignore the fundamentals,
new products and demand for them that will drive
sales up and increase jobs, providing an upward
momentum for the economy, more jobs can
cause even more jobs if there are new products
to spend the money on.
when the tax cut proposals would not have made
the borrowing more than the interest being paid
on the debt, I haven't seen any indication that
anybody understands how that works.
But the borrowing now is so much more than
the interest paid out, anything that would increase
borrowing even a dime is plain loco.
All ideas for recovery ignore the fundamentals,
new products and demand for them that will drive
sales up and increase jobs, providing an upward
momentum for the economy, more jobs can
cause even more jobs if there are new products
to spend the money on.
Not Sure
Apr 17, 2012, 1:09:11 AM4/17/12
to
On Apr 16, 2:49 pm, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> On 4/16/2012 6:30 PM, emoneyjoe wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 15:19:24 -0300, John Manning<jrobe...@terra.com.br>
> On 4/16/2012 6:30 PM, emoneyjoe wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
>
> >> On 4/16/2012 2:56 PM, emoneyjoe wrote:
>
> >> On 4/16/2012 2:56 PM, emoneyjoe wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the link,
>
> > where I found this;
>
> >http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/04/gallup-tracking-of-presiden...
> > Thanks for the link,
>
> > where I found this;
>
>
> > So Obama got $42 million from over $200 contributions,
> > and Romney got $56 million by Feb. 1st?
>
> > The author of the talkingpoints article uses spin while
> > the president is the only party candidate so far, who is dumb
> > enough to expect a hope to be party candidate to get as
> > much in contributions.
>
> > I hope Obama wins, I want to see how flexible he is
> > with the Russians after the election.
>
> Romney is clearly a candidate for the wealthy - not the vast
> majority of the American people.
>
> .
You certainly humiliated yourself in this thread. Thanks for working
> > So Obama got $42 million from over $200 contributions,
> > and Romney got $56 million by Feb. 1st?
>
> > The author of the talkingpoints article uses spin while
> > the president is the only party candidate so far, who is dumb
> > enough to expect a hope to be party candidate to get as
> > much in contributions.
>
> > I hope Obama wins, I want to see how flexible he is
> > with the Russians after the election.
>
> Romney is clearly a candidate for the wealthy - not the vast
> majority of the American people.
>
> .
so hard to prove Obama supporters are so hilariously stupid :)
Remysun
Apr 17, 2012, 1:06:39 AM4/17/12
to
On Apr 16, 3:48 pm, tomcervo <tomce...@aol.com> wrote:
> Amway money and Oakland County--you can localize it to two or thee zip
> codes. Santorem won across the state.
Across the state means jack shit in Michigan politics.
> Amway money and Oakland County--you can localize it to two or thee zip
> codes. Santorem won across the state.
tomcervo
Apr 17, 2012, 1:54:44 AM4/17/12
to
of a few wealthy enclaves. Most republicans here sound disgusted by
their choices in November.
shawn
Apr 17, 2012, 2:05:50 AM4/17/12
to
On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 22:54:44 -0700 (PDT), tomcervo <tomc...@aol.com>
wrote:
But Romney won in those most populous areas which is all that matters.
It's great if you can win the majority of the zip codes but it amounts
to little if that doesn't give you the win for the state. Everyone
understands this so it suggests to me that Santorum wasn't as popular
as you seem to think since he didn't win where it counted. To put it
another way, I've heard consistently from the political commentators
that Santorum managed to win in the less populous areas in just about
every state but couldn't manage to keep those wins in the more
populated areas (which would presumably contain more well off people
as well as more educated people.) That says that both Romney and
Santorum didn't have broad appeal but Romney's was just wide enough to
get him the nomination.
wrote:
It's great if you can win the majority of the zip codes but it amounts
to little if that doesn't give you the win for the state. Everyone
understands this so it suggests to me that Santorum wasn't as popular
as you seem to think since he didn't win where it counted. To put it
another way, I've heard consistently from the political commentators
that Santorum managed to win in the less populous areas in just about
every state but couldn't manage to keep those wins in the more
populated areas (which would presumably contain more well off people
as well as more educated people.) That says that both Romney and
Santorum didn't have broad appeal but Romney's was just wide enough to
get him the nomination.
Steve Newport
Apr 17, 2012, 5:32:44 AM4/17/12
to
INTRADE - The World's Leading Prediction Market
Today's Market:
Barack Obama to be re-elected President in 2012 -- 61.3%
-----------------------------------
Today's Market:
Barack Obama to be re-elected President in 2012 -- 61.3%
SN: Great!
*********************************
John Manning
Apr 17, 2012, 8:20:41 AM4/17/12
to
by assertion, that you live in the contemporary programmed
right wing fantasy world governed by deeply entrenched,
unsupported misinformation - promoted and reinforced by
such "authorities" as Faux News, Rush Limbaugh and the
pervasive wingnut noise machine.
John Manning
Apr 17, 2012, 8:22:37 AM4/17/12
to
John Manning
Apr 17, 2012, 8:24:34 AM4/17/12
to
assertions.
emoneyjoe
Apr 17, 2012, 9:00:20 AM4/17/12
to
On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 09:20:41 -0300, John Manning <jrob...@terra.com.br>
You accuse me of parroting, while you are the
one doing the parroting, I do not get any 24 hour
news channels, I only have a local rooftop antenna.
There is no fantasy, there is a nightmare,
a system that created too good living conditions,
and the more successful a system is, the faster
it slows when everybody has most things they
want or need.
Too bad the dims can't think for themselves,
all they can do is blame Fox news as taught by
the dim party.
one doing the parroting, I do not get any 24 hour
news channels, I only have a local rooftop antenna.
There is no fantasy, there is a nightmare,
a system that created too good living conditions,
and the more successful a system is, the faster
it slows when everybody has most things they
want or need.
Too bad the dims can't think for themselves,
all they can do is blame Fox news as taught by
the dim party.
emoneyjoe
Apr 17, 2012, 9:02:08 AM4/17/12
to
On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 09:22:37 -0300, John Manning <jrob...@terra.com.br>
Well, you wait for government to make things
better, but don't hold your breath.
better, but don't hold your breath.
John Manning
Apr 17, 2012, 9:40:47 AM4/17/12
to
is currently proposing [as have been undeniably and
catastrophically demonstrated by BushCo's near Second Great
Depression] are based on repeating and actually increasing the
same - aka...
Further rigging the system by systematically weakening
and/or eliminating the decades long economically sound,
and astoundingly successful regulations on the financial sector
[which produced the historically unprecedented growth and prosperity and
expansion of the middle class we saw after WWII - to now, more
easily bleed the middle class and the poor to further increase the
wealth of the already wealthy - and - by *cutting* the regular
working American taxpayer's benefits who paid into Social Security
and Medicare for when they're old, sick or disabled - and *cutting*
unemployment insurance benefits (that THEY PAID FOR through
payroll deduction} to give *more* massive billion dollar tax breaks
and subsidies to record-breaking profit-making Big Oil, and
multiple loophole tax breaks for corporations - and - obscene,
*debt increasing* tax cuts for the already wealthy who don't need
it - and - passing right wing Supreme Court backed laws to make it
much easier for Big Money Corporations and the wealthy to
buy legislators and have them write self-serving
legislation into law.
Sid9
Apr 17, 2012, 10:14:25 AM4/17/12
to
"linuxgal" <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote in message
news:pKmdnUVAKNLNJBHS...@giganews.com...
.
.
A wonderful fiction!
Steve Newport
Apr 17, 2012, 10:18:55 AM4/17/12
to
USA Today - The president has now collected nearly $350 million.
Campaign manager Jim Messina "People building this organization 5 and 10
bucks at a time to take on Mitt Romney."
More here:
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/04/obama-raises-53m-in-march/1?csp=34news#.T4w8AtnF-So
*********************************
Campaign manager Jim Messina "People building this organization 5 and 10
bucks at a time to take on Mitt Romney."
More here:
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/04/obama-raises-53m-in-march/1?csp=34news#.T4w8AtnF-So
*********************************
Remysun
Apr 17, 2012, 1:06:04 PM4/17/12
to
On Apr 17, 1:54 am, tomcervo <tomce...@aol.com> wrote:
> If you lived here you'd know that Romney's hardcore support consisted
> of a few wealthy enclaves. Most republicans here sound disgusted by
> their choices in November.
Of course I knew they were disugusted. And the independents are even
> If you lived here you'd know that Romney's hardcore support consisted
> of a few wealthy enclaves. Most republicans here sound disgusted by
> their choices in November.
more disgusted. Michigan is gonna GO BLUE in November, and it's stupid
to think that swaths of farm and forest supporting Santorum is
anything like moving Birnam Wood against Dunsinane.
emoneyjoe
Apr 17, 2012, 4:28:51 PM4/17/12
to
On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 10:40:47 -0300, John Manning <jrob...@terra.com.br>
The democrats have controlled at least
one house of congress for 5 years, and the
Whitehouse for 3 years, what is it going to
take for them to do something, anything,
the suspense is frightening.
>Further rigging the system by systematically weakening
>and/or eliminating the decades long economically sound,
>and astoundingly successful regulations on the financial sector
>[which produced the historically unprecedented growth and prosperity and
>expansion of the middle class we saw after WWII - to now, more
>easily bleed the middle class and the poor to further increase the
>wealth of the already wealthy - and - by *cutting* the regular
>working American taxpayer's benefits who paid into Social Security
>and Medicare for when they're old, sick or disabled - and *cutting*
>unemployment insurance benefits (that THEY PAID FOR through
>payroll deduction} to give *more* massive billion dollar tax breaks
>and subsidies to record-breaking profit-making Big Oil, and
>multiple loophole tax breaks for corporations - and - obscene,
>*debt increasing* tax cuts for the already wealthy who don't need
>it - and - passing right wing Supreme Court backed laws to make it
>much easier for Big Money Corporations and the wealthy to
>buy legislators and have them write self-serving
>legislation into law.
Control, control, control, is the president's
pen broken?
one house of congress for 5 years, and the
Whitehouse for 3 years, what is it going to
take for them to do something, anything,
the suspense is frightening.
>Further rigging the system by systematically weakening
>and/or eliminating the decades long economically sound,
>and astoundingly successful regulations on the financial sector
>[which produced the historically unprecedented growth and prosperity and
>expansion of the middle class we saw after WWII - to now, more
>easily bleed the middle class and the poor to further increase the
>wealth of the already wealthy - and - by *cutting* the regular
>working American taxpayer's benefits who paid into Social Security
>and Medicare for when they're old, sick or disabled - and *cutting*
>unemployment insurance benefits (that THEY PAID FOR through
>payroll deduction} to give *more* massive billion dollar tax breaks
>and subsidies to record-breaking profit-making Big Oil, and
>multiple loophole tax breaks for corporations - and - obscene,
>*debt increasing* tax cuts for the already wealthy who don't need
>it - and - passing right wing Supreme Court backed laws to make it
>much easier for Big Money Corporations and the wealthy to
>buy legislators and have them write self-serving
>legislation into law.
pen broken?
John Manning
Apr 17, 2012, 4:37:35 PM4/17/12
to
linuxgal
Apr 18, 2012, 4:28:39 AM4/18/12
to
John Manning wrote:
>
> Romney is clearly a candidate for the wealthy - not the vast
> majority of the American people.
>
Then Obama's got nothing to worry about. He's got the numbers on his side.
>
> Romney is clearly a candidate for the wealthy - not the vast
> majority of the American people.
>
linuxgal
Apr 18, 2012, 4:29:45 AM4/18/12
to
emoneyjoe wrote:
>
> I hope Obama wins, I want to see how flexible he is
> with the Russians after the election.
>
About as flexible as a yoga instructor who moonlights as a hooker.
>
> I hope Obama wins, I want to see how flexible he is
> with the Russians after the election.
>
Steve Newport
Apr 18, 2012, 5:02:23 PM4/18/12
to
From: remys...@yahoo.com (Remysun) And the independents are even more
SN: I do hope so.
*********************************
disgusted. Michigan is gonna GO BLUE in November
---------------------------------------
SN: I do hope so.
*********************************
0 new messages